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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Everett (with Councillor Bray substituting), McWilliams (with no substitution) and Smith (with Councillor Placey substituting).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on, Tuesday 5 November, 2024.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 5 November 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 24/00712/DETAIL – Land at 757 St John’s Road and Rouses Farm, Jaywick Lane, Clacton-on-Sea, CO16 8BJ that, due to living near the application site, he would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making for that application and he would therefore leave the room.

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 creation of a 3G Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) with perimeter fencing, acoustic fencing, hardstanding areas, storage container, floodlights, an access footpath and associated bund.

The Chairman of the Planning Committee (Councillor Fowler) reminded Members that Councillors Placey and Sudra had not been present at the time the application had first been before the Committee in May 2024 and that therefore they would not participate in the discussions and decision-making, but they would stay in the room.

Members were also reminded that the proposal was for the erection of an Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) on land that formed part of the existing playing pitch within the grounds of Tendring Technology College and that this application was before the Planning Committee following a call-in request by Councillor Turner, who had raised concerns that the development would result in a negative impact on the scene, and was of a poor layout and would result in a negative impact to neighbours.

Members were reminded that the application had been initially put before the Planning Committee at its meeting held on 14 May 2024, when Officers had concluded that the wider public benefits of the proposed development outweighed the overall identified areas of harm, namely the impacts to neighbouring amenities through noise and light pollution and had therefore recommended, on a fine balance, that the application be approved.

At that meeting the Committee had decided to defer the application and had requested that additional information/actions be provided/undertaken as follows:-

-       Applicant to provide a Bat Survey Report;

-       The Council’s Environmental Protection team to undertake a review of the Noise Impact Assessment provided by local residents;

-       Applicant to demonstrate whether it would be possible to provide for an amended layout/re-orientated 3G pitch that would result in reduced harm; and

-       Submission of a Construction Method Statement to ensure that any construction would be mindful of the school children’s presence on site.

Following that deferral, the applicant’s agent had subsequently provided a Bat Survey which had been confirmed to be acceptable by ECC Place Services (Ecology) subject to conditions, and this Council’s Environmental Protection team had commented on the Noise Impact Assessment to confirm that they had considered both the applicant’s and the local residents’ Noise Impact Assessments fully, and had concluded that their earlier “no objection” comments remain unchanged. They had, however, suggested that the applicant’s Noise Impact Assessment be updated to include additional information, which had since been undertaken. The Council’s Environmental Protection team had confirmed that they were satisfied with the predicted noise levels and the evidence of compliance with relevant guidance, and therefore had had no adverse comments subject to the measures outlined within the Assessment being implemented.

Officers reminded Members that, in addition, the agent for the applicant had clarified that a Construction Method Statement had been submitted alongside the original application submission, and the Council’s Environmental Protection team had previously confirmed that they were satisfied with the contents and had no adverse comments to make (in comments dated 14 September 2023).

An additional drawing had also been provided to outline alternative layouts for the 3G pitch alongside the wider site. Three options were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Change of use of land for the siting of 2 no. containers, hardstanding, car parking area (retrospective planning consent) and retention of 2 no. existing portacabin offices to serve the existing use.

The Committee heard that this application was before the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Fairley.

It was reported that the application sought permission for the retention of 2 no. existing portacabin offices to serve the existing roofing company on site. In addition, two further portacabins, a car parking area to the front of the site and the creation of a hardstanding area to the rear had all been implemented without express planning permission. The application therefore also sought retrospective planning consent for all unauthorised elements and other than the works outlined above, no further additions were proposed as part of this application.

Members were told that the proposed works were not considered to be harmful to the current prevailing character and appearance of the area. The proposal would also not result in any significant impact to neighbouring amenities, and it was satisfactory in terms of highway safety. Accordingly, the application had been 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 for Members on this application.

Councillor Zoe Fairley, the Ward Councillor for Ardleigh and Little Bromley and the caller-in of this application, spoke against the application.

Submission of details under Outline Planning Permission 17/01229/OUT – considering appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for residential phases one and two for 417 no. dwellings, open space, principle spine road linking St John’s Road to Jaywick Lane and associated ancillary works.

Earlier on in the meeting as reported under Minute 32 above, Councillor Goldman had declared for the public record that he lived near the application site, and that he therefore would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making for this application. Councillor Goldman therefore left the room at this juncture.

The Committee heard that this application sought approval for the Reserved Matters relating to appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale for residential phases one and two, comprising 417 dwellings. Phases one and two formed part of a larger site that was a strategic allocation which already benefited from outline planning consent for its redevelopment to provide up to 950 residential units. The above mentioned outline consent (reference number 17/01229/OUT) also included 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 F.2 (community centre); a 2.1ha site for a new primary school – those elements did not form part of the reserved matters application the subject of this Officer report.

Members were told that the application was in front of Members at the discretion of the Head of Planning and Building Control because the site was of major strategic importance for the Strategic Urban Settlement of Clacton-on-Sea.

The Committee was informed that the submission followed statutory consultations and discussions between the Local Planning Authority (LPA), the applicant and other stakeholders such as Essex County Council Highways and Education, resulting in revisions to address concerns raised by local objectors, planning officers and consultees.

The Committee was made aware that the key elements of the approved outline consent, including primary access from both St Johns Road and Jaywick Lane, the broad location of major open spaces, and the designated Education Land were all fixed and had been carefully integrated into this detailed application. While some local objections had been raised, those mainly pertained to aspects already agreed upon in the outline permission or were issues that would be addressed through planning conditions and obligations imposed on and included in the outline consent, or were matters that the LPA felt had now been addressed through the submission of revised plans and documents (detail of which was provided through the Officer report).

Officers reminded Members that the proposed layout built on the approved access routes and spine road, and it was considered that the overall design and layout of phases one and two would create a cohesive and attractive development. The tree-line spine road and strategically positioned open spaces in phases one and two would contribute to a strong sense of place. The scale and appearance of the dwellings, along with the high-quality landscaping proposals, were considered by Officers to be appropriate for the surrounding area and set a positive precedent for future phases.

Members were further told that the concerns regarding access to the Education Land, particularly for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, had been addressed through revised plans. Both Planning Officers and ECC  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Live information was taken on 6^th November 2024.

To report 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; and

-       enforcement-related appeal decisions.

The Committee had before it the latest planning enforcement report based on live information taken on 6 November 2024.

Members were aware that the enforcement policy sought to report on the following areas:-

-       number of complaints received/registered in the quarter;

-       number of cases closed in the quarter;

-       number of acknowledgments 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; and

-       enforcement-related appeal decisions.

Members noted that some areas continued not to be available given the resources to export information from the available system were not possible with the current database software, or as addressed directly in the Officer report.

RESOLVED that the contents of this report (A.4) be noted.

The Committee is requested to consider passing the following resolution:-

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Agenda Item 10 on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 6a and 6b of Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, of the Act.”

It was moved by Councillor Wiggins, seconded by Councillor Bray and unanimously:-

RESOLVED that, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Agenda Item 10 on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 6a and 6b of Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, of the Act.

Removal of Fence Panels, and later replacement with exact same design (Represents two breaches of imposed Art 4 Direction).

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

RESOLVED that the Planning Committee, having considered the contents of the report, determines that there has been a breach of planning control (as defined by Section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)) and Listed Building Consent (as provided under Sections 7 and 9 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended)) at Mistley Quay resulting from the unauthorised removal and replacement of parts/panels from the fence located adjacent to the Quay side as identified in this report and that it is considered expedient, having regard to the relevant legislation, provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations, for enforcement action to be taken in line with Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and/or Section 38 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It is requested, accordingly, that the Director of Planning and Community:

(1)  Delays taking any immediate action to enforce the breach of planning control and listed building consent, subject to the following:

(a)  engagement with the owners of the land where the fence is situated to discuss a proposal for a suitable alternative fence, or no fence, and to allow the relevant planning application(s) and listed building consent application to be submitted within six months of this resolution; and/or

(b)  Invite a planning and listed building consent application to be submitted for the retention of the works to the existing fence now in place within 2 months of this resolution; and

(2)  Following actions 1(a) and/or 1(b) above not being successful,  or not engaged, to authorise the Director of Planning and Community to consider or pursue formal enforcement action to be taken which could include the issue and service of an Enforcement Notice under Section 172 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 and/or a Listed Building Enforcement Notice under Section 38 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; together with the reasons for that decision or action.