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

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor White (with no substitution).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 20 January 2026.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 20 January 2026, 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 at this juncture.

Later in the meeting, as detailed under Minute 61 below, Councillor Everett, who was present in the public gallery, declared for the public record that he was a Ward Member for Frinton-on-Sea and that he lived close to the application site.

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.

Change of commercial use from Class E to hot food takeaway (sui generis).

Councillor Everett, who was present in the public gallery, declared for the public record that he was a Ward Member for Frinton-on-Sea and that he lived close by to the application site.

The Committee was informed that this application had been “called in” by Councillor Davis, a Ward Member for Frinton-on-Sea.

It was reported that this proposal sought planning permission for the change of use from a Class E restaurant to a hot food takeaway (sui generis), with no external alterations proposed.

Members were made aware that, in the opinion of Officers, whilst the loss of a Class E use resulted in some harm to the retail function of the Primary Shopping Area, the unit was currently vacant, and the introduction of a hot food takeaway would return the premises to active use, increasing footfall and contributing positively to the vitality and viability of the town centre. The inclusion of an internal seating area would maintain an element of eat?in provision similar to the previous restaurant use, helping to sustain activity on Connaught Avenue.

The impact on the Conservation Area was felt by Officers to be negligible due to the absence of external changes; residential amenity would not be significantly harmed given the town centre context and proposed opening hours, and no significant harm to highway safety would result. On balance, the benefits of bringing the unit back into active use outweighed the limited harm arising from the loss of a Class E use within the Primary Shopping Area, and the proposal was therefore recommended, by Officers, for approval.

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 (CC) in respect of the application.

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting which informed the Committee as follows:-

“A further objection has been received from a neighbouring resident, bringing the total to three objections. This latest representation raises concerns that the proposed use is not suitable for Connaught Avenue, citing issues such as increased traffic, noise, and potential environmental impacts.

The application as originally submitted contained vague and limited information. Additional information was provided. The application description was amended and the application readvertised by new site notice and newspaper advert (given the Conservation Area location). It has been noted that the Town Council were not reconsulted at that time so that re-consultation is pending. The recommendation at 10.1 is therefore amended to:

Recommendation: Approval

Following re-consultation with Frinton and Walton Town Council, and subject to them raising no new issues that have not been addressed within the committee report that the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 10.2, or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Erection of a detached self-build bungalow.

The Committee was informed that this planning application sought permission for a detached self-build bungalow.

It was reported that, although the site lay outside of the defined settlement development boundary, the Council’s housing policies were now out of date and the ‘tilted balance’ applied.

Although the proposal would not meet the self-build criteria under Local Plan Policy LP7 it would, in the opinion of Officers, be acceptable in terms of the three strands of sustainability given its proximity and accessibility to local services and public transport links, and environmental benefits in terms of energy efficiency and biodiversity enhancements. The proposal was not likely to result in any adverse impacts to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. The tilted balance had been therefore engaged and the principle of development was deemed acceptable by Officers.

Members were told that the development represented an appropriately scaled and sensitively designed bungalow within an established residential area, reflecting the character and appearance of surrounding built form. It would not result in material harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, nor would it create any unacceptable impacts on the local highway network. The proposal achieved suitable provision for access, parking, drainage and internal living standards, and incorporated a broad range of energy-efficiency measures.

Officers felt that this proposal would deliver modest but meaningful economic, social and environmental benefits, including contributing to housing supply at a time when the Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Overall, the development was considered to comply with the policies of the NPPF and was therefore 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 (CC) in respect of the application.

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

Peter Le Grys, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

Conversion of existing barns into a residential dwelling.

The Committee was informed that this application sought outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the conversion of two existing barns into a single residential dwelling. The site lay outside of any settlement development boundary but was considered by Officers to be acceptable subject to conditions.

It was reported that the proposal involved the reuse of existing rural buildings within an established residential curtilage and, having regard to national and local planning policy, was considered by Officers to represent a sustainable form of development that would not result in an unacceptable harm to the character of the countryside, highway safety, residential amenity, or ecological interests. Matters relating to protected species, biodiversity enhancement, trees, drainage, parking, and detailed design could be appropriately addressed through planning conditions or at the reserved matters stage.

Overall, the development was considered by Officers to comply with the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Tendring District Local Plan 2013–2033 and beyond, subject to conditions which included securing the necessary Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) contribution. Accordingly, the application was recommended by Officers for approval.

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 (CC) 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 Bray, seconded by Councillor Alexander and:-

RESOLVED that, contrary to the Officers’ recommendation of approval, planning permission be refused for this application on the following grounds:-

“The development, if approved would result in total reliance on access by private vehicle in an area lacking any local facilities, fails to support local services, fails to maintain vitality or enhance a rural community contrary to NPPF paragraph 83 and fails to meet all tests of sustainable development therein. 

Furthermore, the development is contrary to the local plan Policy SPL2 that provides that when development is outside the settlement development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Erection of three self build dwellings.

The Committee was informed that this application sought outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the erection of three self-build dwellings. The site lay outside of any settlement development boundary but was considered, by Officers, to be acceptable subject to conditions.

Members were cognisant that, although the site lay outside of the defined settlement development boundary, the Council’s housing policies were now out of date and the ‘tilted balance’ applied. Although the proposal would not meet the self-build criteria under Local Plan Policy LP7 it would be acceptable in terms of the three strands of sustainability given its proximity and accessibility to local services and public transport links, and environmental benefits in terms of energy efficiency and biodiversity enhancements. The proposal was not likely to result in any adverse impacts to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. The tilted balance had therefore been engaged and the principle of development was accepted.

It was reported that the proposed development was not considered, by Officers, to likely result in an unacceptable harm to the character of the area, highway safety, residential amenity or ecological interests. Matters relating to biodiversity enhancement, drainage, parking and detailed design could be appropriately addressed through planning conditions, or at the reserved matters stage.

Overall, the development was considered by Officers to comply with the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Tendring District Local Plan 2013–2033 and beyond, subject to conditions which included securing the necessary Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) contribution. Accordingly, the application was recommended by Officers for approval.

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.

Peter Le Grys, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Construction of a floodlit Football Foundation Playzone.

The Committee was informed that this application sought planning permission for the construction of a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA), which would also include perimeter fencing measuring 3 metres height along the side elevations, and a mixture of 3 and 4 metres height to the northern and southern ‘end’ elevations. Four floodlights, each measuring 8m high, were also proposed in each corner of the MUGA.

Members were cognisant that this item was before the Planning Committee due to Tendring District Council being the applicant.

It was reported that the proposal was supported by Officers in principle, as it would deliver upgraded sports facilities that would represent a clear improvement over those currently on site. Although the development would be visible within the street scene, Officers considered it to offer a visual enhancement when compared with the existing structures, which were in a poor state of repair.

Whilst neighbouring properties lay in close proximity, Officers were satisfied that any noise or lighting effects would not materially exceed the current situation. Essex County Council Highways had raised no objections. Although a Grade II Listed Building was located to the south-east, the separation distance was sufficient to ensure that the proposal would have a neutral impact on its setting.

Taking the above into account, the proposed development was considered by Officers to align with the local and national planning policies and was therefore recommended by Officers for approval.

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.

No one had registered to speak on this application.

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

RESOLVED unanimously 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.5), 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 applicant be sent informative notes, as may be deemed necessary by the Head of Planning and Building Control.