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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Everett (with no substitution), Smith (with no substitution) and Wiggins (with no substitution).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 14 May 2024.

It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Goldman and unanimously:-

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 14 May 2024, be approved as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

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.

Councillor McWilliams declared for the public record that, in relation to the Planning Application A.1 – 23/01699/OUT – Land to the South of Colchester Road, Frating and due to her being the Ward Councillor for The Bentleys & Frating, she therefore would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decisions making for this application and that she would leave the room at the appropriate juncture.

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.

Outline Planning Application (Access to be considered with all other matters reserved) for new commercial premises.

Earlier on in the meeting as reported under Minute 11 above, Councillor McWilliams had declared for the public record that she was the Ward Member for The Bentleys & Frating Ward. She therefore left the room and did not participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making on this application.

The Committee was informed that the application was before it at the discretion of the Director of Planning and that it sought outline planning permission (with all matters reserved bar access) for the erection of a commercial premises. The indicative plan showed the building to measure approximately 7,200sqm which would be split between factory use (70%) and office use (30%) and would also accommodate 153 parking spaces.

The Committee was made aware that, the relocation of the applicant’s site from its current base in Clacton-on-Sea would facilitate the expansion of a successful local business, thereby generating significant economic benefits. Additionally, it had been demonstrated that no sites allocated for employment use in the adopted local plan would be suitable. Taking that into account, Officers had afforded great weight to those benefits.

Officers reminded Members that while the proposal was in outline form, it was considered that the indicative layout, scale and design would be acceptable. There would be no significant harm to neighbouring amenities given the separation distances, and similarly no significant harm to any heritage assets. No harm to existing trees had been identified, and following discussions, ECC Highways, ECC Ecology and ECC SuDS had raised no objections subject to conditions.

Officers further reminded Members that there would be a degree of harm to the landscape character given that the site was currently an open parcel of agricultural land. However, it was also noted that there was significant existing built form in close proximity, though admittedly on the northern section of Colchester Road, and the applicant had demonstrated the harm would not be to a significant level, particularly over the passage of time as vegetation matured. That said, a small level of weight had been attached by Officers to that identified harm.

Members were told that, in conclusion, while it was noted there would be a degree of harm to the landscape character of the area, on this occasion the economic benefits of the development were considered, by Officers, to outweigh that. The application was therefore considered to comply with local and national planning policies and had been 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 representation received and a recommendation of approval.

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

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting, with details of a letter of observation and a letter of objection that had been received, which raised the following points:

1. “The land is grade one or two farmland, not suitable for further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Proposed one dwelling in lieu of approved application 22/00359/COUNOT (Barn A). Re-submissions of 23/00773/FUL.

Councillor McWilliams returned to the room for the rest of the Planning Committee meeting.

The Committee heard that the application was before Members due to the application representing a departure from the Development Plan being a proposal for a new dwelling outside any defined settlement development boundary.

It was reported that the application site comprised a parcel of land to the west of number 5 Hunters Chase, Ardleigh, encompassing an existing detached barn to the rear of number 5, located to the north-eastern corner of the application site. The site lay outside of the defined settlement development boundary of Ardleigh.

Members were told that the application sought full planning permission for the erection of 1 no. 1 bedroom detached dwelling following the demolition of the existing detached barn to the rear of number 5 Hunters Chase (Barn A). The proposed dwelling would replace the existing barn subject of a prior approval for conversion to a dwelling under application reference 22/00359/COUNOT (representing the ‘fall-back’ position). The development would be accessed via a new access from Hunters Chase and not via the access currently serving no. 5 as approved under the Prior Approval Application.

The Committee also heard that Officers recognised that the access, siting and layout of the proposed development would be materially different to the Prior Approval it was seeking to replace; however, the proposal was seeking to improve upon the overall layout of the prior approval conversion scheme and would now comfortably appear as a well-planned infill residential development on a site surrounded by residential dwellings, and with consent for one dwelling ~(in the form of the prior approval).

Members were informed that having regard to the predominantly semi-rural but residential character of the immediate locality, together with the single storey modest scale of the proposed dwelling and ample screening, the wider development would not amount to any visual harm, harm to the character of the area or wider landscape harm.

Officers told Members that, in the absence of any material harm resulting from the proposed development, the application was recommended by them 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 Team Leader (JJ) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting, with details of an additional condition, which was as follows:

“17       COMPLIANCE: DEMOLITION 22/00359/COUNOT

CONDITION: Prior to the commencement of any above ground works associated with the development hereby approved, the existing agricultural building on the site (subject of Prior Approval application reference 22/00359/COUNOT or any subsequent prior approval applications related to the building, and as shown to be demolished on the approved Block Plan Drawing No BB-01 Revision C) shall be demolished in its entirety and all resultant materials and debris shall be cleared from the site.

REASON: The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Planning Application – three dwellings in lieu of 23/00931/COUNOT.

The Committee heard that the application was before the Planning Committee as the proposed development conflicted with the Development Plan’s requirements. The conflict had arisen from the development’s location beyond any defined settlement development boundary. The situation persisted, although it was noteworthy that the concept residential units, in the form of a converted agricultural building, had been established under prior approval reference number 23/00931/COUNOT.

Members were told that, the application sought permission for the erection of three dwellings on land to the rear of 110 Harwich Road, Little Clacton.

The Committee was made aware that, the proposed dwellings were in lieu of the previously approved scheme outlined above. Their design and scale were considered by Officers to be consistent with the semi-rural character of the site. Safe and suitable access was proposed to all dwellings and the proposed development would not result in any significant impact to neighbouring amenities. Accordingly, the application was recommended by Officers for approval subject to conditions.

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

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

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting, with details of an amended plan TSP05, Parish Council comments and an additional condition, which was as follows:

“Amended Plan TSP05

Clearer TSP05 Block Plan provided which highlights proposed wall at entrance and annotations.

Parish Council Comments

Little Clacton Parish Council made an objection of the application noting the following:

1. Demolition of barns and replacement footprint having a marginal overlap

Below are the Officer’s responses to these comments:

1. The majority of the site still falls within the Settlement Development Boundary and the prior approval of 23/00931/COUNOT is a material consideration.

Addition to recommended conditions:

17        COMPLIANCE REQUIRED: LANDSCAPE PROTECTION

CONDITION: Prior to commencement of development the existing trees on the site, shall be protected by the erection of temporary protective fences to be agreed and approved in writing. The protective fences shall be retained throughout the duration of building and engineering works in the vicinity of the tree to be protected. Any trees dying or becoming severely damaged as a result of any failure to comply with these requirements shall be replaced with a tree or trees of appropriate size and species during the first planting season, or in accordance with such other arrangement as may be approved, in writing, with the Local Planning Authority up to first use or first occupation of the development, following the death of, or severe damage to the tree/s.

REASON: For the avoidance of damage to protected tree/s included within the landscaping scheme in the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area. This condition is required to be carried out prior to the commencement of any other development to ensure trees are protected  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Retention of existing cabin serving as changing room and proposed cabin to extend changing room area, relocation of existing equipment storage structures and other external alterations including new 1.8m high screen fencing (part retrospective).

Members heard that the application was before the Planning Committee as the application site was owned by Tendring District Council.

The Committee was told that, the application sought permission for the retention of an existing cabin serving as a changing room and a proposed cabin to extend the changing room area, relocation of existing equipment storage structures and other external alterations including new 1.8m high screen fencing (part retrospective).

Members were made aware that, the proposed development, with the addition of a landscaping scheme and a painting schedule was not considered by Officers to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would not result in any significant impact to neighbouring amenities. Accordingly, the application was recommended by Officers for approval subject to conditions.

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 (OA) in respect of the application.

There were no updates circulated to Members in relation to this application.

There were no speakers in relation to this application.

There were no questions asked by Members in relation to this application.

It was moved by Councillor Goldman, seconded by Councillor McWilliams and unanimously:-

RESOLVED that:-

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions as stated at paragraph 10.2 of the Officer report (A.4), 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 sending of any informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary.