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

An apology for absence was received on behalf of Councillor Goldman (with no substitution).

An apology for absence was received on behalf of the Corporate Director (Planning & Community).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 8 July 2025.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 8 July 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.

Councillor Fowler (Chairman) declared for the public record in relation to Planning Application 24/01922/VOC – Land to Rear of 135 and 137 Fronks Road, Dovercourt, CO12 4EF that she was one of the Ward Members. Councillor Fowler stated that she was predetermined and that therefore she would not participate in the Committee’s deliberations and decision making for this application and that Councillor White (Vice-Chairman) would take over as Chairman for that 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.

Outline Planning Application (Access to be considered) – Erection of 3 dwellings.

Members were told that the application sought outline consent with all matters reserved, apart from access, for the erection of three dwellings to the rear of the existing dwelling of West Manston, Windmill Road, Bradfield.

Notwithstanding the application site was partly outside of the Settlement Development Boundary, the principle of residential development in that location was acceptable on the strength of the prevailing character of development to the south of the application site and the support of Local Plan spatial strategies.

The Committee heard that the proposed development would represent sustainable development and would not result in any material harm in terms of archaeological interest, residential amenities, highway safety, tree protection, ecology and biodiversity and was acceptable in all other regards.

Members were updated that there were no objections from statutory consultees, although Bradfield Parish Council had objected to the proposal.

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 conditions.

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

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

“Additional planning condition proposed:

Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan for BNG Condition

Unless all BNG requirements are achieved via credits, no development shall commence on the site until a 30 year Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan/s under condition 4, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority for the site, and shall contain the following unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

a)    a description and evaluation of the planned habitat works for the creation and/or enhancement of the onsite habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan;

b)    the management measures to maintain the onsite habitat creation and/or enhancement works for a period of a least 30 years from the completion (defined for this purpose as first use and/or occupation unless agreed in writing by the LPA) of the development including: i) ecological trends and constraints on site that may influence management; ii) aims, objectives and targets for management e.g. links with local and national species and habitat action plans; iii) a description of the management operations necessary to achieving aims and objectives; iv) prescriptions for management actions; v) preparation of a works schedule, including annual works schedule; vi) mechanisms of adaptive management to account for necessary changes in work schedule to achieve the required targets;

c)    details of the monitoring methodology, to measure the effectiveness of the management of the onsite habitat creation and/or enhancement works together with the timetable for each element of the monitoring programme including when first implemented with provision for monitoring reports to be provided to the local planning authority in writing on year 1, 2,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Discharge of conditions application – 22/00556/FUL – Condition 3 (Detailed Layout), Condition 5 (Tree Protection measures), Condition 6 (Hard and Soft Landscaping), and Condition 13 (Cycle parking).

Members heard that the application was a Discharge of Condition Application relating to the details pursuant to conditions imposed on planning application approval reference 22/00556/FUL relating to a parcel of land centrally located within the Sacketts Grove Caravan Park site, on the western side of Jaywick Lane, Clacton-on-Sea.

The Committee was reminded that the Planning Committee resolved to approve application 22/00556/FUL for the ‘Change of use of land for the siting of up to 8 no. residential park homes’ at their meeting on the 4 July 2023, subject to conditions, including a requirements for the details of a revised layout to be referred to Committee for determination (Condition 3) to allow for the consideration of the Hornbeam tree, protection of existing amenity and to allow for improved access and parking arrangements.

Members were made aware that the application sought to discharge Condition 3 in relation to the detailed layout of the additional park home pitches, therefore it required referral to the Planning Committee for determination in line with the resolution. The proposed layout reduced the number of new park homes from 8 to 6, retained the Hornbeam tree and improved the overall spacing of the new park homes.

The application also sought approval of the details pursuant to Condition 5 – Tree protection measures, Condition 6 – Hard and Soft Landscaping, and Condition 13 – Cycle parking.

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 (AL) in respect of the application.

There were no updates circulated to Members on this occasion.

There were no speakers on this occasion.

There were no questions on this occasion.

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

RESOLVED that the Committee approve the details pursuant as follows:-

-       Condition 3 – Detailed Layout;

-       Condition 5 – Tree protection measures;

-       Condition 6 – Hard and Soft Landscaping; and

-       Condition 13 – Cycle parking.

Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act for Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of application 24/00254/FUL to increase the ground levels across the site.

Earlier on in the meeting as reported under Minute 27 above, Councillor Fowler (Chairman) had declared for the public record that she was one of the Ward Members. Councillor Fowler had further stated that she was predetermined, and she therefore withdrew from the meeting at this juncture 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).

Members were told that the application sought planning permission for the variation of the approved plans within 24/00254/FUL, in order to facilitate alterations to the ground levels across the site in comparison to what was previously approved. The level changes ranged across the site between -0.6 metres (towards the northern section of the site by Plot A) and 1.5 metres (to the southern section of the site by Plot E). The design, scale and layout of the development otherwise remained unaltered.

The Committee was reminded that the application was initially before the Planning Committee in June 2025; however, it was deferred by Members in order to allow for the submission of surface water drainage details as well as exploring for the boundary treatment and whether it would be feasible to amend the design.

Members heard that the agent for the application had provided a Drainage Technical Note as well as a Drainage Layout, which confirmed surface water was attenuated in tanks before it was discharged into the existing sewer at greenfield run off rates. The roads and driveways were all permeable and lead to a large attenuation tank underneath the block paved road, which led to an even larger tank under the road of the adjacent development before discharging into an Anglian Water manhole.

The Committee were made aware that with regard to the boundary treatment, the details provided remained as before. However, the agent for the application had provided details to show the extent of the height and materials on each of the site boundaries, as well as confirming the retaining walls were on the applicant’s land and the design was a combination of steel king posts and concrete sleepers. Furthermore, they had clarified that no overlooking concerns were generated, and whilst the fencing height could be reduced to 2 metres, that in turn would have reduced the privacy to neighbouring properties to the rear.

Finally, Officers continued to consider that the changes would not result in a significant detrimental impact to the street scene or character/appearance of the surrounding area, and on balance the harm to neighbouring amenities was not considered so significant that a refusal reason was justified.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.