The Chairman (Councillor Fowler) informed the meeting that she was proposing to defer consideration of Planning Application A.1 – 24/00560/OUT – Wellwick, Colchester Road, St Osyth, CO16 8HS until another meeting of the Committee on the grounds that the Committee had not been able to get access on the site visit for the St Osyth Priory to look at the Heritage building (associated, and to be enabled, as part of the proposal).

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

RESOLVED that any consideration of application A.1 – 24/00560/OUT – Wellwick, Colchester Road, St Osyth, CO16 8HS be deferred until another meeting of the Committee to enable a further site visit to be arranged that will include the necessary access to the Priory Grounds.

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

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Wiggins (with no substitution).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 10 June 2025.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 10 June 2025, 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.

Councillors Alexander and Smith both declared an Interest in relation to Planning Application 24/01890/FUL – Land at High Street Car Park, Carnarvon Road, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15 6QF. Both Councillors informed the Committee that they would withdraw from the meeting and leave the room whilst the Committee deliberated on this application and reached its decision.

Councillor White declared for the public record that he had not attended the site visit in relation to Planning Application 25/00755/FUL – Land to the North-East of Bloomfield Cottage, Grange Road, Lawford. He therefore informed the Committee that he would remain in the room but not take part in the deliberation and decision-making on 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 no such Questions on Notice submitted by Councillors on this occasion.

Outline Planning Application (Access only to be considered and all other matters reserved) – Outline planning application for the erection of 37 dwellings, with all matters reserved other than the use of access from Colchester Road (as consented under 20/01124/OUT), associated public open space, landscaping and all associated ancillary works.

This item had been deferred for the reasons set out in Minute 15 above.  

Construction of new single storey dwelling with associated three bay cart lodge, parking and turning area.

Earlier on in the meeting as reported under Minute 18 above, Councillor White had declared for the public record that he had not attended the site visit for this application. He therefore remained in the room but did not take part in the deliberations and decision making on this application.

The Committee heard that planning permission (ref. 21/01718/FUL) had been granted on 17 April 2024 for the construction of a two-bedroom bungalow on a smaller site, with a three-year implementation timeframe. That permission remained extant and was considered by Officers to carry significant weight in the planning balance, despite the site being located outside any designated Settlement Development Boundary (SDB). The current proposal sought to replace this with a larger, two-bedroom dwelling on an expanded site, incorporating substantial landscape enhancements. Crucially, the net effect remained a single dwelling in this location. From a general sustainability standpoint, the overall impact was considered by Officers to be comparable to that of the approved two-bedroom bungalow.

Members were told that the proposed development involved the removal of unsightly existing structures and was regarded by Officers as a more effective and visually appropriate use of the land compared to the extant approval. The scheme would have no adverse impact on residential amenity, and the access and highway safety implications remained broadly in line with the extant approval. Subject to conditions, the proposal was also considered by Officers to offer landscape and biodiversity benefits that arguably exceeded those of the previously approved scheme.

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.

There were no updates circulated to Members on this application.

There were no public speakers on this application.

Demolition of existing multi-story car park and clearnace of site. Construction of replacement multi-story car park, 28no. residential (Class C3) apartments, and 5no. flexible units (Class E, F1, F2 and related Sui Generis uses).

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under Minute 18 above, Councillors Alexander and Smith had both declared an Interest in this application. They thereupon withdrew from the meeting and left the room whilst the Committee deliberated on this application and reached its decision.

Members were told that this application was before the Planning Committee on the basis that the applicant and owner of the site was Tendring District Council. The application sought the demolition of the existing multi-story car park and all other structures, to be replaced by a new multi-story car park providing 301 spaces, the erection of 28 affordable residential units and the erection of 1,330sqm of flexible commercial floorspace.

Officers made Members aware that, since the resolution of approval subject to securing a Section 106 legal agreement for affordable housing provision and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) by the Planning Committee in March 2025, it had not been possible to enter into such a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the monitoring of the BNG. That was due to Tendring District Council being the landowner, and alternative arrangements between the applicant and legal services to secure those legal obligations had been agreed. That was because the delivery of the onsite habitat creation and enhancement works, and arrangements for its subsequent management and monitoring, required approval by the Local Planning Authority through the discharge of the statutory BNG condition. To facilitate those agreements to achieve the same outcome as the Planning Committee had resolved in March 2025, a change in resolution was required. That included a further planning condition requiring the submission of a 30-year Habitat Monitoring and Management Plan (HMMP) prior to the commencement of development.

To address the outstanding matter, it was proposed to allow BNG to be completed solely through the use of planning conditions instead of a legal agreement. Condition 18 of the earlier report, which required the submission of a biodiversity gain plan, was proposed to remain. However, it was now recommended to include one further condition requiring the submission of a 30-year Habitat Monitoring and Management Plan (HMMP) prior to the commencement of development. The full details of that condition were shown in the Officer report (Condition 20), however it would require details of features to be managed, ecological trends/constraints that might influence management, details of monitoring and a timetable, as well as reporting on specific years.

The Committee was informed that all other elements of the proposed development remained exactly as per the report put before Members of the Planning Committee in March 2025.

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 (JP-G) in respect of the application.

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting which informed the Committee as follows:-

“a) The recommendation is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

To seek the Planning Committee’s approval to adopt the revised Planning Service Enforcement Policy and the associated Harm Assessment.

Members were told that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required planning authorities to consider publishing a local planning enforcement policy or plan which described how the Council would manage planning enforcement in a way which was appropriate to their specific area. The NPPF also made clear that planning enforcement was discretionary and local authorities should act proportionately in responding to breaches of planning control.

The Committee heard that the purpose of the policy was to provide elected Members and the wider public with a clear understanding of how planning enforcement would be delivered and the criteria used in making assessments of potential breaches of planning law.

It was reported that the Planning Service Enforcement Policy document had been updated from the version last adopted with the approval of the Planning Committee in September 2022 to address areas requiring updating and taking the opportunity to make improvements.

Members were made aware that some notable areas of the new Enforcement Policy where changes from the 2022 version were proposed included:

1.    Integration with Building Control Enforcement

The current 2022 policy only covered planning enforcement and did not include any reference to how the Council might deal with breaches of building control regulations, which could have significant safety and compliance implications.

Members also heard that the revised document took the opportunity to incorporate Building Control Enforcement, ensuring that non-compliance with building regulations (which could be a criminal offence) was addressed alongside planning breaches. Building Control was now required to have an Enforcement Policy under Building Safety Regulator requirements introduced recently, and if not included in the document, must form a separate policy for the Council or otherwise it represented a risk to the Council and potential penalties.

2.    Prioritisation and Response Times

Officers made Members aware that the 2022 policy referred to four priority levels (Levels 1 to 4) for the consideration of enforcement complaints, which in practice had proven to be unnecessary and, for some cases, ineffective. The current policy required urgent breaches to be investigated within 2 working days, while the least urgent could take up to 15 days. However, in practice, Officers had been able to carry out most visits quicker than 15 days.

The revised policy simplified priorities into a single standard response time (5 working days) but allowed for immediate action in urgent cases (e.g. demolitions, protected trees). A traffic light system approach (Red, Amber, Green) was now proposed to help determine urgency.

3.    Improved Transparency & Public Accountability

Members were also informed that the Council had, in recent years, improved public accessibility to information on enforcement cases and their progress. In the past, information had not always been readily available online, and complainants had had to wait for 21-day updates with limited details.

The new policy reflected current practice which ensured that all live enforcement cases (except confidential ones) were published online. Updates were more structured, with specific reporting stages as detailed in the policy.

4.    Clearer Enforcement Decision-Making Framework

The current 2022 version of the Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To seek the Planning Committee’s agreement to delegate future decision making powers to the Head of Planning and Building Control in respect of proposals for ‘Habitat Banks’ including their approval, entering into legal agreements and future enforcement. To also seek the Committee’s agreement to consultation arrangements for the processing of Habitat Bank proposals. These matters are referred to the Planning Committee at the request of the Cabinet, following its decision on 21 October 2024 to adopt an interim planning policy on Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG).

The Committee was made aware that, on 21 October 2024, the Cabinet had considered a report of the Portfolio Holder responsible for Housing and Planning seeking their agreement to adopt a policy statement on ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’ (BNG) to serve as the Council’s interim corporate position on the subject, ahead of detailed consideration as part of the forthcoming Local Plan review.

Members were informed that the policy as adopted for interim use was now applicable both in the determination of planning applications and in the consideration of proposals for ‘Habitat Banks’. Habitat Banks were parcels of land where habitats had been created or enhanced, in advance, to provide an uplift of biodiversity units. Those surplus biodiversity units could then be sold to developers to meet their BNG requirements ‘off-site’. In order to sell off-site biodiversity units, there were a number of legislative criteria that must be met; and whilst the establishment of a Habitat Bank did not require planning permission, in many cases it would require landowners to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement with the Council alongside a formal registration process with Natural England.

As well as agreeing to the adoption of the policy statement, the Cabinet had resolved to invite the Planning Committee, at its earliest convenience, to consider and determine how it would exercise its power in respect of Council decisions on entering into legal agreements with landowners under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act for the purposes of setting up Habitat Banks, guided by the aforementioned policy and the advice of Officers – including the extent to which the Committee deemed it appropriate for such decision-making powers to be delegated to Officers; and any arrangements for public consultation on specific proposals. That was because this was a fairly new area of work with no explicit arrangements set out in the Council’s Constitution in respect of delegated powers and no legislative requirements around public consultation.

It was reported that it was recommended by Officers that the consideration, approval and entering into Section 106 agreements with landowners for the establishment of Habitat Banks should be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control, along with decisions around future enforcement action against non-compliance. If agreed, it was recommended that those arrangements should be put forward for consideration, as part of a future review of the Council’s Constitution, as to whether explicit amendments to the wording were required.

The Committee heard that it was also recommended by Officers that no specific requirements for public or other stakeholder consultation on Habitat Bank proposals needed to be put in place, apart from technical consultation with suitably qualified ecologists for the purpose of seeking their professional advice.

Members were told that it was important to emphasise that the establishment of a Habitat Bank (as described in the Officer report (A.5)) was a different and separate concept and process from the determination of planning applications for new development that, in many cases, had a requirement to address Biodiversity Net  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.