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

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Fowler (with Councillor Davidson substituting) and Councillor Fairley (with Councillor Harris substituting).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Wednesday 31 May 2022.

It was RESOLVED that the Minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 31 May 2022 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Personal Interest, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

In relation to Agenda Item 7 – Report of Acting Director (Planning) – A.2 – Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plans, Councillor Bush declared for the public record that he was both the Ward Councillor for The Oakleys and Wix Ward and a member of Great Oakley Parish Council.

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.

Councillor Coley had submitted the following question on notice pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 38 in relation to directional signs and advertising boards for planning developments:-

“Would it result in a greater level of general compliance if Planning Officers drew all developers’ attention to their legal requirements regarding the placing of advertising signs etc., and make compliance with all aspects of these regulations standard Planning Conditions?

The Secretary of State can suspend or remove permanently, Deemed Consent, in a particular area, on a request from a Local Authority. Should TDC not consider such an application in respect of sensitive conservation areas at least?”

Context supplied by Councillor Coley to his Question

“At the end of July this year, Mistley Parish Council asked my opinion concerning yellow Directional Advertising Signs, which had been placed by a large Housing Developer, on a Parish Council owned green space, affixed to a light standard, a few feet from a War Memorial, in a Conservation Area, directly opposite a Grade One Listed Monument.

I advised the Parish Council to carefully remove the signs and return them to the owning developers. The Parish Council notified the developer of their actions and asked where the signs should be delivered. This resulted in the developer aggressively threatening the Parish Council with legal action and claims for compensation. To say that I was enraged is an understatement in the extreme. I have taken the developer to task over this.

I was since advised by our Planning Department, that the yellow directional arrow signs that were placed around the area would potentially have had ‘deemed consent’, under Section 11 of the Advert Consent Legislation set out by the government. Except that the developers missed key points, which means the Parish or District Councils would be able to remove them, quite legally.

It seems that although developers have legal obligations regarding these signs they never comply with the requirements and our Council never bothers to ensure compliance. See below:

Class 11: directional advertisements:

Permits housebuilding firms to put up temporary directional signs, telling potential house buyers and other visitors how to reach a site where new residential development is taking place. The rules for Class 11 are:

ØSigns must not exceed 0.15 of a square metre in area

ØNo sign may exceed 4.6 metres above ground level, or 3.6 metres in an Area of Special Control of  advertisements

ØAny lettering or other information on the sign must not be less than 40 millimetres or more than 250 millimetres high

ØRetroflective material and illumination must not be used

ØThe sign must not look like an official traffic sign

ØThe sign must be near to, but not on, highway land and not within 50 metres of an official traffic sign facing in the same direction

ØNo sign may be more than two miles from the main entrance to the housebuilding site

Ø14 days before any sign is put up, the local planning authority must  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

The Council’s Public Speaking Scheme for the Planning Policy & Local Plan Committee gives the opportunity for members of the public and other interested parties/stakeholders to speak to the Council’s elected members on the Planning Policy & Local Plan Committee on any specific agenda item to be considered at that public meeting.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Council’s public speaking scheme for the Planning Policy & Local Plan Committee, no member of the public had registered to ask at this meeting a question regarding the matters contained in the reports of the Acting Director (Planning).

Bill Marshall made a statement regarding the matters contained in report item A.1 – Updated Housing Supply Position and Housing Trajectory (Agenda Item 6). He felt that small to medium sized developers were concerned that, since the adoption of the new Local Plan (Section 2) and the greater level of control, that it had given to this Council, the pipeline of small development sites that might be of interest to local builders had been stifled and proposals such as the Fox Street (Ardleigh) Deliverable Residents’ Proposal Plan had been hindered.

The Acting Director (Planning (Gary Guiver) responded to Mr Marshall’s points during his oral presentation of item A.1 of his report.

To report, to the Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee:

·      the number of new homes built in Tendring during the 2021/22 financial year and the up-dated year-by-year ‘trajectory’ for future housebuilding; and

·      the current housing land supply position (the ‘five-year’ supply).

The Committee gave consideration to a report of the Acting Director (Planning) (A.1) which reported to it:-

·      the number of new homes built in Tendring during the 2021/22 financial year and the up-dated year-by-year ‘trajectory’ for future housebuilding; and

·      the current housing land supply position (the ‘five-year’ supply).

Key Points

It was reported that 777 (net) new homes had been built in the 2021/22 financial year, which meant that the annual housing requirement of 550 homes a year in the Local Plan had been achieved for the sixth year running. More homes had been completed in 2021/22 than had been expected in last year’s housing trajectory.

Members were informed that there was sufficient land allocated for housing development in the adopted Local Plan, along with sites that already had planning permission, to comfortably achieve the District’s housing requirement up to 2033 without the need to consider the release of additional sites.

