Agenda and minutes

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

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Placey (with Councillor Smith substituting).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Thursday, 15 February 2024.

It was moved by Councillor Wiggins, seconded by Councillor McWilliams and unanimously:-

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Thursday 15 February 2024, 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 Sudra declared for the public record that, in relation to the Planning Application A.1 – 23/01375/FUL – Parkeston Railway Club, Hamilton Street, Parkeston, Harwich, CO12 4PQ that she did not attend the site visit and Planning Committee meeting the first time this Planning Application was considered on 16 January 2024 and that therefore, she would not take part in the discussion and decision making for that application but that she would remain in the meeting.

Councillor Fowler (Chairman) declared a personal interest in Planning Application A.1 – 23/01375/FUL – Parkeston Railway Club, Hamilton Street, Parkeston, Harwich, CO12 4PQ due to her knowing the applicants personally and she informed the meeting that therefore she would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making for this application and that Councillor White (as Vice-Chairman) would take over as Chairman for this item.

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 such Questions on Notice submitted by Councillors on this occasion.

Proposed permanent siting of 4 no. storage containers to rear of property to be used as storage.

Earlier on in the meeting as reported under Minute 85 above, Councillor Sudra had declared for the public record that she had not attended the original site visit and meeting of the Planning Committee on 16 January 2024 when this Planning Application had first been considered. Therefore, she did not partake in the discussion and decision making on this application, but she did remain in the meeting.

Also, under Minute 85 above, Councillor Fowler (Chairman) had declared a personal interest. She therefore withdrew from the meeting and took no part whilst the Committee deliberated and made its decision on this application. The Chair was thereupon occupied by the Vice-Chairman (Councillor White).

Committee members were reminded that the application sought to change the use of part of the Parkeston Railway Club car park to site four containers for use by the charity NEST for storage purposes. It had been noted that the proposed use was not restricted and that it might be used for general storage purposes both domestic and commercial.

Members were told that the applicant had detailed the intention for volunteers to access the containers to facilitate deliveries and maintain stock during the day. Local residents/families in need would also be invited to the site by prior arrangement to collect specific items to assist their day-to-day living.

The Committee was aware that the proposal was not considered by Officers to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and that it would not result in any significant impact to neighbouring amenities, and that it was acceptable in terms of highway impacts and flood risk.

Officers reminded Members that the application had been originally presented to the Planning Committee on 16 January 2024. The Committee had resolved to defer a decision on the application at that time in order to allow Officers to discuss the proposal with the applicant for the following reasons:

-       How access to the neighbouring use/s shall be maintained as safe.

-       Review of the layout to establish if by redesigning the scheme enhancements can be made.

-       To allow resolution of ownership matters in terms of notification requirements and any resultant further representations.

Updates made to the Officer Planning Committee report following the meeting on 16 January 2024 were noted in bold text.

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 (AP) in respect of the application.

There were no updates circulated to Members for this Planning Application.

Erection of 3 dwellings and associated ancillary buildings, drainage systems, boundary treatments, hard surfacing with vehicular access from Thorpe Road.

 Following a short break before this Planning Application was presented, the Chairman (Councillor Fowler) returned to the meeting and re-occupied the Chair for the rest of the meeting.

Committee members were told that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as it followed a refusal by Members (at the Planning Committee’s meeting on 28 September 2023) of Application 22/01332/FUL for the same type of development.

Members were also told that the application sought full planning permission for the erection of three dwellings on a small parcel of land that formed part of a much larger site for which the Council had granted outline planning permission. The outline planning permission (19/00524/OUT) allowed for up to 280 dwellings, a new primary school and children’s nursery, up to 3,000sqm of office space and associated infrastructure. Reserved Matters approval was recently granted by Members (22/00979/DETAIL) for 277 dwellings, 1,910m² commercial floorspace, railway footbridge, and associated infrastructure pursuant to outline planning permission 19/00524/OUT.

The Committee heard that, because it was proposed that the three dwellings were accessed across land that was outside the red line of outline planning permission, the applicant had been required to submit a separate application for full planning permission, so it was not pursuant to the outline planning permission. If that application was approved that would result in a total of 280 dwellings within the area that had outline planning permission, that would be consistent with the maximum number of dwellings that were allowed under the outline planning permission.

Members were informed that there was no objection to the principle of residential development as the land already had outline planning permission for residential development. Furthermore, the site was located within the Weeley Settlement Development Boundary and was allocated as a mixed-use development in the adopted Local Plan. The detailed design, layout, landscaping and scale were considered acceptable by Officers. There were no objections from consultees and Officers considered that the proposal would not result in harm to highway safety, biodiversity or to residential amenity of a level that would warrant the refusal of planning permission. The application was therefore recommended for approval by Officers subject to the legal agreement and planning conditions listed in the Officer report.

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 subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (AN) in respect of the application.

There were no updates circulated to Members on this Planning Application.

Will Vote, the applicant’ agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Peter Harris, the Ward Member, spoke in favour of the application.

There were no questions asked by Members on this occasion.

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

RESOLVED that -

1)    on appropriate terms as summarised below and those as may be deemed necessary to the satisfaction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, to allow a variation of Condition 1 (Approved plans) of 17/01482/DETAIL to replace drawing numbers 102 and 2 Rev. E with drawing numbers 102 Rev. A and 2 Rev. F.

Committee members were told that the application was before Members at the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control, as he deemed it to be in the public interest.

Members were also told that the application sought a variation to the reserved matters regarding Bellway Homes’ Henderson Park development of 98 homes off Landermere Road, Thorpe-le-Soken. The application concerned only a very small portion of the site on the eastern boundary, at the end of Henderson Road being approximately 0.018 hectares of the overall site area of 5.6 hectares. That portion of the site formed part of the perimeter landscaping and open space as originally approved.

The Committee heard that the proposed variation sought to remove a small section of hedgerow and lawned area on the eastern perimeter to enable that to accord with the approved Henderson Road connection to the adjacent development for 28 bungalows currently under construction. While the approved road link already superseded, in part, the affected area, the variation updated the open space plan that the original reserved matters and Section 106 agreement for the 98 homes referred to.

Members were informed that, although the site technically formed part of the overall open space provision as originally approved, due to its small size, peripheral siting, and juxtaposition with the defined areas of amenity space and play area elsewhere on the site, the removal of that section, in the opinion of Officers, would not result in any material harm to the useability or the amenity value of the open space for residents and it was a significant material consideration that this judgement had already taken place when the 28 bungalows and associated road link had been decided.

Members also heard that the resultant open space would continue to provide ample, usable open space provision in excess of Local Plan Policy DI1 requirements for a development of that size.

Officers told Members that, the proposed variation would not alter the existing layout or situation to an extent that would result in any harm to residential amenity, including pedestrian or highway safety.

The Committee was made aware that the planning obligations associated with the development were secured via a Section 106 Legal Agreement attached to the outline consent. The application sought a variation to the reserved matters application and a variation to the original Section 106 Agreement was not therefore required.

Finally, Members heard that for the reasons set out above, in the absence of any material harm resulting from the development, 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 representation 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 update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting, with details of the correction to a drawing number at Paragraph  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

New vehicular access.

Councillor McWilliams stated for the record that she had no relation to the applicants, however the application site was in her Ward.

Members heard that the proposal sought planning permission for a new vehicular access to the site that would measure a maximum of 4.8m in width.

It was reported that the proposal was a minor improvement to the site and was a small-scale change and would match other similar development within the surrounding area. The proposal was deemed by Officers to be of an acceptable size, scale and appearance with no significant adverse effects on the visual or other amenities of the area including neighbouring sites.

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 Head of Planning and Building Control (JPG) in respect of the application.

There were no updates circulated to Members in relation to this application.

There were no public speakers on this Application.

It was moved by Councillor M Cossens, seconded by Councillor Smith and unanimously:-

RESOLVEDthat:-

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 8.2, 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 sending to the applicant of any informative notes as may be deemed necessary.