Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Committee Room - Town Hall, Station Road, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15 1SE. View directions

Contact: Ian Ford Email:  democraticservices@tendringdc.gov.uk or Telephone  01255 686584

Items
No. Item

61.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

The Committee is asked to note any apologies for absence and substitutions received from Members.

Minutes:

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor Wiggins, with Councillor Scott substituting.

62.

Minutes of the Last Meeting pdf icon PDF 280 KB

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 25 October 2022.

Minutes:

The minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on 25 October 2002, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

63.

Declarations of Interest

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Personal Interest, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

 

Minutes:

Members of the Committee declared that they had received “lobbying” material in writing and by email from the Applicant in relation to Planning Application 21/02181/FUL (report item A.4).

 

Councillor Baker made the following declarations of interest in relation to Planning Applications 22/01666/FUL (report item A.1), 22/01675/FUL (report item A.2) and 22/01676/FUL (report item A.3):-

 

“In relation to Planning Application 21/02181/FUL - Land adjacent to Halstead Road I have received several emails of a lobbying nature over the last few months, and within the last two weeks I have received lobbying literature to my home address. However, I am not predetermined.

 

In relation to Applications 22/01675, 22/01676 & 22/01666 the Changing Places toilets. When Government announced funding for these facilities I pushed for Officers to apply for funding and when notified it was successfully awarded, was vocal locally and in email exchanges that areas in my Ward (Eastcliff), and in Holland-on-Sea, would be suitable for such facilities. I had no involvement in the decision as to where they were to be sited, that was solely an Officer decision. Although I do not consider myself pre-determined in any way, it could be seen that I am biased towards these applications and as such I will not take part in the debate or deliberations on all three. I will however speak on the applications relating to my Ward and Holland-on-Sea.”

 

Councillor Harris stated for the public record that he was the Ward Member for Planning Application 22/01232/FUL (report item A.5). He confirmed, however, that he was not pre-determined on this application and that therefore he would take part in the Committee’s deliberations on this matter.

64.

Questions on Notice pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 38

Subject to providing two working days’ notice, a Member of the Committee may ask the Chairman of the Committee a question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the Tendring District and which falls within the terms of reference of the Committee.

Minutes:

Councillor Baker asked the Chairman of the Planning Committee (Councillor White):-

 

“As the Chairman of the Planning Committee has a standing invitation to attend meetings of the Planning Policy & Local Plan Committee and to express the Planning Committee’s views and comments on any report items that are being considered by the Planning Policy & Local Plan Committee (under Council Procedure Rule 36.1), would the Chairman agree that this Planning Committee has not previously discussed, or made any comments about any upcoming items on the Agendas of the Planning Policy & Local Plan Committee, and that in future this should be included as an item on the Planning Committee’s monthly Agenda, in order that any views from members of the Planning Committee, on upcoming items on the Agendas of the Planning Policy & Local Plan Committee, can be discussed, debated and a collective view, if any, be presented by the Planning Committee Chairman on behalf of this Committee?”

 

Councillor White replied as follows:-

 

“Thank you for your question Councillor Baker. Councillor Turner, the Chairman of the Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee kindly introduced the opportunity for myself, as Chairman of the Planning Committee to comment on behalf of our Committee on matters relating to planning policy on its agenda. Councillor Turner has been keen to ensure an opportunity for input from ourselves as the Committee charged with implementing such policies that they may have drawn up specifically when it comes to determining planning applications, and we welcome that. 

 

I do acknowledge Councillor Baker’s suggestion and completely understand the reason for it. However, I am reluctant to agree to the inclusion of a standing item on the monthly Planning Committee agenda to discuss forthcoming business for the Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee especially as it would be taken in public.

 

Firstly, we run the risk of duplicating the work of the Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee if we start having potentially lengthy discussions on matters over which Councillor Turner and his Committee has jurisdiction. 

 

Secondly, I believe this Committee’s time at these meetings is best served by firmly focussing on the determination of planning applications and other matters for which this Committee has the responsibility. As we know, the agendas for our meetings can on occasion be very long and the applications we consider often carry with them significant public interest and a huge investment in time and effort from the applicants, their agents and indeed our Officers.

