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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor McWilliams (with no substitution) and Councillor Everett (with no substitution).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 10 September 2024.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 10 September 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 Goldman declared for the public record, in relation to Planning Application  23-00923-FUL (Clacton FC, Rush Green Road, Clacton-on-Sea, CO16 7BQ) that due to his being one of the Ward Members and that he intended to speak on the application in that capacity, he therefore would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making for that application and that he would also retire to the public gallery.

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.

Mixed use tourist and residential development of retirement living lodges with an ancillary social hub, detached farmstead houses, and holiday lodges along with separate communal buildings providing dining, leisure and recreation facilities and ancillary activity uses such as glamping, a multi-use games area, events space and nature play areas with associated infrastructure works.

The Chairman of the Committee exercised her prerogative and changed the order in which the agenda items would be considered. The Chairman decided to take report A.2 first due to the number of attendees present in the public gallery who were interested in this application.

The Committee heard that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee because of a ‘call-in’ by Councillor Chapman BEM. The application site was situated on the north-eastern edge of Brightlingsea on land to the north of Robinson Road. The site comprised approximately 81 acres of former gravel workings which had established a low-level restoration profile. The site had been left to self-seed, which had created areas of open scrub, grassland and woodland around three former silt lagoons, which had formed five open lakes. The site was located outside of, but directly to the north of, the defined settlement boundary for Brightlingsea.

It was reported that full planning permission was now sought for: “A mixed-use tourist and residential development of retirement living lodges with an ancillary social hub, detached farmstead houses, and holiday lodges along with separate communal buildings providing dining, leisure and recreation facilities and ancillary activity uses such as glamping, a multi-use games area, events space and nature play areas with associated infrastructure works”. The site benefited from an implemented full planning consent (ref: 19/00188/FUL) for ‘the development of a mixed-use tourist and residential scheme comprising of retirement living apartments, detached farmhouses and holiday houses lodges with ancillary facilities such as glamping pods, toilet facilities, a club house/hub, children's play areas and boating jetties’. That application had been submitted in February 2019 and had been granted full planning permission in March 2021.

Members were told that this application sought significant revisions to the previously approved scheme in order to propose a more contemporary, consistent and sustainable approach to the design of the various buildings located throughout the site. The quantum of accommodation remained as previously approved (i.e. 104 holiday lodges, 36 retirement units and 5 market dwellings), but the size, mix and arrangement of the various units of accommodation had been revised. The development now also proposed a wider range of tourism and leisure facilities predominantly at the western end of the site and revised retirement accommodation from the previously approved retirement apartments to individual retirement lodges supplemented by a communal retirement hub.

The Committee also heard that, whilst the revisions included an increase to the overall footprint of the development (approximately a 51% increase), they also provided for substantial enhancements over and above the approved scheme in terms of an improved tourism offer through more on-site facilities, ecological benefits via lake and reedbed creation and an enhanced and consistent design approach across the whole development, which incorporated improved sustainability credentials.

Members were informed that, when considered against the backdrop of the existing implemented consent, the proposed development would not result in adverse impact upon residential amenity, highway safety, landscape impacts or ecological interests. Moreover, the submitted Environmental Impact Assessment had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Extension to existing football club to provide additional weather training pitch area.

Earlier on in the meeting as reported under Minute 24 above, Councillor Goldman had declared for the public record that he was a local Ward Member and that he would be speaking on the application in that capacity. He therefore withdrew from the meeting and retired to the public gallery and took no part whilst the Committee deliberated and made its decision on this application.

The Committee was informed that the proposal was for an extension to the existing Clacton Football Club (FC) in order to provide an additional all weather training pitch area. The Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) was proposed to be located on land which formed part of the Rush Green Safeguarded Open Space and this application was before the Planning Committee as the land was owned by Tendring District Council and because the proposal represented a departure from the development plan.

