Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillor Bray, with no substitute and Councillor Placey, with Councillor Clifton substituting.

To confirm and sign as correct records, the minutes of the meetings of the Committee, held on Wednesday 2 March 2022 and Tuesday 15 March 2022.

It was moved by Councillor Baker, seconded by Councillor Alexander and RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 2 and 15 March 2022 be approved as correct records.

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 Alexander declared a personal interest in Planning Application A.5 2/00416/FUL – MARTELLO CAR PARK WEST ROAD, CLACTON ON SEA CO15 1AH due to his being a Ward Member. He informed the Committee that he was pre-determined on this matter and that therefore, he would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations on this application.

Councillor Clifton declared a personal interest in Planning Application A.3 21/01527/FUL – 152 CONNAUGHT AVENUE FRINTON ON SEA, CO13 9AD due to his being a Town Councillor for Frinton and Walton Town Council. He informed the Committee that he was not pre-determined on this matter. However, due to the fact that this item had been previously deferred by the Committee and that he had not been present at that previous meeting, he stated that he would  not participate in the Committee’s deliberations on this application.

Councillor Harris declared a personal interest in Planning Applications A.1 21/00977/DETAIL - LAND TO THE SOUTH OF WEELEY ROAD, EAST OF BIRCH AVENUE AND PINE CLOSE, GREAT BENTLEY and A.2 21/00978/FUL – LAND TO THE SOUTH OF WEELEY ROAD, GREAT BENTLEY. He informed the Committee that he was pre-determined on those matters and that therefore, he would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations on those applications. In addition, he had not attended the Committee’s site visits for those applications which would have precluded him, in any case, from being able to participate in the consideration of those applications.

Councillor Codling declared a personal interest in Planning Application A.3 21/01527/FUL – 152 CONNAUGHT AVENUE FRINTON ON SEA, CO13 9AD. He informed the Committee that he was pre-determined on this matter and that therefore, he would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations on this application. In addition, he had not attended the Committee’s site visit for this application which would have precluded him, in any case, from being able to participate in the consideration of this application.

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 none on this occasion.

The current application seeks approval of the reserved matters relating to outline planning permission 17/0881/OUT, which granted planning permission for the erection of up to 136 dwellings with access from Weeley Road, informal recreation space, a local area of play and associated development. This application includes details of appearance, landscaping, access, layout and scale which were not included as part of the outline.

For the reasons stated in Minute 233 above, Councillor Harris did not participate in the Committee’s consideration and determination of this application.

Members recalled that this application had been originally brought before the Planning Committee at its meeting held on 21^st December 2021. Updates to the original Officer report submitted to that meeting were shown in bold text throughout the report now before the Committee

Members were aware that they had deferred this application for the following reasons:-

·         “The footpath link to Birch Avenue as proposed was too narrow to be considered acceptable in principle

·         Retention of Oak trees in the field

·         Visibility splays to access

·         Archaeological exploration

·         Clustering of affordable housing was to be reconsidered with better ‘pepper potted’ across the development

·         Consideration was to be given to extending 30mph speed limit to the east along Weeley Road”

In response to those points, the following updates were made by Officers:-

Footpath Link

“The applicant had agreed to purchase the dwelling 76 Birch Avenue. Therefore, the constrained width of the footpath and cycle connection had been resolved. The applicant was now able to comply with the condition applied to the outline consent as demonstrated in the amended plans submitted with this application.”

Retention of two Oak trees in the site

“The two large mature Oaks situated in the western portion of the site were included in the submitted tree report. They had both been classified as B - category trees due to the presence of decay at the base of each tree. In addition, the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer had visually inspected these trees on three separate occasions to assess their condition. He had concluded that whilst the trees were clearly visible from the adjacent highway and were prominent features in their setting, they had a limited, safe, useful life expectancy, resulting from decay in the main stems of both trees. For this reason, the trees did not meet the criteria under which they merited formal legal protection by means of a Tree Preservation Order. Consequently they were not a physical constraint on the development potential of the site.