 

I would not want to run the risk of curtailing the length or the quality of debate on planning applications to make time for discussion on matters that are the responsibility of another Committee.

 

However, instead, I would suggest that we ask our Director of Planning, Mr. Guiver, to advise us of the publication of reports of the Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee and invite comments by way of an email, which can be coordinated by Mr. Guiver and therefore reported to that Committee by way of an update sheet.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

65.

REPORT A.4 - PLANNING APPLICATION 21/02181/FUL – LAND ADJACENT TO HALSTEAD ROAD, KIRBY-LE-SOKEN CO13 0DY pdf icon PDF 670 KB

Construction of a solar project together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure to include batteries alongside an Electric Vehicle Charging Station, parking, means of access, landscaping and associated development.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Earlier on in the meeting Members of the Committee had declared that they had received “lobbying” material in writing and by email from the Applicant in relation to this Planning Application.

 

Members were aware that this application was before the Planning Committee following Member Referral Scheme requests from Councillor Paul Clifton (in support) and Councillor Anne Davis (in objection).

 

It was reported that the whole application site extended to approximately 23 hectares in size which was comprised of two agricultural land parcels. The larger parcel of land (circa 22 hectares) lay to the eastern side of Halstead Road and would contain the proposed solar farm. That parcel of land was situated wholly within a Strategic Green Gap as indicated in the Local Plan policies map. The smaller parcel of land (circa 1 hectare) lay to the western side of Halstead Road and would contain the proposed Eco Hub, which would include the electric vehicle charging station (including café area), battery storage, substation and grid connection point.

 

The Committee was informed that the supporting information outlined that the delivered capacity of the Solar Farm and the associated storage batteries would be up to 29MW, producing electricity equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of about 6,370 homes. Whereas, the Eco-Hub would include a covered forecourt and canopy with sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge up to 12 rapid and ultra-rapid EVs with a capacity of 43-350kW.

 

In this case, subject to conditions, it was considered by Officers that there were no adverse impacts upon ecology, residential amenity, highway safety or flood risk. There was also the opportunity to improve biodiversity. The landscape impact was considered by Officers to be relatively local, contained mainly to the Public Right of Way, which crossed, or passed alongside the sites, and limited views from Halstead Road. The same could be said of the Eco-Hub element of the proposals. The landscape impact was therefore considered by Officers to be of moderate harm. In addition, the heritage harm identified was considered to be at the lower end of ‘less than substantial’. Therefore, the localised impact on the area in terms of landscape and heritage was not considered by Officers to be sufficient to recommend refusal especially given the lack of adverse harm in other respects. The development was considered to comply with the Strategic Green Gap policy in respect of not causing the overriding coalescence of Kirby-le-Soken and Kirby Cross. The benefits in respect of biodiversity and the long term benefits to the landscape (when the site was decommissioned) by the planting mitigation to be retained were positive, and the proposal would also deliver net gains in biodiversity which added moderate weight in favour of approval. There would be economic benefits during construction and during the installation's operation, including those associated with the use of the Eco-Hub, namely: the provision of jobs; the creation a community benefits fund; and additional parking provision for users of the nearby school and adjacent recreation land to alleviate congestion concerns along Halstead Road.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

66.

REPORT A.5 - PLANNING APPLICATION 22/01232/FUL – LAND AT REEDLANDS, GUTTERIDGE HALL LANE, WEELEY pdf icon PDF 419 KB

Erection of one bungalow (in lieu of deemed Prior Approval for a dwelling, subject of application 21/02086/COUNOT). Revised siting to that approved under application 22/00464/FUL.

Minutes:

Earlier on in the meeting, Councillor Harris had stated for the public record that he was the Ward Member for this application. He had confirmed, however, that he was not pre-determined on this application and therefore he took part in the Committee’s deliberations on this matter.

 

Members were informed that this application had been referred to Planning Committee as the proposed development would conflict with the requirements of the Development Plan, principally Policy SPL2 (Settlement Development Boundaries) of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 2 (adopted January 2022) being located outside of any defined settlement development boundary.

 

The proposed dwelling was not considered by Officers to be so materially different in regards to siting, height, footprint and appearance to the development approved under prior approval 21/02086/COUNOT and the new dwelling approved in lieu of this prior approval under application 22/00464/FUL. The proposed dwelling, which was the subject of this application was re-located to the east of the existing agricultural building and would utilise an existing secondary access to the site from Gutteridge Hall Lane.

