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

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Wiggins (with Councillor Scott substituting).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meetings of the Committee, held on Wednesday, 19 March 2025 and Tuesday, 1 April 2025.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the special meeting of the Committee, held on Wednesday 19 March 2025, be approved as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

It was then moved by Councillor White, seconded by Councillor Everett and:-

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 1 April 2025, 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 Scott declared for the public record in relation to Planning Application 25/00451/FUL – 3 Orchard View, Wivenhoe Road, Alresford, CO7 8BD that he was one of the local Ward Members. Councillor Scott stated that he was not predetermined on this application, and he therefore would remain in the meeting and take part in the deliberations and decision making on that application.

Councillor White declared for the public record in relation to Planning Application 25/00029/FUL – Oaklands Holiday Village, Colchester Road, St Osyth, CO16 8HW that he was one of the local Ward Members as well as the caller-in 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 leave the room at that juncture. 

Councillor Bush, present in the public gallery, declared an interest in relation to Planning Application 24/00280/FUL – Red House, High Street, Great Oakley, Harwich, CO12 5AQ that he was the local Ward Member and also a member of the Great Oakley Community Hub.

Later on in the meeting, as reported in Minute 7 below, Councillor Scott declared for the public record in relation to Planning Application 25/00451/FUL – 3 Orchard View, Wivenhoe Road, Alresford, CO7 8BD that he was also a Parish Councillor for Alresford Parish Council. Councillor Scott again stated that he was not predetermined, and that he therefore would remain in the meeting and take part in the deliberations and decision making on that application.

Later on in the meeting, as reported in Minute 8 below, Councillor Smith declared for the public record in relation to Planning Application 25/00324/FULHH – 61 Colchester Road, Holland-on-Sea, CO15 5DG that he was one of the local Ward Members. Councillor Smith stated that he was not predetermined, and he therefore would remain in the meeting and take part in the deliberations and decision making on that application.

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.

Temporary construction access (up to 5 years) to facilitate the construction of the Holiday Park extension.

Earlier on in the meeting as detailed in Minute 3 above, Councillor White had declared for the public record that he was one of the local Ward Members. Councillor White stated that he was pre-determined on this application, and he therefore would not remain in the meeting and not take part in the deliberations and decision making. Councillor White had also stated that he would be speaking on this application as the Caller-in and Ward Member.

Members were told that the application was before the Committee at the request of Councillor White due to his concerns with highway safety.

The Committee was informed that the application related to the Oaklands Holiday Village, Colchester Road, St Osyth, specifically the planned expansion for 138 static holiday caravan and lodge pitches, and recreational space approved under planning application reference 21/02129/FUL.

Officers told Members that the application now before them sought temporary planning permission for up to 5 years, for a new construction access from Colchester Road to facilitate the approved holiday park extension.

Members heard that the proposed access could provide the necessary visibility splays in both directions and that Essex County Council Highway Authority had raised no objections, 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 Senior Planning Officer (AL) in respect of the application.

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members before the meeting which was as follows:-

• “Essex County Council Place Services Ecology comments received 13.05.2025. Comments provided in full below:

Holding objection due to insufficient ecological information on protected species (out of date report)

Summary

We have assessed the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (The Ecology Consultancy, February 2021), submitted by the applicant, relating to the likely impacts of development on designated sites, protected and Priority species & habitats.

We are not satisfied that there is sufficient ecological information on protected species available for determination. This is because the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (The Ecology Consultancy, February 2021) is out of date to support this application, in line with CIEEM Guidance1

1 CIEEM (2019) Advice note on the Lifespan of Ecological Reports and Surveys - https://cieem.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Advice-Note.pdf and paragraph 6.2.1 of British Standard (BS) BS42020 ‘Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development 2013’. This is because the initial site walkover was undertaken in 2020.

As a result, we recommend that the applicant’s ecologist provides an ecological addendum or an updated ecological report to support this application, which should require an additional site visit and may require updated desk study information. The ecologist will be required to provide appropriate justification, on:

•               The validity of the initial report;

•               Which, if any, of the surveys need to be updated; and

•               The appropriate scope, timing and methods for the update survey(s).

If additional impacts to protected species are identified as a result of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Demolition of Red House to allow construction of two conventional arrangement dwellings comprising one 2-bedroom dwelling and one 3-bedroom dwelling, and an infill extension between Red House and The Maybush Inn to form a further one bedroom flat incorporating a multi use community facility to the Public House at ground level.