The Committee was advised that the Council could demonstrate a 6.89 year supply of deliverable housing sites against the Government requirement to demonstrate a 5 year supply. This meant that the Council remained in a strong position to resist speculative and unwanted  housing developments that fell outside of the settlement development boundaries of the Local Plan unless there were material benefits that might exceptionally justify a departure from Local Plan policy.

Housing Requirement

Members were aware that Section 1 of the Local Plan set out the ‘objectively assessed housing need’ (OAN) for Tendring of 550 homes a year, and the housing requirement for the period of the Local Plan 2013-2033 was therefore 11,000 homes. With approximately 5,000 homes already built between 2013 and 2022, the remaining requirement between now and 2033 stood at approximately 6,000 and the historic shortfall in housing delivery had now been addressed.

Housing Completions and Future Trajectory

It was reported that Officers had updated the Council’s ‘Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment’ (SHLAA) which contained a trajectory for future housing building up to 2033. Information from developers as well as officers’ own monitoring of building sites had informed the forecast for the coming years.

Five Year Housing Supply and Decision Making

The Committee was reminded that the Government required Councils to demonstrate an ongoing ‘five year supply’ of deliverable housing sites to ensure that they were well placed to meet their future housing needs. Following the adoption of Section 1 of the Local Plan in January 2021, the Council’s local housing need had been confirmed as 550 homes per year.

Taking into account the future trajectory set out in the SHLAA, the Council can demonstrate a 6.89 years supply of deliverable housing sites. Around 4,000 homes were expected to be built within the five years 2022/23 – 2026/27, against a five year requirement of approximately 2,900 homes.

Having considered and discussed all of the information contained in the Officer report (A.1):-

It was moved by Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Chittockand:-

RESOLVED that the Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee both endorses the contents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

To report to Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee the third set of two ‘Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plans’ prepared for the Council by Essex Place Services, and for the Committee to agree a recommendation to Cabinet that they be published for consultation.

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 19 above, Councillor Bush had declared for the public record that he was both the Ward Councillor for The Oakleys and Wix Ward and a member of Great Oakley Parish Council.

The Committee gave consideration to a comprehensive report of the Acting Director (Planning) (A.2) which reported to it the third tranche of ‘Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plans’ prepared for the Council by Essex Place Services, and requested that the Committee agreed a recommendation to Cabinet that they be published for consultation purposes.

Members were presented with the next two draft Conservation Area Appraisals, namely:-

Great Oakley Conservation Area; and

Kirby-le-Soken Conservation Area.

Alterations to Boundaries

After a detailed assessment, the boundary of the Great Oakley Conservation Area would remain unchanged.

For Kirby-le-Soken minor changes to the boundary were recommended.

Additions:  The Conservation Area boundary should include the gardens of the properties within the Conservation Area. They formed the domestic curtilage and contribute to the understanding of land use, layout and an indication of the area’s development.

It was recommended to include the Oxborrows Yard, Maltings Lane. The site had historically been a service yard as noted on the Tithe Apportionment (1841). Therefore, it was considered to contribute to the Conservation Area’s historic development and character. The site had been formerly occupied by Oxborrow Engineering but at the time of the assessment was vacant. The Oxborrow Family, Blacksmiths and Engineers, had a long-standing association with Kirby-le-Soken and Tendring dating from 1812. The early nineteenth century forge had been demolished for residential development in 2004. The property was visible from within the Conservation Area and was an attractive nineteenth century industrial building, unique within the area, contributing to local character and appearance.

Reductions: It was proposed to remove the back land development behind Number 44-64 The Street as it undermined, and was inconsistent, with the historic grain of development. The development was of a low scale, however, it was visible in the skygaps between the properties fronting The Street; this detracted from appreciation of Kirby-le-Soken as an isolated settlement. The quality of the development did not positively respond to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Designated Heritage Assets

The appraisals made note of the listed buildings, scheduled monuments and registered parks and gardens in each Conservation Area.

Proposed Non-designated heritage assets

Those buildings had been identified as they were either considered to be good examples of their type or architectural style; were prominent local landmarks, demonstrated use of local materials or design features, or were connected to local historical events, activities or people, and were all relatively complete in their survival.

At Great Oakley these were:

·      The Three Cups, High Street

·      Mill House Cottages (2 – 5 High Street)

·      Cambria House, High Street

·      Apple Tree Cottage and No. 2, High Street

·      Pillbox outside Apple Tree Cottage, High Street

·      Romaric, Queen Street

·      The Maybush Inn, Farm Road

For Kirby-le-Soken these were:

Number 57, The Street was a one and a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.