The landscaping proposals for the site included provision for over 100 new trees to be planted, Officers therefore concluded no objection to the loss of the two Oaks.”

Visibility splays to access

“The Highway Authority had requested visibility splays of 2.4 metre setback with 90 metres in each direction from the proposed access with Weeley Road. These visibility splays would accord with the requirements in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). Given the location of the proposed site access, and proximity to a change in speed limit from 60mph to 30 mph, the Highway Authority required the more onerous 90m visibility splay contained in DMRB to be provided, rather than the 57 metre visibility splay for traffic speeds of up to 37 mph in Manual for Streets (2007).

The Highway Authority had no objection subject to additional conditions, which included moving the existing 30 mph sign, 50  ...  view the full minutes text for item 235.

The current application seeks approval of the engineering operations required in support of application for Reserved Matters submitted on adjacent land Ref: 21/00977/DETAIL (136 dwellings) including attenuation basin, public footpath, access visibility and construction access.

For the reasons stated in Minute 233 above, Councillor Harris did not participate in the Committee’s consideration and determination of this application.

Members recalled that this application had been originally brought before the Planning Committee at its meeting held on 21^st December 2021. Updates to the original Officer report submitted to that meeting were shown in bold text throughout the report now before the Committee

The Committee was aware that it had previously deferred consideration of this application as the associated applications to the west of the site, the Section 73 application for a narrower link to Birch Avenue and the Reserved Matters application for the associated outline application had been refused or deferred. No new information directly related to this application. The following documents had also been revised to replace those previously submitted under the full planning application 21/00978/FUL simply in the interests of consistency namely 48737-C-004C – Drainage Layout (Eastern land) and 48737-C-005B – Construction Access.

The Committee was reminded that this application had been referred to it at the request of the Assistant Director (Planning) as the original outline application had been refused by the Local Planning Authority and its decision had subsequently been overturned by the Planning Inspectorate.

Members were reminded that the current application sought approval of the engineering operations required in support of the application for Reserved Matters submitted on adjacent land ( 21/00977/DETAIL (136 dwellings)), including an attenuation basin, public footpath, and access visibility and construction access.

The detailed design, layout, landscaping and scale were considered by Officers to be acceptable.  Officers felt that this proposal would result in no material harm to residential amenity or highway safety. The loss of the agricultural land was also considered by Officers to be acceptable due, in part, to the modest size of the drainage features proposed and their location.

The application had been therefore recommended by Officers for approval subject to a legal agreement to secure the management of the open space, drainage features, landscaping and non- adopted highway network.

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 (NW) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of a question asked by a member of the public as to why Network Rail had not been consulted.

The  Committee was advised that as the development  was taking place outside of 10 metres from the railway land (and only low level grass land  was proposed within 10 metres of the railway land), Officers had considered that  consultation with Network Rail was unnecessary in this particular instance.

Samuel Caslin, the applicant’s representative, spoke in support of the application.

Alison Clarke, a local resident, spoke against the application.

This application was deferred at Planning Committee on the 18th January 2022, to enable amended plans to be provided by the applicant to Frinton and Walton Town Council for consideration to overcome their objection to the proposal. However, their request for a more symmetrical two-sloped design would be beyond the financial means of the applicant, it is also considered by Officers to increase the visual impact of the proposal. Therefore, as there appears no way forward, the applicant has requested that the application be considered (unamended) by the Planning Committee on its merits.

For the reasons stated in Minute 233 above, Councillors Clifton and Codling did not participate in the Committee’s consideration and determination of this application.

The Committee recalled that Councillor Nick Turner had “called in” this application, due to his concerns in relation to the impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area.