 

In the absence of any material harm resulting from the development in regards to its individual appearance, impact on the wider street scene and the character and appearance of the rural landscape, Officers had recommended that the application be approved. Furthermore, the proposal would not result in any detrimental impact on neighbour amenity and there were no concerns raised with regard to parking and highway matters.

 

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

 

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Manager (John Pateman-Gee) in respect of the application. An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting that had confirmed that Weeley Parish Council had decided not to object to, or comment on, this application.

 

Peter Le Grys, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

Outline of matters raised by Members of the Committee

Outline of Officer response thereto

Clarify that all of the barn building would be demolished?

Yes, all the barn building would be demolished.

Could we have a condition requiring the installation of solar panels on the roof?

That could be done via a condition requiring a renewable energy management plan. However, that condition had not been imposed upon the previous planning permission for this site and therefore it could be robustly challenged at a planning appeal if now imposed on this application.

Could we impose a condition requiring that construction vehicles did not cause disruption for the road users of Gutteridge Hall Lane?

Proposed condition number 7 dealt with this by way of a requirement for Construction Method Statement.

Is there anything in the NPPF that requires new development to have solar panels installed?

Not at present.

Confirm that if the applicant went ahead with this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

67.

REPORT A.1 - PLANNING APPLICATION 22/01666/FUL – CAR PARK, PROMENADE WAY, BRIGHTLINGSEA, CO7 0HH pdf icon PDF 308 KB

Proposed additional building on side of existing toilet block to provide enhanced facilities to meet the needs of disabled children and adults with complex care needs and who require carer support, appropriate equipment and more space.

Minutes:

Earlier on in the meeting Councillor Baker had declared an Interest in this matter for the reasons set out in Minute 63 above. He withdrew to the public gallery and took no part in the Committee’s deliberations and determination of this Planning Application.

 

Members were aware that this application was before the Planning Committee as the applicant was Tendring District Council. The proposal sought the erection of an extension to the existing toilet block that would be used to provide a ‘Changing Places’ facility, which included enhanced facilities to meet the needs of disabled children and adults with complex care needs, who required care support, appropriate equipment and additional space.

 

The works were considered by Planning Officers to comply with the requirements of Policy HP1 and therefore were supported in principle. In addition, whilst located within a prominent location Planning Officers did not consider that the scale or appearance of the building was harmful to the character of the area, whilst there would be no impact to any neighbouring amenities.

 

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, any written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

 

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Manager (John Pateman-Gee) in respect of the application. An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting confirming that Brightlingsea Town Council supported the proposed development.

 

Andrew Nepean, Public Realm Operations Manager, representing the applicant (Tendring District Council), spoke in support of the application. His statement also related to Planning Applications 22/01675/FUL and 22/01676/FUL, as considered below.

 

Outline of matters raised by Members of the Committee

Outline of Officer response thereto

When will those Changing Places facilities be provided?

Hopefully by Summer 2023.

Where had the funding come from for those facilities?

From the Government (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities).

 

Following discussion by the Committee:-

 

It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Scott and:-

 

RESOLVED that the Planning Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions as set out below, or as need to be varied (to account for any errors or legal issues et cetera) or otherwise added or removed as may be deemed necessary by the Planning Manager.

 

Conditions and Reasons

 

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason - To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: The documents titled 'Site Location Plan', 'Block Plan', 'Statement in Support of Planning (Design and Access Statement)' and Drawing Number TDC01/05/22/SKB2 (Proposed General Arrangement).

 

Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

68.

REPORT A.2 - PLANNING APPLICATION 22/01675/FUL – SEAFRONT SHELTER, THE ESPLANADE, HOLLAND-ON-SEA CO15 5TU pdf icon PDF 265 KB

Proposed conversion of former deck chair store and creation of access ramp to provide enhanced changing and toilet facilities to meet the needs of disabled children and adults with complex care needs who require care support, appropriate equipment and more space.

Minutes:

Earlier on in the meeting Councillor Baker had declared an Interest in this matter for the reasons set out in Minute 63 above. He withdrew to the public gallery and took no part in the Committee’s deliberations and determination of this Planning Application.

 

Members were aware that this application was before the Planning Committee as the applicant was Tendring District Council. The proposal sought approval for the demolition of the existing single storey building that had been previously utilised as a deck chair store, and to be replaced by a similar sized building to be used to provide a ‘Changing Places’ facility, which included enhanced facilities to meet the needs of disabled children and adults with complex care needs, who required care support, appropriate equipment and additional space.

 

The works were considered by Planning Officers to comply with the requirements of Policy HP1 and therefore were supported in principle. In addition, whilst located within a prominent location Planning Officers did not consider that the scale or appearance of the building was harmful to the character of the area, and would see an uplift compared to the existing building, which was in a poor state of repair, whilst there would be no impact to any neighbouring amenities.

 

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, any written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

 

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Manager (John Pateman-Gee) in respect of the application.

 

Councillor Baker, in his capacity as a local resident and as an authorised representative of the Holland-on-Sea Residents’ Association, spoke in support of the application.

 

Following discussion by the Committee:-

 

It was moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Harris and:-

 

RESOLVED that the Planning Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to no new issues being raised during the public consultation period which had yet to expire and the conditions as set out below, or as need to be varied (to account for any errors or legal issues et cetera) or otherwise added or removed as may be deemed necessary by the Planning Manager.

 

Conditions and Reasons

 

1.      The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason - To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

2.      The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: The documents titled 'Statement in Support of Planning (Design and Access Statement)', and Drawing Numbers TDC01/05/22SKL3 Rev A (Site Location Plan), TDC01/05/22/SKB4 (Existing Site Block Plan), TDC01/05/22/SKB5 (Proposed Site Block Plan) and TDC01/05/22/ALT1 (Proposed Plans and Elevations).

 

Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

69.

REPORT A.3 - PLANNING APPLICATION 22/01676/FUL – SEAFRONT BELOW MARINE PARADE EAST, CLACTON-ON-SEA CO15 5BY pdf icon PDF 324 KB

Proposed construction of changing places facility to provide enhanced toilet/changing facilities to meet the needs of disabled children and adults with complex care needs who require carer support, appropriate equipment and more space.

Minutes:

Earlier on in the meeting Councillor Baker had declared an Interest in this matter for the reasons set out in Minute 63 above. He withdrew to the public gallery and took no part in the Committee’s deliberations and determination of this Planning Application.

 

Members were aware that this application was before the Planning Committee as the applicant was Tendring District Council. The proposal sought approval for the erection of a new building that would be used to provide a ‘Changing Places’ facility, which included enhanced facilities to meet the needs of disabled children and adults with complex care needs, who required care support, appropriate equipment and additional space.

 

The works were considered by Planning Officers to comply with the requirements of Policy HP1 and therefore were supported in principle. In addition, whilst located within a prominent location within the Clacton-on-Sea Conservation Area, Planning Officers did not consider that the scale or appearance of the building was harmful to the character of the area, whilst there would be strong public benefits as a result of the proposal. In addition, there would be no impact to any neighbouring amenities.

 

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, any written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

 

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Manager (John Pateman-Gee) in respect of the application.

 

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of a textual amendment to Section 1.2 of the Officer report.

 

Councillor Andy Baker, the local Ward Member, spoke in favour of the application.

 

Outline of matters raised by Members of the Committee

Outline of Officer response thereto

How would the emergency cords work? Would an emergency signal get through given that the building was at a lower ground level?

The Officer could not give a definitive answer as this was not a planning matter.

 

Following discussion by the Committee:-

 

It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Scott and:-

 

RESOLVED that the Planning Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions as set out below, or as need to be varied (to account for any errors or legal issues et cetera) or otherwise added or removed as may be deemed necessary by the Planning Manager.

 

Conditions and Reasons

 

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason - To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

2.   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: The documents titled 'Statement in Support of Planning (Design and Access Statement)', and Drawing Numbers TDC01/05/22SKL2 Rev A (Site Location Plan), TDC01/05/22SKB2 (Site Block Plan), and TDC01/05/22/SKBC Rev A (Proposed G.A. Plan & Cross Sections).

 

Reason - For the avoidance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.