PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA AND THAT THIS PLANNING APPLICATION WILL NOW BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING OFFICERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR DELEGATED POWERS.

The application was to go before Members at the request of Councillor Mike Bush due to his concerns that the layout and scale of the development will be harmful to the area’s character and be harmful to the nearby heritage assets.

However, having read the published Officer report and having noted that Essex County Council Heritage has now decided not to object to this application having considered the amended plans, Councillor Bush has contacted the relevant Planning Officer and has subsequently notified the Council that he has withdrawn his “call-in”.

Reserved matters application for the erection of 5 no. four bedroom dwellings, considering details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, pursuant to outline planning permission 19/00004/OUT.

The Chairman informed the meeting that this Planning Application, which was a reserved matters application for the erection of 5 no. four bedroom dwellings, considering details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, pursuant to outline planning permission 19/00004/OUT, had been included on the published Agenda for this meeting, at the request of Councillor Mike Bush, due to his concerns that the layout and scale of the development would be harmful to the area’s character, and would be harmful to the nearby heritage assets.

However, having read the published Officer report and having noted that Essex County Council Heritage, having considered the applicant’s amended plans, now felt that the layout of the proposed dwellings had now been simplified in a more holistic and subtle scheme and using traditional external materials which were more in keeping with the local character thereby minimising the visual impact of the proposed development on the setting of the Conservation Area and of Grade II Listed Mill House, had decided not to object to this application, Councillor Bush had subsequently notified the Council that he had withdrawn his “call-in”.

The Chairman stated that she had considered the matter and had agreed that this item would be withdrawn from the Agenda for this meeting. She informed the meeting that this Planning Application would now be determined by Officers, in accordance with the powers delegated to them by the Council’s Constitution.

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

There were no apologies for absence or substitutions submitted on this occasion.

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on 6 June 2023.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 6 June 2023 were approved as a correct record.

NOTE: Pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 19.6, Councillor Wiggins requested that it be recorded in the Minutes that she had abstained from voting on this item.

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.

There were no declarations of interest submitted by Councillors.

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.

There were no such Questions on Notice submitted by Councillors on this occasion.

Change of use of land for the siting of up to 8 no. residential park homes.

It was reported that this application was before Members due to the development representing a departure from the development plan, proposing new residential park homes outside of the defined settlement development boundary for the area.

 Members were told that this application related to the land centrally located within Sacketts Grove Caravan Park site, on the western side of Jaywick Lane, Clacton. The site was largely laid to grass but contained the filled in remains of an outdoor swimming pool and an outbuilding which contained the pump house for the pool.

Members heard that the vehicular access from the public highway would utilise the existing Caravan Park entrance on Jaywick Lane. The site was bordered on all sides of existing park homes with wooden close boarded fences denoting existing plot boundaries.

This application proposed to change the use of the land for the siting of up to 8 no. residential park homes with associated development to facilitate the use including new access roads and hardstanding to form car parking. The development represented a small-scale addition to the existing and established park.

The site was located outside the Settlement Development Boundary and within a Safeguarded Holiday Park, Sacketts Grove was situated within a sustainable location close to amenities.

In the opinion of Officers, the development would cause no harm in terms of wider landscape, character, and appearance. It would deliver a windfall of up to eight additional dwellings contributing to the continued demand for high quality and affordable retirement and semi-retirement housing whilst also providing a small wind fall contribution to the Council’s five-year housing land supply.

Therefore, this application had been recommended for approval subject to a Unilateral Undertaking securing a financial contribution of £156.76 per dwelling toward recreational disturbance mitigation in accordance with RAMS.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (AL) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of an additional objection letter that had been received as follows with the Officers’ response in bold:-

-       “Contrary to the development plan – yet recommended for approval.

-       Outside settlement boundary and protected for caravans.

-       The application was refused initially by the same Planning Officer.

The application has not been subject of a formal determination. An initial view was provided via email to the applicant.

The principle of development is addressed within the officer’s report.

-       Licenced for 102 properties only.

Licensing falls outside the remit of Planning but a new / amended site licence would be required in the event of an approval.

-       Loss of central green area of the established park.

The site is not safeguarded amenity space or subject to any other policy designation that would secure or require it’s retention.

-       Surface water flooding issues.

The recommendation includes conditions to mitigate surface water flooding.

RECOMMENDATION

·         The Officer recommendation of approval remains unchanged.”

There was no public speaking on this application.

Proposed erection of 3 no. dwellings (in lieu of Prior Approval for three dwellings, subject of application 21/00788/COUNOT).

It was reported that this planning application was before the 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 and has a recommendation of approval.

Members were informed that this proposal of dwellings was sited in slightly different locations and resulted in a combined total of 65.5sqm additional footprint, however this was not considered to be materially different to the development approved under prior approval 21/00788/COUNOT. The overall height of Plots 1 and 2 were broadly the same as the existing building, with Plots increased but not to a significant extent.

The Committee heard that there were no significant issues with respect to neighbouring amenities or harm to trees, and there was sufficient parking provision. In addition, no objections had been raised by ECC Ecology subject to conditions. Whilst ECC Highways had objected on the grounds there was a lack of visibility splays information, due to the nature of the site and potential level of activity the existing use provided, as well as the fallback position, it was not considered the impact on the local highway network would be significantly harmful.

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 Team Leader (JJ) in respect of the application.

There had been no updates circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting.

Mollie Foley, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

Steve Pryer, a member of the public, spoke against the application.

Proposed demolition of former livestock building and replacement with a two bedroom bungalow (in lieu of Prior Approval for conversion of building into a dwelling subject of application 21/00460/COUNOT). Resubmission of application 22/01052/FUL.

 It was reported that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the Director of Planning’s discretion in light of the recent planning history of this site and due to the fact that planning application 22/01052/FUL for the proposed demolition of former livestock building and replacement with a two bedroom bungalow (in lieu of Prior Approval for conversion of building into a dwelling subject of application 21/00460/COUNOT)  had been previously refused by the Planning Committee following an Officer’s recommendation of approval.

Members were informed the  purpose of this application was the demolition of a former livestock building and its replacement with a two bedroom bungalow (in lieu of Prior Approval for conversion of building into a dwelling subject of application 21/00460/COUNOT). This application was therefore effectively a resubmission of application 22/01052/FUL. This proposal would conflict with the requirements of the Development Plan, principally Policies SP3 and SPL2 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond, being located outside of any Settlement Development Boundary.

Members of the Committee were told that the Officer’s considered view was that the lawful ability to undertake the extant Prior Approval conversion scheme under 21/00460/COUNOT was now highly unlikely and that the weight that  could be attributed to the so called ‘fall-back position’ was much further reduced whereby the further deteriorated condition of the building as seen on site for the current resubmission application since the refusal of application 22/01052/FUL was such that the possibility of compliance with the General Permitted Development Order (as also already previously sited for refusal reason No.1 for refused planning application 22/0152/FUL) was highly unlikely also. For this reason, the proposal was considered by Officers to fail the second element of the legal fallback test where there was no likelihood or real prospect of such a lawful event occurring as set out in the explanatory paragraph 6.16 of this report regarding the fall-back position.

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 refusal.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (CT) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with the following details: -

• “Members should be aware that an email dated 26th June 2023 has been received by the Council from a person stated to be acting as Local Power of Attorney (LPA) on behalf of Mr Graham John Stevens, stated owner and proprietor of The Willows (7 Acre Farm) and applicant for the above planning application in which it is stated that there is currently a dispute over land ownership between two parties. The Council has been made aware (through the contact from the LPA referred to above) that this dispute is currently in the hands of solicitors acting for both parties concerned.

• This information (referred to above) provided to the Council has raised an ownership issue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

In accordance with the Council’s approved planning enforcement policy the Committee will receive an update report on the following areas:-

-        number of complaints received/registered in the quarter;

-        number of cases closed in the quarter;

-        number of acknowledgements within 3 working days

-        number of harm assessment completions within 20 days of complaint receipt.

-        number of site visits within the 20 day complaint receipt period.

-        number of update letters provided on/by day 21

-        number of live cases presented by category, electoral ward and time period since receipt;

-        enforcement-related appeal decisions.

The Committee was given an updated report on the following areas, in accordance with the Council’s approved planning enforcement policy:-

-          Number of complaints received/registered in the quarter;

-          Number of cases closed in the quarter;

-          Number of acknowledgements within 3 working days;

-          Number of harm assessment completions within 20 working days of complaint receipt;

-          Number of site visits within the 20 day complaint receipt period;

-          Number of update letters provided on/by day 21;

-          Number of live cases presented by category, electoral ward and time period since receipt;

-          Enforcement-related appeal decisions.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Head of Planning (JP-G) in respect of the report.

RESOLVED that the contents of this report be noted.