Venue: Meeting will be held remotely in accordance with SI 2020/392. Link to the live stream is found here: https://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/livemeetings
Contact: Emma Haward or Ian Ford Telephone 01255686007 or 01255686584 Email firstname.lastname@example.org
Note: Link to the live stream is found here: https://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/livemeetings
Apologies for Absence and Substitutions
The Committee is asked to note any apologies for absence and substitutions received from Members.
There were none.
To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on
It was proposed that the reasons for deferral be explained for Planning Applications 19-00188 – Lower Farm East End Green, Brightlingsea CO7 0SX and 20-00202 - Brick Barn Residential Care Home, Kirby-Le-Soken CO13 0DB.
It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Harris and:-
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on Tuesday 16 June 2020 be approved as a correct record.
Declarations of Interest
Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Personal Interest, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.
Councillor Bray declared a personal interest in Planning Application 20-00119-FUL Oakleigh Residential Park, Weeley since he previously stated publically that this site should not be residential. He would withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate time.
Councillor Harris declared a personal interest in Planning Application 19-01706 Land South West of Horsley Cross Roundabout due to being the Ward Member for the neighbouring ward.
Councillor Harris also declared a personal interest in Planning Application 20-00119-FUL Oakleigh Residential Park, Weeley due to his being the Ward Member. Councillor Harris also declared that he called in this item to the Committee on behalf of Weeley Parish Council. Councillor Harris confirmed that he was not pre-determined regarding the matter and that therefore he would be able to participate in the consideration of the application.
Questions on Notice pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 38
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.
There were no questions on this occasion.
Outline planning application for employment development, comprising Phase 1 for 15,350 sqm of B2 development rising to a maximum building height of 21.7m and Phase 2 for up to 18,117 sqm of B1c / B2 and B8 uses rising to a maximum building height of 12m, together with associated access, landscaping, parking and drainage pond.
Councillor Harris had earlier in the meeting declared a personal interest in Planning Application 19-01706 Land South West of Horsley Cross Roundabout due to being a Parish Councillor for that locality, and also because he was the Ward Member for the neighbouring ward.
It was reported that the application site was approximately 11.2 ha in size and presently consisted of open agricultural land, with part of the site having been used for weekly car boot sales during March to October. It was in a rural area in the centre of the District and to the immediate south west of the A120/B1035 roundabout at Horsley Cross. Colchester was about 8 miles to the west and Harwich was about 9 miles to the east.
Members were made aware that an ‘extant’ consent for outline planning permission (13/00745/OUT) on the site had been approved by the Council on 4 August 2014 (with subsequent approval of reserved matters and Certificate of Lawfulness applications to confirm commencement of works) for “Development of site to provide a new industrial park with up to 28,280m2 of floorspace for B2 and B8 uses, a bus depot and 30m high telecommunications mast. All with associated access, landscaping, parking and highway improvements”.
It was considered that the development of the land would result in harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. However, with sensitive design of the buildings and careful use of 'bunding' and soft landscaping the development could result in the creation of iconic structures in a prominent setting. The development layout showed the retention of boundary trees, so that they were not threatened by the development proposal. Their physical protection during the construction phase of any development, that may be granted planning permission, could be secured by conditions.
With respect to ecology, provided the avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures described in the submitted Ecology Assessment were implemented, then there would be no residual effects significant at a local level or above and the scheme should result in a net gain in biodiversity. The development proposals were unlikely to have any significant effect on statutory or non-statutory designated sites.
ECC Highways and Highways England had raised no objections to the application subject to appropriate mitigation measures.
ECC Public Transportation Team were satisfied that with rigorous planning conditions to address the provision of a bespoke minibus service, alongside the provision of a workplace travel plan, that the scheme would deliver an appropriate level of sustainable transport measures to address the relatively isolated nature of the site from a public transportation perspective.
The lawful commencement of works on the existing consented scheme - which had kept that ‘extant’ - and the submission of the current application with a known end-user for the ‘Phase 1’ component of the site, indicated that there was now a realistic prospect of business activity on the site and it was hoped that this would be the economic catalyst for ‘Phase 2’ which would bring new businesses into the Tendring area.
It was felt ... view the full minutes text for item 23.
Proposed change of use to create a retirement park by allowing the residential use of 143 caravans approved under planning permissions APP/P1560/W/17/3183981 and 19/00707/FUL.
Councillor Harris had earlier in the meeting declared a personal interest in Planning Application 20-00119-FUL Oakleigh Residential Park, Weeley due to his being the Ward Member. Councillor Harris had also declared that he had called in this item to the Committee following a direct request from on behalf of Weeley Parish Council. Councillor Harris had confirmed that he was not pre-determined regarding the matter and that therefore he would be able to participate in the consideration of the application.
