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

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bray (with no substitution), Codling (with no substitution) and Wiggins (with no substitution).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 17 March 2026.

It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Goldman and:-

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 17 March 2026, 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 Alexander declared a personal interest, in relation to Planning Application 26/00025/FUL – Former Public Convenience/Beach Patrol Unit, Existing Shelter and Small Hut Building, Kings Promenade, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15 5AF, in that he was one of the Ward Members and he was pre-determined. He would therefore not sit as a member of the Committee for this item but would retire from the room whilst this application was determined. However, he would also exercise his right, as one of the Ward Members, to speak on the application.

Councillor Scott, who was present in the public gallery, declared for the public record, in relation to the Planning Application 25/01795/FUL – Oak Lodge, Hall Road, Great Bromley, CO7 7TY, that he was one of the Ward Members for the application and that he would speak on the application in that capacity as well as in the capacity of the caller-in.

For the benefit of the public record, the Chairman (Councillor Fowler) mentioned that the Committee members had previously received a lobbying email from a member of the public for the Planning Application 25/01066/out – Land to the South of Weeley Road, Great Bentley but that the email would have no part of the consideration and decision-making on this application.

Councillor Griffiths, who was present in the public gallery, declared for the public record, in relation to the Planning Application 26/00025/FUL – Former Public Convenience/Beach Patrol Unit, Existing Shelter and Small Hut Building, Kings Promenade, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15 5AF, that he was one of the Ward Members and that he would speak on the application in that capacity.

Outline Planning Application (Access to be considered) – for up to 80 dwellings, parking, landscaping, drainage and all other associated infrastructure.

Members were told that this outline application proposed up to 80 dwellings with only the site access to be considered at this stage. The site was located outside (but abutted) the Settlement Development Boundary. The Council’s lack of a five-year housing land supply had engaged the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development.

The Committee heard that the site had been included as a potential housing allocation in the emerging Local Plan. Technical matters which included highways, archaeology, drainage, ecology, landscaping and amenity had been demonstrated as acceptable or could be mitigated through conditions and/or a Section 106 agreement.

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 (and a Section 106 agreement).

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

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

“Great Bentley Parish Council further comments:

The council wanted it noted that this proposal now includes a draft Section 106 agreement providing financial contributions towards the village hall, and the operation of a new bus service for a period of two years. These measures would offer infrastructure benefits to the village and support sustainable transport options.

As per our previous comments this is a site recommended by the Parish Council for inclusion within the local plan, by moving the proposed site access away from the dangerous bend on Weeley Road, the applicant has taken into consideration the comments made previously. 

However, the site does remain located beyond the recommended catchment distance to the railway station, this could be improved if a pedestrian access was linked through their phase 1 into the pedestrian access through the Birch Estate to shorten this down which would also support pedestrian access to the school. 

Clarification regarding Paragraph 7.52 of the officer report:

Conditions 19 and 23 of 22/01818/FUL for Phase 1 and the associated legal agreement secure the footpath connection across the Phase 2 site to join the Public Right of Way. This should have been completed prior to occupation and retained in perpetuity. However, it remains outstanding due to the conflict with the construction compound and no public access to this part of the site.

If this Phase 2 application is approved, the footpath route is altered through the approval of reserved matters, and the development commences, the existing Phase 1 permission and legal agreement will need to be varied by a S73 application and deed of variation to secure the altered alignment of the footpath and triggers for its delivery, maintenance and retention in perpetuity. It would also be secured under any future Phase 2 reserved matters for Layout. This would ensure the previous obligations for Phase 1 are retained and the residents of both phases will benefit from a safe and direct connection  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

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.

No questions on notice pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 38 had been submitted for this meeting.

Change of use from residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to a residential children’s home (Use Class C2).

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 75 above, Councillor Scott had declared that he was one of the local Ward Members and the caller-in and that he had exercised his right in those capacities to speak on the application.