Earlier on in the meeting as detailed in Minute 3 above, Councillor Bush had declared an interest in that he was the local Ward Member and also a member of the Great Oakley Community Hub.

Members were told that the application was before the Planning Committee following a call-in request from Councillor Bush in the event the application was recommended for refusal. The application sought full planning permission for the demolition of Red House followed by the construction of a like-for-like replacement building and infill extension to create three flats and a multi-use community facility.

The Committee was informed that the site fell within the Settlement Development Boundary for Great Oakley and that the enhanced community facilities were in accordance with Policy HP2, and therefore the principle of the development was acceptable. In addition, Officers had considered that there was sufficient private amenity space and the impact to neighbours was not significantly harmful.

Officers told Members that the Red House was a non-designated heritage asset that made a positive contribution to the area despite its condition and some previous inappropriate alterations, and its demolition would result in a level of less than substantial harm to the Great Oakley Conservation Area. Following the submission of a Structural Engineering Inspection Report, that had confirmed that the building could be retained and repaired, albeit with extensive works, there was not clear and convincing justification for the complete loss of the significance of the building and the consequential harm to the setting of the Great Oakley Conservation Area.

Members heard that despite some amendments/improvements to the design, the proposed replacement building would not preserve or enhance the character of the area, lacking the authenticity and inherent historic interest of the existing building. On this occasion Officers had considered that the public benefits of the scheme, including the proposed multi-use community area and extension to the garden area, did not outweigh that identified level of less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area.

The Committee was also told that ECC Highways had also raised an objection due to insufficient parking provision and the impacts that would generate to the highway network. Officers had acknowledged the proposal presented an enhancement to the District’s community facilities, that there was no parking for the existing building and the site was within a sustainable location, however on balance they had concluded that the harm through insufficient parking provision was such that it justified a recommendation of refusal.

Officers made Members aware that under the NPPF in paragraph 212, Members were obligated to give great weight to the assets within a conservation area.

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 refusal.

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 before the meeting which was as follows:-  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Change of use of land to garden.

Earlier on in the meeting as detailed in Minute 3 above, Councillor Scott had declared for the public record that he was one of the local Ward Members. Councillor Scott had stated that he was not predetermined on this application, and he therefore remained in the meeting and took part in the deliberations and decision making.

Members were told that the application was before the Planning Committee as the applicant was a member of staff for Tendring District Council. The proposal sought permission for the change of use of land to garden. The application site served a large parcel of land located towards the east of No. 3 Orchard View.

The Committee was informed that the boundary treatment consisted of mature hedging and part wire fence to the front and timber field gate and 1.1-metre-high post and rail fencing to the east, and that it was not proposed to change the existing boundary treatment. The proposal was therefore deemed by Officers to have no significant effects on the visual amenities of the area and was deemed appropriate in that regard.

Officers told Members that the use of the site would become residential and therefore any noise levels emitted from the garden would be consistent with those expected of a residential use, raising no major concerns in terms of noise impacts. There were no neighbouring residential dwellings located immediately adjacent to the site. The proposal was therefore deemed by Officers to be acceptable in terms of residential 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 representations 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 circulated to Members on this application.

There were no public speakers on this application.

At this point in the proceedings, Councillor Scott declared for the public record that he was also a Parish Councillor for Alresford Parish Council. Councillor Scott again stated that he was not predetermined on this application, and he therefore remained in the meeting and took part in the deliberations and decision making.

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

RESOLVED that:-

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as stated in paragraph 10.2 of the Officer report (A.3), 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 the informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary.

Rear extension with flat roof.

Members were told that the application had been brought to the Planning Committee as the property was owned by a staff member of Tendring District Council.

The Committee was informed that the application sought planning permission for the proposed flat roof rear extension.

Officers told Members that the extension would be sited to the rear of the property and was deemed by Officers to be of an acceptable size, scale and appearance with no significant adverse effects on the visual amenities of the area.

Members heard that the extension would be a single storey with a flat roof so it posed no significant threat of loss of light, privacy, outlook or amenity.

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 and Building Control in respect of the application.

There were no updates circulated to Members for this item.

There were no public speakers for this item.

At this point in the proceedings, Councillor Smith declared for the public record that he was one of the local Ward Members. Councillor Smith stated that he was not predetermined on this application, and he therefore remained in the meeting and took part in the deliberations and decision making.

It was moved by Councillor Goldman, seconded by Councillor Scott 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 the informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary.