Councillor Fowler (Chairman) made the Committee aware that Councillor White (Vice-Chairman) was not attending the meeting and that therefore, she had asked Councillor Wiggins to occupy the vacant seat and assist her in ensuring the meeting ran efficiently.

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

Apologies for absence were received by Councillors McWilliams (with Councillor Codling substituting) and White (with no substitution).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 12 March 2024 and Monday, 18 March 2024.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 12 March 2024, be approved as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman, subject to the following alteration and amendment to Minute 85 that:

“Councillor Sudra declared for the public record that, in relation to the Planning Application A.1 – 23/01375/FUL – Parkeston Railway Club, Hamilton Street, Parkeston, Harwich, CO12 4PQ that she attend the site visit and Planning Committee meeting the first time this Planning Application was considered on 16 January 2024 and that therefore, she would not take part in the discussion and decision making for that application but that she would remain in the meeting.”  to change to say “Councillor Sudra declared for the public record that, in relation to the Planning Application A.1 – 23/01375/FUL – Parkeston Railway Club, Hamilton Street, Parkeston, Harwich, CO12 4PQ that she did not attend the site visit and Planning Committee meeting the first time this Planning Application was considered on 16 January 2024 and that therefore, she would not take part in the discussion and decision making for that application but that she would remain in the meeting.”

It was then moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Smith and:-

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Monday 18 March 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.

There were no declarations of interest made by Members 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 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).

Committee members were reminded that this application had been brought before the Planning Committee on 1 August 2023. Following deliberation, Members had voted to defer the item in order to afford the applicant the opportunity to:-

•  provide more information on surface materials and details of the roadway design/width of the access and drive leading to the proposed bungalow;
•  complete and submit an ecological survey/report for this site; and
• provide more details on the Package Treatment Sewage Plant including its location.

The Committee was made aware that, regarding the background of this case, the application had been initially referred to the Planning Committee due to the proposed development’s conflict with the Development Plan’s requirements. That conflict had arisen from the development’s location beyond any defined settlement development boundary. That situation persisted, although it was noteworthy that the concept of a residential unit, in the form of a converted agricultural building, had been established under prior approval reference number 21/00704/COUNOT.

Officers reminded Members that the applicant had now provided the additional information as set out above. Following the completion of the assessment and in summary, ECC Highways continued to be satisfied with the proposal and had confirmed that the improved access and drive leading to the proposed bungalow would prove a safe and suitable access for the development. ECC Ecology had confirmed no objections from an ecological perspective subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions to ensure all mitigation and enhancement measures and/or works were carried out in full accordance with the details contained in the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Preliminary Roost Assessment. The details of the Preliminary Treatment Sewage Plant were also acceptable because it had been demonstrated that the arrangement would result in no harm to the environment.

Members were told that, in terms of other relevant planning considerations, the proposed dwelling was not considered by Officers to be materially different regarding siting or footprint to the development approved under prior approval 21/00704/COUNOT. The overall height of the proposal slightly exceeded that of the existing building; however, that was not considered by Officers to result in significant harm.

The Committee heard that the application had been revised during the course of the application to a softer, 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 informed 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 boundary secured by condition was suggested as that would help to soften the appearance and screen/filter views of the site from the Public Right of Way to the east.

The Committee also heard that the sufficient parking and private amenity space were provided, and there would not be significant harm to existing neighbouring amenities, subject to conditions.

Members also heard that conditions were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved for the erection of two self-build/custom built dwellings.

The Committee heard that the application was before Members at the request of Councillor Bray, due to the site being located outside the settlement development boundary and his concerns with the impact of the proposed development.

It was reported that the application related to the land adjacent to number 34 Amerells Road, Little Clacton. The site was located to the eastern end of Amerells Road and formed part of an agricultural field.

Members were told that the application sought outline planning permission for the erection of two self-build/custom built dwellings with all matters reserved. For the avoidance of doubt, Access, Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping were all reserved for subsequent consideration as part of future Reserved Matters application(s) (if outline planning permission was granted).

The Committee also heard that the site was located outside, but directly adjacent to, the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Little Clacton which was categorised within Local Plan Policy SPL1 as a Rural Service Centre in recognition of its level of services and amenities. Local Plan Policy SPL2 did not explicitly preclude the development of housing outside SDBs as a matter of principle. The category of the settlement and the site’s relationship with the defined settlement boundary complied with the principles of sustainable development as well as the policy requirements for self-build homes as set out in Policy LP7.

Members were informed that the proposed dwellings would intrude into the open field to some extent. However, the application site was bordered by existing development on two sides (immediately to south and west), and further away, the site was enclosed by residential development along Harwich Road (to the north) and Feverills Road (to the south). Views into the open field would largely be retained and a residential development here in the form of two dwellings would be viewed against the backdrop of the existing dwellings in Feverills Road. Consequently, in the opinion of Officers, no overriding harm to the character of the area or landscape would result.

Officers told Members that, the additional traffic associated with 2 no. dwellings would not be significant and could not be deemed as materially harmful to highway or pedestrian safety.

The Committee noted that Officers considered that sufficient space was available on the site to provide a development of two dwellings that could achieve an internal layout and separation distances that would not detract from the amenities of nearby properties or the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

Members were also made aware that, considering the impact of the development and baseline situation on site, subject to the inclusion of the recommended conditions and completed UU, the development would conserve and enhance biodiversity interests.

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 subject to A Unilateral Undertaking.

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

An  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

Change of use of land for siting of five lodges to be occupied for holiday purposes only.

Members heard that the application was before the Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Planning and Building Control and that it sought permission for the change of use of the land to tourism and including the erection of five lodges for holiday purposes.

It was reported that the site was outside of a Settlement Development Boundary and that policies within the Local Plan did not specifically mention holiday lets in the types of tourism opportunities to be promoted within the District, and overall were not clear whether a small-scale proposal such as that represented a departure. A recent appeal decision had allowed the conversion of a stable block into two holiday units, and while that differed from the current application, it did add some weight to the acceptability of the current scheme. Further, the proposal was considered by Officers to result in a small boost to the tourism offering within the District and was also not within an isolated and unsustainable location.

The Committee was told that if it was considered that the development represented a departure from the Local Plan, planning harm had not been identified as no objections had been raised in regard to the impact to the character of the area or to the impacts to neighbouring amenities, and ECC Highways had raised no objections. Whilst ECC Ecology initially had had concerns, additional information provided by the agent for the application had since satisfactorily addressed that.

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 Senior Planning Officer (MP) in respect of the application.

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting with an update on Paragraph 8.35 of the Officer report which was to be corrected as follows:-

“Paragraph 8.35 of the Officer report incorrectly states that the proposal will connect to an existing public foul sewer. The proposal is instead provided by a Package Treatment Plant, and therefore Paragraph 8.35 should be replaced with the following wording:

In relation to non-mains drainage from non-major development the Environment Agency's advice is that to comply with the Framework and PPG on foul drainage matters, an LPA needs to be satisfied that foul drainage can be provided without adverse impact on the environment. This requires ensuring that both those environmental risks outside of the control of the permit and the relevant considerations in the PPG are addressed. The LPA should also be mindful that the developer will need to address foul drainage matters to get their environmental permit and meet building control regulations. Therefore, they should be confident that it is likely that any necessary permits and approvals can be successfully obtained.

Question 11 of the application form states that it is not intended to connect to a mains sewer. Instead, foul sewage will be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.