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

There were no apologies for absence submitted nor substitutes appointed on this occasion.

The Chairman, Councillor Fowler, noted that Councillor Keteca would be joining the meeting, but was running late.

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 Land declared an interest, in relation to Planning Application 26/00954/FUL – West Lodge, Sparrows Corner, Great Oakley, CO12 5AB, in that he was the Parish Clerk of Great Oakley Parish Council 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.

Councillor Alexander declared for the public record, in relation to Planning Application 26/00729/FUL – Lower Promenade, Marine Parade West, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15 1LS, that he was one of the Ward Members for the application and confirmed that he was not pre-determined on this application.

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.

Demolition of existing residential dwelling and erection of 8 bungalows with associated access, parking and amenity.

This application has been called in by Councillor M Bush due to his concerns over the following matters:-

1.     Back land development wedged between two domestic dwellings in a rural environment, uncharacteristic of the Soils Street scene. Policy LP8, Objective 1 of the Local Plan.

2.     Demolition of an existing quality dwelling that contributes positively to the character of the Soils Street scene.

3.     Outside the settlement development boundary of Great Oakley. Policy SPL2.

4.     Site entrance restricted and obscured for entry and egress from the highway onto the narrow rural bend of Soils Road.

5.     Development served by a narrow access which could restrict access by emergency service vehicles to the proposed development.

6.     Inadequate infrastructure and services, including GP surgery capacity, limited local employment opportunities and limited public transport provision.

7.     Loss of a quality existing dwelling to provide access to the proposed development.

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under minute 33 above, Councillor Land had declared that he was the Parish Clerk of Great Oakley Parish Council and that he was pre-determined on this application. He did not sit therefore as a member of the Committee for this item, and he retired from the room whilst it was deliberated upon and determined.

The Committee was informed that this application sought full planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling known as West Lodge and the erection of eight detached bungalows with associated access, parking, landscaping and infrastructure works (a net increase of seven dwellings).

Having regard to the Council's current 3.22-year housing land supply position, the relationship of the site to the existing settlement, and all other material planning considerations, the proposal was considered by Officers to represent a sustainable form of development, with the benefits of the scheme outweighing the limited conflict arising from its location outside the Settlement Development Boundary.

It was reported that this application had been called-in by the local Ward Member, Councillor Bush, who had stated the following concerns:-

1.     Back land development wedged between two domestic dwellings in a rural environment, uncharacteristic of the Soils Street scene. Policy LP8, Objective 1 of the Local Plan.

2.     Demolition of an existing quality dwelling that contributes positively to the character of the Soils Street scene.

3.     Outside the settlement development boundary of Great Oakley. Policy SPL2.

4.     Site entrance restricted and obscured for entry and egress from the highway onto the narrow rural bend of Soils Road.

5.     Development served by a narrow access which could restrict access by emergency service vehicles to the proposed development.

6.     Inadequate infrastructure and services, including GP surgery capacity, limited local employment opportunities and limited public transport provision.

7.     Loss of a quality existing dwelling to provide access to the proposed development.

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.

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

During the presentation, Councillor Keteca entered the meeting.

The Chairman, Councillor Fowler, confirmed that Councillor Keteca would take no part in the deliberation or determination of the application but would remain in the meeting room during consideration thereof.

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

Jack Baron (Baron Architects Ltd.), the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Peter Avery, a member of the public, spoke against the application.

Councillor Bush, the local Ward Member and caller-in, spoke against the application.

Installation of 4no. electric vehicle (EV) car chargers to parking area.

This application has been called in by Councillor G Guglielmi over his concerns that the proposed charging facilities and accommodating posts would result in a significant impact to the setting and appearance of the Grade II Listed Building.

The Committee was informed that this application sought permission for four EV charging units within the existing parking area at Lawford Place.

It was reported that the proposal had been amended from six to four EV charging units, reducing its visual spread and addressing concerns regarding the siting of equipment in front of neighbouring dwellings. Consultees had raised no objection in relation to highways, heritage or National Landscape impacts, and the development was not considered by Officers to result in harm to residential amenity, biodiversity interests, highway safety, the setting of the Grade II Listed Building or the Suffolk & Essex Coast & Heaths National Landscape. The application had therefore been recommended by Officers for approval subject to conditions.

Members were aware that this application had been called in by Councillor Guglielmi, one of the local Ward Members, over his stated concerns that the proposed charging facilities and accommodating posts would result in a significant impact to the setting and appearance of the Grade II Listed Building.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report (A.2) 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 Principal Planning Officer (MP) in respect of the application.

Prior to the commencement of the meeting, an Officer update sheet had been circulated to members of the Committee in relation to this application and published to the Council’s website. That update sheet had reported that written confirmation had been received from the applicant that the spaces to the front of the flats were allocated for each unit.

David Barkham, the applicant, spoke in favour of this application.

Rachel Duffett, a member of the public, spoke against the application.

Councillor Barrett, a Ward Member, spoke against the application.

Councillor Barrett also read out a written statement on behalf of Councillor Guglielmi, the caller-in and his fellow Ward Member. Councillor Guglielmi had been unable to attend the meeting due to prior family commitments.

After debate, it was moved by Councillor Fowler, seconded by Councillor Goldman and:-

RESOLVED that:-

(a)     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.2), 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Proposed cliff stabilisation works. Including re-building of failed tumbled brick wall and installation of drainage.

This application is before the Committee due to Tendring District Council being the applicant and the landowner.

Earlier on in the meeting, as detailed under minute 33 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 made aware that the proposed works were in support of wider works fundamentally designed to improve coastal defences and stabilise the coast and were supported in principle. The application had been submitted to the Committee on the basis that Tendring District Council was both the applicant and the landowner.

It was reported that Essex County Council (ECC) Heritage had raised no objections, and Officers considered that the works would not result in significant visual harm or any harm to neighbouring amenities. Officers felt that there would be no significant harm to existing trees or vegetation, and ECC Archaeology had also raised no objections subject to the inclusion of conditions.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report (A.3) 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 Principal Planning Officer (MP) 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.