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) and Codling (with no substitution).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday, 9 June 2026.

It was moved by Councillor Sudra, seconded by Councillor Land and:-

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 9 June 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 Wiggins declared an interest, in relation to Planning Application 26/00287/OUT – Land to North of Colchester Road, Elmstead, CO7 7EF, in that she was one of the Ward Members and she was pre-determined. She 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, she would also exercise her 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 Planning Application 26/00287/OUT – Land to North of Colchester Road, Elmstead, CO7 7EF, that he was one of the Ward Members for the application and that he would speak on the application in that capacity.

Cllr S Honeywood, who was also present in the public gallery, declared for the public record, in relation to Planning Application 26/00580/FUL – Albany House, 29 Albany Gardens West, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15 6HN, that she was the Ward Member for the application and that she 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 from Dwelling (C3) to Children’s Home (C2).

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 10 above, Councillor S Honeywood had declared that she was the local Ward Member and had called-in the application and exercised her right in those capacities to speak on the application.

It was reported that the proposed change of use was considered acceptable and would not result in material harm to the character of the area, heritage assets, highway safety, residential amenity, drainage, ecology or biodiversity interests.

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 (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:-

“Additional Objection

One additional letter of objection has been received from a member of the public raising the following material planning considerations;

-       Harm to the Gardens Area of Special Character, specifically its intention to protect the special residential nature of the area.

Officers Response – The proposal has been fully assessed against Policy PPL12 of the Tendring District Local Plan and found to be acceptable for the reasons set out within the Committee Report.

Updated Consultee Comment – ECC Children’s and Families – Children’s Residential

Updated comments have been received from ECC Children’s and Families – Children’s Residential. Whilst their original consultation response advised that the applicant had not been in contact with the service, the consultee has now confirmed that the applicant has attended a weekly drop-in session and engaged with officers. No objection is raised. The updated comments are set out below:

From a review of the documents submitted we can see that the proposal is to provide accommodation for up to five children and young people aged 8–17. This would include four bedrooms in the main house, along with a self-contained annex designed to support one young person preparing for independent living, meaning a maximum of five children or young people would be living at the property at any one time.

The children placed in the home would have emotional and behavioural difficulties. The care approach is described as trauma informed.

We also note that the home is intended to be registered with Ofsted and run in line with the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015.

We have reviewed our data to provide you with a picture of the current situation in the area in question.

In respect to the data regarding children in mainstream homes, the following data is applicable at present:

How many CYP with Tendring as home district are in mainstream residential care homes? 4

How many CYP with Tendring as home district are supported in district in mainstream residential care homes? 0

The total number of Essex CYP supported in district in mainstream residential care homes is 4

In respect to the data regarding children in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Outline Planning Application (access to be considered) – for up to 30 dwellings and associated infrastructure includig public open space, landscaping, and sustainable  drainage.

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 10 above, Councillor Wiggins had declared that she was one of the local Ward Members and that she was pre-determined. She did not sit therefore as a Member of the Committee for this item, and she retired from the meeting whilst it was deliberated but exercised her right as a Ward Member to speak on the application.

Also, as reported under Minute 10 above, Councillor Scott, who was present in the public gallery, had declared that he was also one of the local Ward Members for the application and that he would speak on the application in that capacity.

It was reported that the application site was laying outside but abutting the Settlement Development Boundary in the adopted Local and Neighbourhood Plans; within a Green Landscape Buffer in the adopted Neighbourhood Plan; and within a draft Strategic Green Gap in the emerging Local Plan.

Members were informed that no objections had been raised by consultees and that the titled balance applied.

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 (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:-

“Additional Parish comments:

Additional comments in response to Savills’ letter dated 3rd June 2026.

We were disappointed to see that after we and dozens of residents pointed out the serious flaws in this application, and it initially being considered for refusal, this decision was reversed to be recommended for approval, despite clearly being in noncompliance with planning policy.

We’re concerned about the contents of a letter dated 3 June from Savills and that its questionable claims may have wrongly influenced the recommendation and may influence the decision of the Planning Committee on the 7th July. If the committee is minded to refuse the application it may also influence the Planning Inspector if the application goes to appeal.

The letter in question focuses on the Elmstead Neighbourhood Plan, calling core policies of this plan into question and seriously misinterpreting them. In a number of statements it is outright false, and to make a planning decision based on the information within would not only allow development that is noncompliant with policy, but set a concerning precedent for future decisions that such policies are not effective guides for decision makers.

To be clear, the application is outright noncompliant with 2 policies: ELM1 and ELM2.

ELM1 is a simple settlement development boundary policy. The application site in its entirety is outside of the settlement development boundary which the letter from agent does not dispute. The fact that one border of the site is adjacent to the boundary is irrelevant to the policy.

As stated in the letter, the adopted Local Plan, policies SP3,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Construction of a floodlit Football Foundation Playzone.

It was reported that the application sought permission for the replacement of the existing MUGA at Crossways Recreation Ground with a Football Foundation PlayZone, including associated fencing, lighting and ancillary facilities.

Members were informed that, technical consultees, including Essex Highways and Environmental Protection, raised no objections subject to conditions.

The Committee heard that the proposal had been demonstrated to be acceptable in flood risk terms, and would not materially impact parking or highway safety, and would also provide managed and inclusive access to the community. Biodiversity enhancements were also secured through additional planting and conditions.

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.

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

There were no speakers on this occasion for this item.

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

RESOLVED that:-

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant full planning permission subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 9.2 of the Officer report (A.3), 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)    informative notes be sent to the applicant, as may be deemed necessary, by the Head of Planning and Building Control.

Erection of proposed café, storage, padel court, new landscaping and associated works (following demolition of existing café building).

It was reported that the application sought to redevelop an established seafront café within the Dovercourt Settlement Development Boundary, replacing the existing building with an enlarged, modern facility and introducing a new padel court. The proposal would enhance the site’s tourism and leisure offer, support local economic growth, and would improve the visual appearance of the area.

Members were told that, the development was acceptable in principle and accorded with Local Plan policies, with benefits including improved design, increased visitor provision, and new recreational facilities. Technical matters relating the highways, flood risk, residential amenity, and ecology had been satisfactorily addressed, with no objections from consultees subject to conditions.

The Committee heard that, overall, the scheme represented a sustainable redevelopment that would enhance the character and functionality of the site.

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 (ML) in respect of the application

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

There were no speakers on this occasion for this item.

It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Fowler 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 9.1 of the Officer report (A.4), or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precision, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained; and

2)    informative notes be sent to the applicant, as may be deemed necessary, by the Head of Planning and Building Control.