The Committee was made aware that Policy HP4 of the Local Plan 2013-2033 identified areas of safeguarded open spaces to be protected. The policy stated that development that would result in the loss of the whole or part of areas designated as Safeguarded Open Space would not be permitted unless certain criteria were met. Officers felt that this proposal would result in the permanent loss of a section of safeguarded open space because the scheme included a 4.5 metre fence around the proposed AGP, and its use was exclusively for Clacton FC members and other potential sport users whilst not including the wider public and removing that area of land from general recreational open space use. Whilst the proposal would benefit members of Clacton FC and other potential sport users that might be subject to commercial payment, access to the area by the wider general public would be permanently lost without any replacement.

Officers reminded Members that the proposal would bring some health benefits and benefits to Clacton FC and their members, making the club more agile in respect of their offer and equipping them with a much-needed facility. Against those benefits, the pitch would be sectioned off and the loss of the safeguarded open space would therefore be permanent. Sport England had offered their strong support despite the part loss of the safeguarded open space.

Officers further reminded Members that the proposed development would result in some visual harm due to the fencing and floodlighting proposed and its intrusion outwardly into the remaining open space. The landscaping proposed would be largely ineffective in mitigating that harm, and that weighed further against the proposal. Neutral elements included no harm to neighbouring amenity, there was considered to be sufficient parking provisions and ECC Highways had offered no objections subject to conditions. Similarly, ECC Ecology had not objected to the proposal subject to conditions.

Members were told that, taking all of the detailed considerations above into consideration, Officers had concluded that, on this occasion the principle of development was not acceptable as it failed to comply with Policy HP4 of the Local Plan 2013-2033 and the health benefits  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Retrospective double field shelter comprising of a hay/storage barn and a stable.

Councillor Goldman at this time returned to the Committee for the rest of the meeting.

The Committee heard that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor Land on the grounds of intrusion into the open countryside, blocking views of the Hamford Water Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) with no detail of how environmental factors would be dealt with.

Members were told that, the application before it sought planning permission to relocate the existing double field shelter south of its current location onto a new concrete base within the area of land previously granted planning permission for grazing horses for private use and it had been recommended for approval subject to the necessary conditions set out in the Officer report (A.3).

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 Members prior to the meeting including an update from Officer discussion with the Applicant and the proposed removal of Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5 which were as follows:

1)    “Following discussions with the applicant, it is confirmed that the application proposes to relocate the existing double field shelter south of its current location onto a new concrete base within the area of land previously granted planning permission for grazing horses. The description has been updated to reflect this and now reads “Relocation of existing double field shelter comprising of a hay/storage barn and a stable onto a new concrete base with fenced corral”.

2)    Condition 2 (private use only) and condition 5 (no burning of manure) will be removed as these conditions already apply to the site area as approved under application reference 18/01276/FUL (Condition 3 and 5 respectively).

3)    Condition 4 will be removed as a Waste Management Strategy for the same site area was conditioned on application reference 18/01276/FUL (Condition 4) and subsequently discharged on 19/00011/DISCON.

4)    Condition 3 is removed. The condition has not been imposed on previous applications and as this application is solely for the double field shelter and corral it is not reasonable or necessary as it is evident the land is used for the grazing of horses.”

Paul Brown, member of the public, spoke against the application.

Councillor Dan Land, the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application.

Demolition of 1.2 tall front boundary fence, post and gravel boards.

The Committee heard that this application was before the Planning Committee as the applicant was employed by Tendring District Council and the recommendation was one of approval, as required by the delegation arrangements and for no other reason.

Members were told that, the proposal sought planning permission to remove a 1.2m high close board fence, post and gravel boards. Permission was required as the fence exceeds 1m.

The Committee was made aware that, the proposed works would result in a minor enhancement to the character and appearance of the area, whilst posing no detrimental harm to existing 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, written representation received and a recommendation of approval.

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

There were no updates for the Committee in relation to this application.

There were no speakers on this application.

There were no questions to Officers from Members on this application.

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

RESOLVED that:-

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the 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.