The Democratic Services Manager (Ian Ford) informed the Committee that, on 25 September 2026, in accordance with the expressed wishes of the Leader of the Reform UK Group, and the authority delegated to him, the Chief Executive had appointed Councillor Aimee Keteca to serve on the Planning Committee in place of Councillor Jeff Bray.

Councillor Keteca had not yet been able to receive the required mandatory training and therefore was unable to sit as a member of the Committee at the present time.

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

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Land (with no substitution).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Thursday 3 September 2026.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Thursday 3 September 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 or 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.

Councillor Wiggins also declared for the public record, in relation to Planning Application 26/00874/PIP – Land east of 3 Orchard View, Wivenhoe Road, Alresford, CO7 8BD that she was one of the Ward Members for the application and confirmed that she was not pre-determined on this 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.

Councillor Scott also declared for the public record, in relation to Planning Application 26/00874/PIP – Land east of 3 Orchard View, Wivenhoe Road, Alresford, CO7 8BD that he was one of the Ward Members for the application.

Councillor Alexander declared for the public record, in relation to Planning Application 26/00727/FUL – Car Park, Hastings Avenue, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15 1AW that he was one of the Ward Members for the application and confirmed that he was not pre-determined on this application.

In response to a query from Councillor Wiggins, the Planning Solicitor confirmed that Members did not need to declare an interest on those planning applications where the Council was either the applicant or the landowner and that the Planning Committee was duly authorised to determine such applications.

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.

Temporary structure for a term of 7 years. A robust structure to act as a temporary boat hall has been proposed to allow protection for the Shannon class lifeboat and tractor from the elements due to the exposed location, as well as a measure of security.

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under minute 26 above, Councillor Alexander had declared for the public record, in relation to this application that he was one of the Ward Members, and he had confirmed that he was not pre-determined on this application.

The Committee was informed that this application sought planning permission for a temporary boat hall for a period of seven years to accommodate the RNLI's Shannon-class lifeboat and associated launch tractor. The existing lifeboat station could not accommodate the vessel due to the size and configuration of the current boat hall.

Members were advised that the proposal was considered by Officers to be acceptable in principle and that it would provide significant public benefits through the continued operation of a vital emergency service. No objections had been raised by the Environment Agency, Essex Highways, Place Services Ecology or the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer. Whilst there would be a temporary loss of part of the overflow parking area, this harm was outweighed by the operational and public benefits of the development. Subject to conditions, the application was recommended by Officers for approval.

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.

No member of the public had registered to speak on this application.

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

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under minute 26 above, Councillor Wiggins had declared that she was one of the local Ward Members and that she was pre-determined on this application. She did not sit therefore as a member of the Committee for this item, and she retired from the room whilst it was deliberated upon and determined.

Also, as reported under minute 26 above, Councillor Scott, who was present in the public gallery, had declared that he was also one of the local Ward Members for this application.

Further to minute 13 (7.7.26), when this application had been deferred by the Planning Committee so that further information could be sought in respect of: ownership; what happens to the footpath; a clearer plan for the access point; and further consideration of the impact on amenity, Members were informed that the additional information requested had been detailed under the ‘Proposal’ section of the Officer report (A.1) from paragraph 7.6 onwards and that all changes to the previous committee report (excluding those copied from the 7^th July 2026 Update Sheet and updated paragraph references) were in bold italics.

The Committee was reminded that the application site lay outside but abutted 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. No objections had been raised by consultees.

Members were made aware that the NPPF 2024 had been replaced on 17^th August 2026 by the NPPF 2026. The Officer report had been updated to assess the proposal against the new NPPF 2026 including Policy S5 for development outside settlements. It was important to note that the NPPF 2026 under Policy S5 created a stronger presumption in favour of sustainable development outside settlements where there was an evidenced unmet housing need than the previous ‘tilted balance’. The report still concluded that the proposal was recommended for approval.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report (A.1) 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 Manager (AN) in respect of the application.

Prior to the commencement of the meeting, an Officer update sheet had been circulated to the members of the Committee in relation to this application and published to the Council’s website. That update sheet had reported that 12 additional letters of objection had been received raising the following additional concerns which had not already been addressed within the Officers’ report (A.1)(Officer response shown in brackets and italics):

-    Object to double yellow lines this specific area has average age of 80 and multiple disabled badge holders with an application submitted for a disabled parking bay close to the new access (Disabled parking bays and double yellow lines are separately controlled by Essex County Council. Given  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Application for Permission in Principle - One self-build dwelling.

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under minute 26 above, Councillor Wiggins had declared for the public record, in relation to this application that she was one of the Ward Members, and she had confirmed that she was not pre-determined on this application.

Councillor Scott, who was present in the public gallery, had also declared for the public record, in relation to this application that he was one of the Ward Members.

It was reported that this application sought ‘Permission in Principle’ for the erection of one self-build dwelling. The scope of consideration was limited to the location, land use and amount of development proposed.

The Committee was informed that the application site was located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Alresford, where residential development was supported in principle by the adopted Tendring District Local Plan and the Alresford Neighbourhood Plan. Having regard to the site's sustainable location and the scale of development proposed the principle of development was considered by Officers to be acceptable.

The proposal was considered by Officers to accord with Policies SP3, SPL1, SPL2 and LP7 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond, together with Policy ALRES1 of the Alresford Neighbourhood Plan. Officers had therefore recommended the application for approval.

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.

No member of the public had registered to speak on this application.

Construction of a community ride and play facility comprising, pump track, learn to ride area, play area, facilities building, tennis courts, padel courts with canopies, fencing and floodlighting, and including associated hard and soft landscaping works, SuDS and infrastructure.

The Committee was informed that the proposed redevelopment of part of Clacton Leisure Centre would deliver a significantly enhanced and more diverse range of leisure, sport and recreational facilities, including new play areas, cycling facilities, tennis and padel courts, a pavilion and associated landscaping. The scheme would provide substantial community, health and wellbeing benefits, achieve biodiversity net gain, and was supported by statutory consultees, subject to conditions.

The proposal was considered by Officers to accord with the NPPF and adopted Local Plan policies, with any potential impacts capable of being suitably mitigated through planning conditions. Accordingly, it was recommended by Officers that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the Officer report (A.3).

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 Principal Planning Officer (AL) in respect of the application.

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

Lee Heley, representing the applicant (Tendring District Council), spoke in favour of this application.

After the debate, it was moved by Councillor Goldman, seconded by Councillor Fowlerand 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), 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.