In the absence of the Chairman of the Committee (Councillor Fowler), the Chair was occupied by the Vice-Chairman (Councillor White).

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), Fowler (with no substitution), Sudra (with no substitution) and Wiggins (with no substitution).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 14 April 2026..

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 14 April 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.

Prior to the commencement of the meeting, Councillor Bray had informed the relevant Officers that he had the following conflicts of interest in relation to the planning applications listed on the agenda for this meeting:-

(i)       Application 25/01061/FULHH – 21 Harwich Road, Little Clacton – Predetermined;

(ii)     Application 25/01893/FULHH – 21 Harwich Road, Little Clacton – Predetermined;

(iii)    Application 25/01788/FUL – Land rear of 64 – 68 Holland Road, Little Clacton – Predetermined; and

(iv)    Application 26/00293/FUL – 8 Harold Road, Frinton-on-Sea – Non-Registerable Interest insofar as he personally knew the applicant.

Councillor Bray therefore did not attend the meeting in his usual capacity as a member of the Committee but instead sat in the public gallery. Councillor Bray had also previously indicated to Officers that he would speak on applications 25/01061/FULHH and 25/01893/FULHH in his capacity as the local Ward Councillor.

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.

Various works including extension to outbuilding, extension to home, hardstanding, drainage and swimming pool. (Retrospective).

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under Minute 85 above, it had been recorded that Councillor Bray had declared that he was pre-determined on this application.

It was reported that this application was before the Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Planning and Building Control, and that it sought retrospective planning permission to retain a single storey side/rear extension that projected from the rear of the dwelling house and which connects to 2no outbuildings. To the north-east of this, a large pool house complete with an enclosed outdoor seating area had been erected and which connected to the rear extension. Towards the rear of the site and adjacent to the shared boundary with 19 Harwich Road lay a single storey outbuilding, and 5no. heat pumps had been installed within the rear of the site.

Members were informed that planning permission was required as the extension exceeded 4m in depth and the outbuilding exceeded 2.5m in height within 2m of the boundary.

Officers felt that the proposed works would not result in significant visual harm occurring to the character and appearance of the area but that they would pose significant and detrimental harm to existing neighbouring amenities sufficient enough to warrant an Officers’ recommendation of refusal for this application.

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 Assistant Planner (BB) in respect of the application.

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

Laura Head, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Shaun Taylor, member of the public, spoke against the application.

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

Councillor Jeff Bray, the Ward Member, spoke against the application.

Erection of new front wall, gates and resin driveway, along with fencing to the side boundaries.

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under Minute 85 above, it had been recorded that Councillor Bray had declared that he was pre-determined on this application.

It was reported that this application was before the Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Planning and Building Control, and that it sought retrospective planning permission to retain a new front wall with a gate, driveway and fencing along the shared boundary. Planning permission was required as the wall, gate and fencing all exceeded 1m in height and were adjacent to a public highway.

Members were informed that, in the opinion of the Officers, the proposed works would not result in significant visual harm occurring to the character and appearance of the area, nor would it pose significant harm to the neighbouring amenities. However, it would pose a serious and detrimental risk of harm to highway users, sufficient enough to warrant an Officers’ recommendation of refusal for this application.

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 Assistant Planner (BB) in respect of the application.

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

Shaun Taylor, member of the public, spoke against the application.

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

Councillor Jeff Bray, the Ward Member, spoke against the application.

It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Goldmanand:-

RESOLVED that –

(a)     the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse planning permission subject to the reason(s) as set out below or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the reasons for refusal as referenced is retained.

“The height of the wall, gate and fencing along the shared boundaries will reduce the visibility of users exiting the application site, as well as pedestrians utilising the public footpath abutting the boundary wall. This impeded visibility will pose a serious and detrimental risk to pedestrian safety who frequent the public footpath and who are entitled to cross highway land in a safe and unobstructed manner. 

The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 and Policy CP2 of Part 2 of the Adopted Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond.”

(b)     the applicant be sent any informative notes, as may be deemed necessary, by the Head of Planning and Building Control.

Erection of four detached dwellings.

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under Minute 85 above, it had been recorded that Councillor Bray had declared that he was pre-determined on this application.

It was reported that this application had been put before the Committee for its determination as it was a departure from the Local Plan.

Members were informed that, in the opinion of the Officers, this proposal for four single?storey dwellings was considered sustainable and acceptable in principle, and subject to conditions, it would result in no significant harm to residential amenity, highway safety or ecology.

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.

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting which informed the Committee of an additional paragraph for the Officer report in relation to the Strategic Green Gap assessment, as set out below, and which also added Local Plan Policy PPL6 to Section 3 (Planning Policy) of the Officer report.

“Part of the application site is located within the Strategic Green Gap. Policy PPL6 of the Tendring Local Plan seeks to protect and retain the separate identity and prevent coalescence of settlements. Any development permitted must be consistent with other policies in the plan and must not lead to the coalescence of settlements.

The site is bounded to the north and west by existing development, with residential properties along Holland Road and farm buildings associated with Swallow Farm extending beyond the site to the northeast and southeast. As such, the proposed development would be viewed against a backdrop of established built form. The site does not exhibit a strong rural character and is better described as transitional in nature. Given its context and relationship with the surrounding development, the proposal would not result in the coalescence of settlements or cause harmful erosion of the green gap.

Moreover, the Inspector for a previous appeal (APP/ P1560/W/19/3238814) for 8 dwellings in this location explained that the scale of the appeal proposal is such that it would only have a marginal effect on the gap between the settlements. As the number of dwellings has been reduced for the current scheme, the development is not considered to cause any significant impact upon, or overriding harm to, the overarching aim of the Strategic Green Gap.

It is worth noting that this is also the view the Council adopted for extant planning permission 23/01691/OUT.”

Bill Marshall, member of the public, spoke in support of the application.

It was moved by Councillor Goldman, seconded by Councillor Alexanderand unanimously:-  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Demolition of existing fire damaged 1 1/2 storey dwelling and replacement with 2 1/2 storey self-build dwelling.

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under Minute 85 above, it had been recorded that Councillor Bray had declared a non-registerable interest in this application insofar as he personally knew the applicant.

It was reported that this proposal sought planning permission for the demolition of a fire?damaged dwelling and its replacement with a reduced?scale 2½?storey self?build home. A previous application had been refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal due to concerns regarding its impact on the Frinton Conservation Area and neighbouring amenity.

Compared with the previous scheme, Officers felt that this amended design incorporated reduced height, massing and bulk, and resulted in a form that integrated more comfortably within the street scene, preserved the setting of the nearby Conservation Area, and was not considered to adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residential properties sufficiently to warrant a recommendation of refusal. The development was considered by Officers to comply with the relevant Local Plan and national planning policies, and its approval was therefore recommended 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 Assistant Planner (ER) in respect of the application.

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

Jayson Spencer, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

David Moore, member of the public, spoke against the application.

Councillor Mark Cossens, the Mayor of Frinton and Walton Town Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Richard Everett, one of the Ward Members and the caller-in, spoke against the application.