Councillor Bray had earlier in the meeting declared a personal interest in Planning Application 20-00119-FUL Oakleigh Residential Park, Weeley since he previously stated publically that the application this site should not be residential. He withdrew from the meeting at this time.
It was reported that this application sought permission to remove condition 5 of planning permission ref. APP/P1560/W/17/3183981 and condition 5 of planning permission ref. 19/00707/FUL which restricted the use of the approved caravans to holiday use only. It was proposed to create a retirement park which would allow for residential occupations but restricted to those over the age of 50.
Members were reminded that Paragraph 47 of the NPPF required that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The site lay outside of the Settlement Development Boundary of both Weeley and Weeley Heath in the Saved and Draft Local Plans and was not allocated for development.
Officers felt that in terms of applying the tilted balance to the planning merits of the case, given that the Council could not currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, there was a need to weigh up the following planning considerations put forward in support of the application; namely:
• Although the permitted caravans could only be occupied for holiday use at present, the caravan units were the same whether they were made available for holiday or residential occupation. Each of the extant permissions allowed for the caravans to remain in place all year round, and this proposal was not for any additional caravans or built development in addition to that which had already been permitted. In physical form, operational and land use terms (this was no longer a green field site), therefore, the development would not introduce any use of land or development that had not already been found to be acceptable, and the land would essentially remain in use as a park home site. The only change would be the form of occupation;
• The proposed development was considered to address the three pillars of ‘sustainable development’, namely economic, social and environmental sustainability. The proposed use would help contribute to the local economy; in environmental terms, the application did not propose any additional development and would retain the existing screening; and would be relatively socially sustainable, given that it had been accepted through previous approvals on this site that although it was outside the settlement boundary, there was suitable vehicular and public transport access to the site including local bus ... view the full minutes text for item 24.
Erection of two semi-detached dwellings.
It was reported that this application followed a previous application that had been refused by Members at their meeting held on February 2020 under planning application reference 16/01667/FUL. The application now before the Committee sought full planning permission for the erection of 2 no. three bedroom, semi-detached dwellings 1.5 storey in scale. The previously refused application had sought permission for 2 no. detached dwellings.
Members were aware that this application was before the Committee again at the request of Councillors Carlo Guglielmi, Val Guglielmi and Coley on the grounds that the revised development was not in keeping with its surrounds; was considered an overdevelopment of the site; would result in a negative impact on neighbours; and the previous refusal on site was a material consideration that must be followed when determining the application.
The Committee was informed that the application related to the land to the west of number 45 Harwich Road, Lawford. The site extended approximately 0.12 hectares in size and comprised an open grassed area of land between numbers 45 and 44 on the southern side of Harwich Road. On the boundary with the highway there was an established coniferous hedge. To the rear of the site were a range of glasshouses and commercial buildings accessed between the application site and number 45 Harwich Road. Those buildings were mainly redundant or used as storage.
The site was located outside of the settlement development boundary as defined within both the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft 2017 being almost equidistant from the Ardleigh and Lawford settlements.
Of particular relevance in this instance was the appeal decision for number 43 Harwich Road located approximately 20 metres to the west of the application site (appeal reference APP/P1560/W/18/3218683 allowed on 3rd May 2019). Application 18/00649/FUL for the erection of 1 no. 1.5 storey dwelling had been refused due to the location of the site being outside the defined development boundary and future occupants having to rely on their car to go about their everyday lives. However, the Inspector had concluded that the location of bus stops in close proximity to the site and the frequency of the bus service meant that sustainable travel other than by private car would be reasonably practicable in this location.
It was felt that the spacing around the dwellings, parking and garden provision in accordance with policy and standards demonstrated that the site would not be overdeveloped. The scale, height, design and appearance of the dwellings would not result in any material harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Members were advised that a legal agreement was required for this application in order to secure a financial contribution towards the Essex Coast Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS). A completed legal agreement to secure the required contribution had been received on 1st July 2020.
Officers considered that the principle of residential development in this location had been established by the recent appeal ... view the full minutes text for item 25.
Proposed first floor front extension.
Members were informed that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the applicant was an employee of Tendring District Council, in the position of Planning Team Leader.
It was reported that the proposed first floor extension would be located at the front of the property and would be visible from the street scene. However, its modest size was considered to be of a scale and nature appropriate to the site and the surrounding area. The use of matching materials would blend the development with the host dwelling.
Given the modest depth of the extension it was not considered to result in any material loss of light or outlook to the neighbouring properties.
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 (AL) in respect of the application.
An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:
(1) Correction to Agenda:
Paragraph 6.3 of the officer report described the dimensions of the proposed extension as 2.8 metres in width and 3.4 metres in depth with an overall height of 6 metres. The proposed extension was in fact 2.8 metres in width and approximately 1 metre in depth with an overall height of 6 metres.
Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Placey and unanimously RESOLVED that the Acting Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to:
Conditions and Reasons:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason - To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing No.1.
Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.