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

Apologies were received from Councillors Bray (with no substitution) and Placey (with Councillor Smith substituting).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 4 July 2023.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 4 July 2023 be approved as a correct record.

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registerable Interests of Non-Registerable Interests, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest made by Councillors on this occasion.

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.

Proposed erection of two 3-bedroom dwellings (in lieu of Prior Approval for 3 dwellings, subject of application 20/01708/COUNOT).

It was reported that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the proposed development conflicted 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 it was recommended for approval by the Officers.

Members heard that the application proposed two dwellings with a combined total footprint of 241.64 square metres which would be sited separately on land to the rear of 55 Harwich Road in Lawford and would replace existing agricultural buildings in the same locations.

The proposal of the two dwellings was considered by Officers to offer an improved scheme in terms of living accommodation and design, scale and appearance when compared to the conversion of the agricultural buildings to three dwellings under the prior approval of 20/01708/COUNOT with a reduction in footprint of the buildings of 36.36 square metres.

The Committee heard that there were no significant issues in respect of neighbouring amenities or harm to trees, and there was sufficient parking and vehicular turning provision. In addition, no objections had been raised by ECC Highways or the Council’s Environmental Protection Team subject to conditions and therefore the application was recommended by Officers for approval.

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 Officer (AP) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of amended wording in order to correct an error in paragraph 6.5 of the Officer report and to reflect that the proposed building was a 1.5 storey cottage with restricted full head height to elements and also with details of amended wording for proposed planning condition 13.

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

Proposed replacement of an agricultural building with a two bed bungalow (in lieu of Prior Approval for 1 No. 2 bed dwelling, subject of application 21/00704/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 boundary and it had an Officer recommendation of approval.

Members were informed that this proposal of a dwelling was on balance, not considered by Officers to be materially different in regard to the siting or the footprint of the development approved under prior approval 21/00704/COUNOT. The overall height of the proposed dwelling exceeded that of the existing building, however this was not considered by Officers to result in significant harm.

The Committee heard that the proposed dwelling had been revised during the course of the application to be softer with a more agricultural like appearance with timber cladding and full length windows, which was considered to be in keeping with the rural location. The access remained as existing and there were no objections from the Highways Authority.

Members were told that the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer had noted that the application site was overgrown with some established conifers along the eastern boundary. A soft landscaping scheme to include the site boundaries would be secured by condition as this would help to soften the appearance and screen/filter views of the site from the Public Right of Way to the east.

The Committee was also informed that there was sufficient parking and private amenity spaced provided, and there would not be significant harm to existing neighbouring amenities, subject to conditions.

Finally, Members heard that proposed conditions were included within the recommendations to ensure the provision of biodiversity enhancement and a scheme for the provision and implementation of water, energy, and resource efficiency measures for the lifetime of the development.

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.

No Officer update for this application was submitted to the Committee.

There was no public speaking on this application.

Proposed re-plan of part of site to provide 24 additional smaller units increasing total from 210 approved to 234 (as alternative to part of planning permission 16/00031/OUT and 20/00307/DETAIL).

It was reported that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee following a call-in request by the then Ward member, former Councillor Paul Clifton, on the grounds that the proposed development was: (i) contrary to the Development Plan, (ii) would have a negative impact on urban design/street scene and (iii) would represent a poor housing layout.

The Committee heard that the outline planning permission had been granted on 1 March 2017 under reference 16/00031/OUT for the erection of up to 210 dwellings with access from Elm Tree Avenue, including green infrastructure, children’s play area, school drop off point and parking facility and other related infrastructure at Turpins Farm. Reserved Matters for outline approval 16/0031/OUT, including details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, had been subsequently approved on 24 March 2022 under reserved matters application reference 20/00307/FUL. The principle of residential development at Turpins Farm had therefore been established by the grant of the outline permission.

Members were told that the current re-plan scheme application represented a part alternative housing layout to approved reserved matters application 20/00307/FUL for the western part of the site in order to provide 24 additional smaller housing units increasing the dwelling total for the Turpins Farm site as a whole from 210 approved units to 234 units involving various design and layout modifications to existing streets and house types. Construction was currently proceeding on the eastern half of the site under approved application 20/00307/FUL.

Members were informed that the detailed design, layout, landscaping and scale of the re-plan scheme were considered by Officers to be acceptable. The proposal would not result in any material harm being caused to residential amenity or highway safety.

The Committee was also told that the application was recommended by Officers for approval subject to the planning conditions set out in the Officer report and subject to a Section 106 agreement to secure the necessary local infrastructure requirements that arose from the scheme.

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 Officer (CT) in respect of the application.

There were no Officer updates in respect of this application.

Samuel Caslin, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

Town Councillor Nick Turner, speaking on behalf of Frinton and Walton Town Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Mark Cossens, the Ward Member, spoke in support of the application.

Outline application (all matters reserved except means of access) for the redevelopment (including demolition) of the site for up to 950 residential units (including affordable housing) with a new Neighbourhood Centre comprising a local healthcare facility of up to 1500sqm NIA and up to 700sqm GFA for use classes E(a) (shops), E(b) (food and drink) and/or a Class F.2 community centre; a 2.1ha site for a new primary school; and associated roads, open space, drainage, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.

For the public record and in the interests of transparency, the Committee Services Manager (IF) stated that he was a resident living in the near vicinity to this application site. He confirmed that he had played no active part in the processing of this application in either his professional capacity as an Officer of the Council or in his private capacity as a resident of St. John's Road.

The Committee was told that at a Planning Committee meeting held on 7 June 2022 Members had resolved that planning permission be granted for the development referred to in the application, subject to a 6-month time limit (from the June 2022 resolution) to allow the completion of a legal agreement under the provisions of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and dealing with the matters set out under paragraph 1.10 of the Officer report.

Members were informed that the agreement had taken significantly longer than anticipated, primarily due to unresolved matters between Essex County Council (ECC) Highways in respect of a Travel Plan Monitoring Fee, areas of dispute between the Developer and ECC Education as well as legal and site value implications in respect of an overaged clause. All those matters had now been satisfactorily resolved and had been confirmed in writing by all respective signatories to the legal agreement. The latest draft section 106 legal agreement was now ready to be signed by all parties. The Committee was told at the meeting by way of confirmation that the Section 106 had agreed and confirmed by all signatories.

Officers told the Committee that, as it had been over 6 months since the Planning Committee’s original resolution, and following legal advice, it was necessary for the application to revert to Members for consideration, and specifically to seek authority from the Planning Committee to issue the outline consent now that the section 106 legal agreement was ready for engrossment.

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 Officer updates circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting on this application.

Stuart Willsher, the applicant’s representative, spoke in support of the application.

Construction of canopy over paddling pool.

The Committee had an application before them that sought planning permission to construct a canopy over one-half of the small swimming pool at the Brightlingsea Lido. This was to provide over the new decking area shade from the sun and cover during inclement weather for users of the Lido and a wide range of community activities.

Members were told that the site was leased and managed by Brightlingsea Town Council via a group of volunteers. The canopy proposed was a large shade sail covering a framework of laminated timber roof beams supported by steel posts fixed to the ground. The proposal was considered to be acceptable by Officers and provided a required upgrade to the facilities at the Lido.

The Committee heard that this application was before the Planning Committee as Tendring District Council owned the site.

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 Head of Planning & Building Control (JP-G) in respect of the application.

No Officer updates had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting in respect of this application

There was no public speaking on this application.

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

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning & Building Control be authorised to grant full planning permission subject to:-

1)      the conditions as stated in paragraph 8.2 of the Officer report, or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained; and

2)      the informative notes as may be deemed necessary.