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

There were no apologies for absence nor substitutions on this occasion.

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 2 September 2025.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 2 September 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 Alexander declared an interest, in relation to Planning Application 25/00807/FUL – The Lifeboat House, The Parade, Walton-on-the-Naze, CO14 8EA, in that he was and would always be a full supporter of the RNLI and that he had previously worked for them in the past and that therefore he would leave the room and would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making for this 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.

In the absence of Councillor Everett, who had submitted a Question on Notice Pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 38, the Democratic Services Officer (Bethany Jones) asked the Chairman (Councillor Fowler) if she would like to defer the question for a future meeting or if she would like the Democratic Services Officer to read the question out instead.

The Chairman agreed to allow the Democratic Services Officer to read the question out in the absence of Councillor Everett which question was as follows:-

“During the debate of this Committee on 8th July 2025, regarding the enforcement policy, questions arose as to whether the policy was robust enough relating to maintaining land or buildings adversely affecting the amenity of an area – the particular case cited was 15 Second Avenue and 5 Esplanade in Frinton, but this is an issue that affects Councillors across the whole area of Tendring (including numerous cases in Clacton-on-Sea, Dovercourt, Manningtree, Elmstead, Holland-on-Sea, St Osyth, and Walton-on-the-Naze).

Would the Chairman consider whether it would be appropriate for this Committee to review the policy, particularly in relation to enforcing section 215 Untidy Site Notice / Maintenance of Land issues, - with a view to strengthening the enforcement response to such sites blighting areas across our District?”

The Chairman responded, based on information provided to her, as follows:-

“The Council’s  Planning Service Enforcement Policy (“the policy”), adopted on 8th July 2025, provides a robust framework for addressing untidy land and buildings adversely affecting amenity in the district of Tendring It includes the use of the power under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) through the service of a notice to require an owner/occupier to maintain land or buildings if it’s condition causes harm and adversely affects the amenity of an area (“Section 215 Notice”).

Local Planning Authorities have discretion over whether or not to take enforcement action, and they need to consider whether action is lawful, appropriate and proportionate. The policy explains the power to serve a Section 215 Notice and sets out clear criteria for when and how the Council will exercise this discretionary power.  The policy prioritises cases based on harm, and in addition to the service of a Section 215 Notice explains that a breach of the notice may result in prosecution and/or direct action where necessary.

As with all policies, it is subject to regular review as that is appropriate and good governance.  This particular policy already sets out that it shall be reviewed every four years, or sooner, to remain compliant with legislation, national and local planning policies and to reflect good practice. Since its adoption on 8^th July 2025, there has been no significant change in the law, national and local planning policies or good practice guidance requiring a further review or update at this time.

There is no evidence that the extent of sites requiring the service of Section 215 Notices have increased or decreased as a result of the current policy given the short  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

Proposed single storey day nursery.

Members were told that this application sought permission for the erection of a single storey building for use as a children’s day nursery with associated outside space and provision for parking on the site currently operated by Holland Football Club and located on Safeguarded Open Space.

The Committee was informed that the nursery would be capable of accommodating up to 75 children and 12 staff members with operating hours that would not conflict with the use of the football club.

Members heard that the proposal would result in the loss of some of the safeguarded open space at Eastcliff Playing Field and Space adjoining Gainsford Gardens; however, the loss was not considered by Officers to be detrimental to the community as a result of the current restricted use of the land. It was not considered by Officers to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area; it would not result in their opinion in any significant impact to the neighbouring amenities or adverse impacts on the highway safety and was deemed acceptable in all other respects.

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 occasion.

Mark Sorrell, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Change of use of land to leisure use and construction of two holiday lodges.

Members heard that this application was before the Planning Committee following a call-in from Councillor Harris, on the grounds that, in his opinion, the proposal represented a form of backland development, would result in highway safety issues, and also potential harm to existing and neighbouring residents. The proposal sought permission for the change of use of land to tourism use and the erection of two lodges for holiday purposes.

The Committee was made aware that the site was outside of a Settlement Development Boundary and policies contained 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 this represented a departure. A recent appeal decision had allowed the conversion of a stable block into two holiday units, and while that differed from this application, it did add some weight to the acceptability of the current scheme. Furthermore, 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.

Members were told that planning harm had not been identified as no objections had been raised regarding the impact to the character of the area, or to the impacts to neighbouring amenities, and Essex County Council Highways had raised no objections following the submission of additional information.

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. 

There were no updates circulated to Members on this item.

Stephen Nixon, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Temporary siting (five years) of timber clad storage container for life boat.

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 41, Councillor Alexander had declared an interest, in relation to this Planning Applicationthat he was and would always be a full supporter of the RNLI and that he had previously worked for them in the past and he therefore left the room and did not participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making for this application.

Members were told that the application was considered by Officers to be that the public safety justification for the storage container to house a lifeboat and the confirmation of its need being temporary (for five years whilst plans for a permanent building were produced) outweighed the harm to visual amenity and the less than substantial harm to the appearance and significance of the Frinton and Walton 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 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 occasion.

There were no speakers on this occasion.

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

RESOLVED that:-

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant full planning permission, subject to the conditions as stated at 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 to the applicant of any informative notes as may be deemed necessary.