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

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bray (with no substitution), Everett (with no substitution) and Goldman (with Councillor Sudra substituting).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Thursday, 30 October 2025.

It was moved by Councillor Wiggins, seconded by Councillor Alexanderand:-

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Thursday 30 October 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.

In relation to report A.1 (application 25/01141/FULHH, 21 Harwich Road, Little Clacton), Councillor Bray declared that he was the local Ward Member and that he was also pre-determined. He would therefore not sit as a member of the Committee for this meeting but would sit in the public gallery and exercise his right, as Ward Member, to speak on the application.

For the benefit of the public record, the Democratic Services Manager (Ian Ford) informed the meeting that, in relation to report A.2 (application 25/01269/FULHH, 18 Jaywick Lane, Clacton-on-Sea), Councillor Goldman was the applicant. Consequently, Councillor Goldman had decided not to sit as a member of the Committee for this meeting and would instead sit in 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.

No questions on notice pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 38 had been submitted for this meeting.

New gym to rear of property. (Retrospective)

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 48 above, Councillor Bray had declared that he was the local Ward Member and that he was also pre-determined. He did not sit as a member of the Committee for this meeting but sat in the public gallery instead and exercised his right, as Ward Member, to speak on the application.

Members were informed that this application was before the Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Planning and Building Control. The application sought retrospective planning permission to retain a 3.2m high outbuilding within the rear garden and adjacent to the north-western boundary which adjoined the Plough Corner Playing Field. Planning permission was required as the outbuilding exceeded 2.5m in height and fell within 2m of the boundary.

It was reported that it was the opinion of Officers that the proposed works would not result in significant visual harm occurring to the character and appearance of the area nor would it pose demonstrable detrimental harm to existing neighbouring amenities sufficient to warrant a refusal of permission.

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.

No updates had been circulated to Members in relation to this application.

Councillor John Cutting, the Chairman of Little Clacton Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Jeff Bray, the District Ward Member spoke againstthe application.

Conversion of existing garage into habitable space.

Members were aware that this application had been brought to the Planning Committee as the property was owned by a Tendring District Councillor.

The Committee was informed that this application sought planning permission for the proposed conversion of an existing garage into a habitable space. Planning permission was required for this development because Condition 4 of the original planning application TEN/53/78 had removed permitted development rights stating that there would be no alternative use of any integral garage without planning permission having first been granted.

Members were advised that, in the opinion of the Officers, the garage conversion, which included the removal of the garage shutter door to be replaced with a window and infill wall, would have no significant adverse effects on the visual amenities of the area. Furthermore, Officers believed that the garage conversion would not alter the footprint of the property so it would pose no significant threat of loss of light, 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 Planning Team Leader (ML) in respect of the application.

No updates had been circulated to Members in relation to this application.

No one had registered to speak on this application.

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

RESOLVED unanimouslythat:-

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.2), or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained; and

2)       the sending to the applicant of the informative notes as deemed necessary.