Members were aware that this application had been deferred at the Planning Committee’s meeting held on 18th January 2022, in order to enable amended plans to be provided by the applicant to Frinton and Walton Town Council for its consideration in an effort to overcome their objection to the proposal. However, the Town Council’s request for a more symmetrical two-sloped design had been found to be beyond the financial means of the applicant, and it was also considered by the Officers to increase the visual impact of the proposal. Therefore, as there appeared to be no way forward, the applicant had requested that the application be considered (un-amended) by the Planning Committee on its merits.

The Committee was reminded that this proposal was for a disabled access ramp to be located at the front entrance to the pharmacy. The site was located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Frinton-on-Sea.

The proposal was considered by Officers to be of a size, scale and design in keeping with the overall site and surrounding area.  Officers had no concerns regarding the impact on the neighbouring residential properties and subject to conditions the proposal was considered by Officers to be acceptable.

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 (JJ) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of an assessment of the handrail in relation to material planning considerations such as: Appearance and Heritage Impact, Amenity, other considerations and consultations.

Public Speaking had taken place on this application at the meeting held on 18 January 2022 and therefore there was no public speaking allowed at this time.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Alexander and RESOLVED that the Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to the following planning conditions (and reasons):-:

Conditions and Reasons:

1.    Thede  ...  view the full minutes text for item 237.

The application has been called in by Councillor I Henderson.

The proposal is for the construction of a new part two/part three storey building to provide 8 units of residential accommodation and 1 additional commercial unit (ground floor commercial unit as well as the existing shopfront to be retained). The site is located within the settlement development boundary of Harwich and Dovercourt and the Dovercourt Conservation Area.

The Committee was aware that this application had been called in by Councillor Ivan Henderson.

It was reported that this proposal was for the construction of a new part two/part three storey building in order to provide 8 units of residential accommodation and 1 additional commercial unit (ground floor commercial unit as well as the existing shopfront to be retained). The site was located within the settlement development boundary of Harwich and Dovercourt and the Dovercourt Conservation Area.

Members were informed that the proposed scheme had been amended in line with extensive consultation with Essex County Council’s (ECC) Place Services Heritage Officers and was considered by Officers to be of a size, scale and design in keeping with the Conservation Area.  Subject to conditions and mitigation measures Officers had no concerns regarding the impact on the environment, neighbouring residential properties, the recently approved car park, area and the proposal was by them to be acceptable in regards to Highways and Parking impacts.

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 (JJ) in respect of the application.

Councillor Ivan Henderson, the local Ward Member who had “called–in” the application, spoke against the application.

This application has been referred to the Planning Committee as Tendring District Council is the applicant.

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a new beacon for the Queen’s platinum jubilee.

Councillor Alexander had earlier in the meeting (and for the reasons set out in Minute 233 above), declared an interest and therefore, left the meeting at this point whilst the Committee   deliberated and determined this application.

Members were aware that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as Tendring District Council was the applicant.

It was reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a new beacon for the Queen’s platinum jubilee.

The application site was located within the settlement development boundary of Clacton–on-Sea.

The Committee was reminded that Local Plan Policy PP8 stated that in order to attract visitors to the Tendring District and support economic growth in tourism, the Council would generally support proposals that would help to improve the tourism appeal of the District to visitors.

The proposed beacon was considered by Officers to be acceptable in terms of design and appearance and it was not considered by them to cause any material impact upon neighbouring amenities.

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 (JJ) in respect of the application.

Councillor Chris Griffiths, a local Ward Member, spoke in support of the application.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Casey, seconded by Councillor Clifton and unanimously RESOLVED that the Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to the following planning conditions (and reasons):-

Conditions and Reasons:

1.    Thedevelopment herebypermitted shallbe begunbefore theexpiration ofthree yearsfrom 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.Thedevelopmentherebypermittedshallbe carriedout in strictaccordancewith the following approved plans:

- Beacon Plan – Scanned 9th March 2022

- Location Plan – Scanned 9th March 2022

Reason: In the interests of proper planning and for the avoidance of doubt.