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

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

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 12 May 2026.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 12 May 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 an interest, in relation to Planning Application 26/00112/FUL – 1 Wellesley Road, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15 3PP, in that he was one of the Ward Members and he was pre-determined. He therefore would 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 Bush, who was present in the public gallery, declared for the public record, in relation to the Planning Application 26/00515/FUL – Lacies View, Colchester Road, Stones Green, Harwich, CO12 5DA, that he was the Ward Member for the application and that he would speak on the application in that capacity as well as in the capacity of the caller-in.

Councillor Oxley, who was present in the public gallery, declared for the public record, in relation to the Planning Application 26/00515/FUL – Lacies View, Colchester Road, Stones Green, Harwich, CO12 5DA, that she was speaking on the application as a member of the public in favour of the application.

Councillor P Honeywood, who was also present in the public gallery, declared for the public record, in relation to the Planning Application 26/00112/FUL – 1 Wellesley Road, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15 3PP, that he was one of the adjacent 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.

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 to Temporaroy Emergency Accommodation (Use Sui Generis).

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 3 above, Councillor Alexander had declared that he was one of the local 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 deliberated but exercised his right as a Ward Member to speak on the application.

Also, as reported under Minute 3 above, Councillor P Honeywood, who was present in the public gallery, had declared that he was one of the adjacent 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.

It was reported that the application sought permission for a change of use of a three-story building at 1 Wellesley Road, Clacton-on-Sea, to temporary emergency accommodation (Sui Generis).

Members were informed that the site was located within a highly sustainable town centre location and had been vacant since 2020, with no reasonable prospect of being brought back into beneficial use and could make a meaningful contribution towards addressing a clearly identified need for emergency accommodation within the District.

The Committee heard that whilst concerns had been raised in relation to residential amenity and the nature of the use, those impacts could be effectively mitigated through a robust Management Plan and planning conditions. The proposal would not result in harm to the character of the area, highway safety, or ecology, and would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers.

Officers told Members that the Council could not currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and, as such, the titled balance was engaged. Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposal for temporary emergency accommodation did not constitute conventional housing in the strictest sense, it nonetheless resulted in an overall increase in residential accommodation. On this basis, it was considered appropriate that the titled balance applied in this instance. Having regard to this, the significant social benefits arising from the provision of such accommodation were not considered to be outweighed by any adverse impacts identified.

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.

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

Fawaad Shaikh, the agent for the application, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor P Honeywood, one of the adjacent Ward Members and the caller-in, spoke against the application.

Councillor Alexander, one of the Ward Members, spoke in relation to the application.

Erection of one self-build dwelling.

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 3 above, Councillor Bush had declared that he was one of the local Ward Members and had called-in the application and exercised his right in those capacities to speak on the application.

Also, as reported under Minute 3, Councillor Oxley had declared that she was speaking on the application as a member of the public in favour of the application.

The Committee was informed that the application sought planning permission for a revised self-build dwelling in a location outside of any defined Settlement Development Boundary, where development was strictly controlled.

Members were made aware that it was not thought that the previous reason for refusal under application reference 25/01713/FUL had been overcome.

The Committee heard that the proposal continued to present a visually extensive form of development, with a notable linear spread and footprint across the site. That resulted in a scheme that would still read as substantial and prominent within the rural landscape, failing to reflect the sporadic and modest pattern of development that characterised the surrounding area.

Officers reported that the Council could not currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and, as such, the titled balance was engaged. The need to provide housing that met the needs of groups with specific housing requirements was acknowledged. The proposal would result in an overall increase in residential accommodation and so, on that basis, it was considered appropriate that the titled balanced applied in this instance.

However, whilst the proposal would deliver the modest benefit of one self-build dwelling and the proposed dwelling had been designed to meet the needs of an occupier with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010; that benefit would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified harms arising from the unsustainable location, the associated car dependency, and the erosion of the rural character of the area. Nor would the proposal meet the self-build criteria under TDLP Policy LP7 and the personal circumstances of this case did not outweigh the identified harm arising from the proposal’s conflict with the unsustainable location of the site and harm to the rural character of the area.

Members also heard that, as such, having regard to Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF, the adverse impact of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the NPPF (2024) taken as a whole. The proposal did not therefore constitute sustainable development, and the previous reason for refusal was considered to remain unresolved.

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 refusal.

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

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

“An addendum has been submitted (06.05.26) in response to the Officer Committee Report.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Live Information was taken on 27/04/2026. 

The enforcement policy seeks to report the following areas. 

- Number of enforcement enquiries received/registered;

- Number of enforcement enquiries closed to date that year;

- Number of live cases presented by category, electoral ward and time period    since receipt;

- Enforcement-related appeal decisions.

The Committee had before it the latest planning enforcement report based on live information taken on 27 April 2026.

Members were aware that the enforcement policy sought to report on the following areas:-

-        number of enforcement enquires received/registered;

-        number of enforcement enquiries closed to date that year;

-        number of live cases presented by category, electoral Ward and time period since receipt; and

-        enforcement-related appeal decisions.

Members noted that some areas continued not to be available given the resources to export information from the available system were not possible with the current database sofrware, or as addressed directly in the Officer report.

RESOLVED that the contects of this report (A.3) be noted.