The Committee was informed that the proposal sought the change of use of an existing dwelling to a small Class C2 children’s home for up to three children, involving only minor external alterations. The development was considered by Officers to be policy-compliant, with no significant adverse impacts identified in relation to residential amenity, heritage, highways, trees, drainage, or biodiversity, and was therefore 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 Officer (CC) in respect of the application.

No updates had been circulated to Members in relation to this application.

Samuel Connor, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Scott Tucker, member of the public, spoke against the application.

Councillor Andrew Fairley, Vice-Chairman of the Great Bromley Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Gary Scott, one of the Ward Members and the caller-in, spoke against the application.

Construction of a floodlit Football Foundation Playzone.

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

The Committee was informed that the proposal sought permission for a new floodlit Football Foundation Playzone on part of the redundant courts at Clacton Leisure Centre. The development was considered by Officers to be acceptable in principle and detail, representing a visual and functional improvement to existing facilities with no significant harmful impacts identified.

Members had before them 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 (CC) in respect of the application.

No updates had been circulated to Members in relation to this application.

No one had registered to speak on this application.

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

RESOLVED that:-

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 9.2 of the Officer report (A.3), with an added condition requiring a lighting scheme to be approved and thereafter maintained, 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 the informative notes as may be deemed necessary. </AI7>

Change of use and alterations to former public convenience/beach patrol facility and shelter (Sui Generis) to Multi Use Micro Venue (Use Classes E(a), E(c)(iii), E(d), E(g)(ii), F1(b), F1(c), F1€, F2(b) and Sui Generis) and provision of external seating areas and balustrading; new and replacement shutters, cycle parking; refuse storage; repairs to hard landscaping; lighting; external plant and ancillary works.

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 75 above, Councillor Alexander had declared that he was one of the Ward Members and that he was pre-determined. He did not sit therefore as a member of the Committee for this item, and he retired from the meeting whilst it was determined but exercised his right as a Ward Member to speak on the application.

Also, as reported under Minute 75 above, Councillor Griffiths, who was present in the public gallery, had declared that he was also one of the Ward Members and that he would speak on the application in that capacity.

Members were informed that the application was before the Committee because the land was owned by Tendring District Council.

The Committee also heard that the application proposed various improvements works to bring the existing structures back into beneficial use for a variety of commercial, community and public uses. Subject to conditions the proposal was considered by Officers to be acceptable in relation to impact upon heritage assets, drainage, flood risk, highway safety, and visual and residential amenity.

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 (CC) in respect of the application.

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

“Consultee comments received

ECC Ecology

Raise no objection subject to conditions securing implementation of the mitigation measures in the Ecological Appraisal and Preliminary Roost Assessment, and the submission and approval of a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy. They also confirm support for the submitted lighting specification.

Natural England

No objection and consider that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes.

Update to Paragraph 9 Recommendation

As no objections have been received from ECC Ecology and Natural England the recommendation is amended to:

Recommendation: Approval

1. That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission

subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 9.2 as included/amended on the update sheet, 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 provided no objections are received from Essex County Council Ecology and Natural England. And,

2. The informative notes as may be deemed necessary.

Or;

3. That in the event of an objection being received from Essex County Council Ecology and /

or Natural England that the grant of planning permission will be withheld pending the return

to the Planning Committee of a revised report and, if necessary, revised recommendations

for either the imposition of planning conditions or for the overall decision to be taken again

by Members of the Planning Committee.

Paragraph 9.2 Update  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved) - Provision of one dwelling.

Members were informed that this application was an outline planning application with all maters reserved for the erection of one dwelling. The site lay outside the Settlement Development Boundary but was considered by Officers to be acceptable subject to conditions and the completed RAMS Unilateral Undertaking.

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 (CC) in respect of the application.

No updates had been circulated to Members in relation to this application.

Beth Deacon-Bates, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

RESOLVED that:-

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions as stated at paragraph 9.2 of the Officer report (A.5), the reserved matters application(s) coming to the Committee, 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 of any informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary.