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

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Codling (with no substitution) and Sudra (with Councillor Smith substituting).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Thursday, 19 February 2026.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Thursday 19 February 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.

Councillor Wiggins declared an interest, in relation to Planning Applications 25/00374/OUT – Land East of Cockaynes Lane, Alresford, CO7 8BT and 25/01498/FUL – Land to The North of Avocet Place, Thorrington, CO7 8FH, in that she was one of the Ward Members for both applications. She informed the Committee that she would speak on application 25/00374/OUT in her capacity as a Ward Member but that she would then leave the meeting and take no part in the consideration thereof and the voting thereon on the grounds that she was pre-determined. Councillor Wiggins also stated that she was not pre-determined on application 25/01498/FUL and that she would therefore take part in the deliberations and decision-making process for that application.

Councillor Scott, who was present in the public gallery, declared for the public record, in relation to Planning Applications 25/00374/OUT – Land East of Cockaynes Lane, Alresford, CO7 8BT and 25/01498/FUL – Land to The North of Avocet Place, Thorrington, CO7 8FH, in that he was one of the Ward Members for both applications and that he was speaking on both applications in that capacity as well as in the capacity of the caller-in for application 25/01498/FUL.

Later on in the meeting, as detailed under Minute 72, the Chairman (Councillor Fowler) mentioned for the public record that Councillors Smith and White had not been present at the last meeting (19 February 2026) and so they would be precluded from taking part in the consideration of application 25/00869/FUL, which had been deferred, after initial consideration and debate, at the last meeting.

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.

Erection of up to 100 dwellings (to include specialist housing for older people and customer/self-build homes) together with amenity space, landscaping and associated works.

 Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 68 above, Councillor Wiggins had declared that she was one of the local Ward Members for Alresford and that she was also pre-determined. She therefore did not sit as a member of the Committee for this item but instead sat in the public gallery and exercised her right, as Ward Member, to speak on the application. Councillor Wiggins then left the room, whilst the Committee deliberated upon the application and reached its decision.

Also, earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 68, Councillor Scott had declared that he was one of the local Ward Members for Alresford as well as the Caller-In and that he would be speaking on this item in both capacities.

Members were told that this outline proposal sought up to 100 dwellings, including 60 age restricted homes, 30% affordable housing, 5 no. custom/self-build plots and 5 no. homes for first time buyers, together with 2.7ha of public open space and enhanced pedestrian links. Although the site lay outside of the settlement development boundary, the Council’s housing land supply shortfall had engaged the ‘tilted balance’, and the scheme delivered substantial social benefits by meeting a significant identified need for older persons’ accommodation, alongside economic and environmental benefits including extensive green infrastructure and Biodiversity Net Gain.

The Committee heard that the technical matters included highways, archaeology, drainage, ecology, trees, amenity and minerals which could all be satisfactorily addressed through conditions and planning obligations.

Members were made aware that the benefits of the scheme were considered to outweigh the limited landscape and policy harms, and that the development constituted sustainable development under the NPPF.

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 prior to the meeting which informed the Committee as follows:-

“Addendum to the officer report (Principle of Development section):

Agricultural Land Classification

Adopted Local Plan Section 2 Paragraph 7.3.1 states that in order to promote sustainable development, in considering where to select sites for new development in this Local Plan, the Council has taken particular care to assess the value of the landscape and, where practical, allocate sites with the lowest sensitivity, thereby helping to protect valued landscapes and the best and most versatile agricultural land.

The Glossary to the NPPF defines best and most versatile agricultural land as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC). Paragraph 187 b) of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Erection of 60 single storey dwellings for those ages 55 and over as well as those with or supporting someone with a disability, with associated site infrastructure and public open space.

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under Minute 68 above, Councillor Wiggins had declared that she was one of the local Ward Members but that she was not pre-determined and therefore she took part in the deliberations and decision-making on this application.

Also, Councillor Scott had declared, under Minute 68, that he was also one of the local Ward Members and that would be speaking on the item in that capacity.

Members were informed that this application proposed 60 age restricted bungalows with open space and infrastructure on land north of Avocet Place, which would deliver specialist accommodation including 18 affordable units. Although located outside of the settlement development boundary, the Council’s lack of a five-year housing land supply had engaged the ‘tilted balance’ in favour of sustainable development.

In the opinion of Officers, all technical matters, highways, drainage, ecology, landscaping and amenity had been demonstrated as acceptable or could be mitigated through conditions and/or a Section 106 agreement. The proposal was therefore recommended by Officers for approval, subject to conditions and the completion of the required legal agreement.

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 Lead (ML) in respect of the application.

There were no updates circulated to Members on this application.

Martin Scott, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Scott, one of the Ward Members, spoke in relation to the application.

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

RESOLVED that:-

1)    on appropriate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

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

It was noted for the public record that because Councillors Smith and White had been not present when this application was first debated (and subsequently deferred) at the last meeting (19 February 2026), they were precluded from taking part in the deliberations or decision-making process for this item.

Members recalled that this application sought a change of use from Class E to hot food takeaway (sui generis) with no external alterations. The unit was currently vacant, and the proposal would return it to active use, contributing positively to the vitality of the town centre.

The Committee was reminded that the application had been deferred to enable re-consultation with the Town Council and to consider a potential access blockage for the flat above. Updates to the Officer report (A.3) were in bold italic font and included an objection from the Town Council.

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:-

“Revision to Heritage Assessment (Paras 8.21–8.22):

Following further review and for the avoidance of doubt, the assessment of the proposal against the statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 has been expanded. While no external alterations are proposed, other than bin and cycle stores to the rear, and the visual impact remains negligible, recent case law confirms that the duty is not confined solely to appearance.

In Historic England v Milton Keynes Council [2018] EWHC 2007 (Admin), the High Court clarified that the terms “character or appearance” encompass more than built form, extending to historic uses and activity patterns that contribute to how a Conservation Area is understood and experienced. A change of use can therefore have implications for character even in the absence of physical works.

Accordingly, your officers have considered the proposal’s effects on the character of the Frinton and Walton Conservation Area. The Conservation Area Management Plan identifies this part of Connaught Avenue as forming a busier gateway area close to the station, with an established commercial character and significant pedestrian activity. This context supports a mix of active ground?floor uses and reflects an evolving history of retail and service?based activity.

The Management Plan also highlights the contribution of nearby key unlisted buildings at 53 and 55 Connaught Avenue, whose architectural interest enhances the street scene. As the application site is separate from these buildings and no external works are proposed, other than bin and cycle stores to the rear, the proposal would not alter their setting or diminish their contribution to the area.

Taking these factors together, the introduction of a hot food takeaway within an existing commercial frontage is not judged to erode the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.