Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Chittock, Nash and Winfield. There were no substitutions.

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Monday 10 October 2022.

It was RESOLVED that the Minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 10 October 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.

There were no declarations of interest made by Members on this occasion.

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 on this occasion.

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 that 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 Director (Planning).

No member of the public attended the meeting to make a statement on the matters contained in the reports of the Director (Planning).

To seek the Planning Policy & Local Plan Committee’s agreement to publish a new ‘Local Development Scheme’ to update the proposed timetable for preparing planning documents including the Local Plan Review and the Development Plan Document for the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community.

The Committee considered a report of the Director (Planning) (A.1) which sought its agreement to publish a new ‘Local Development Scheme’ (LDS) to update the proposed timetable for preparing planning documents, including the Local Plan Review and the Development Plan Document (DPD) for the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC).

Members were aware that the LDS was designed to set out the process for preparing key planning documents. It included the anticipated timetable of consultation periods, examinations and expected dates of adoption for the Local Plan Review and the TCBGC DPD. Publishing the LDS ensured that stakeholders, including members of the public, Town and Parish Councils, landowners and developers, partner organisations and the Planning Inspectorate were kept aware of the timetable the Council was working to and could organise their time and resources accordingly. The LDS was usually updated to cover three-year cycles of Plan preparation.

The Committee was informed that, following the adoption of Section 1 of the Local Plan in January 2021 and Section 2 in January 2022, the main focus of the LDS was now the 5-year review of the Local Plan as well as the TCBGC DPD.

It was reported that the review of the Local Plan would follow the same statutory process as the preparation of the Local Plan itself. A provisional timetable which covered the period 2023-2026 was proposed, which would enable the updated Local Plan to be examined by a Planning Inspector and adopted before January 2027.

The Committee was advised that the timetable for the TCBGC DPD had also been updated, reflecting the stages that had now been completed to date and the revised timescale for the subsequent steps, with adoption of that document anticipated to occur in the winter of 2023/24.

The LDS also included broad timescales for the following Supplementary Planning Documents and Neighbourhood Plans:

• Hartley Gardens SPD
• Jaywick Sands Design SPD
• Open Space SPD
• Climate Change SPD
• Elmstead Market Neighbourhood Plan and Neighbourhood Development Order
• Ardleigh Neighbourhood Plan
• Brightlingsea Neighbourhood Plan
• Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule

During the consideration of this item the Chairman extended an invitation to the Planning Portfolio Holder (Councillor Bray) and the Chairman of the Planning Committee (Councillor White) (both present at the meeting) to address the Committee.

Members requested the Director (Planning) to initiate, as soon as practicable, reviews of the following matters:-

Walton-on-the-Naze Regeneration Framework; and

Haven Gateway Watercycle Study.

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

It was moved by Councillor Bush, seconded by Councillor Fairleyand:-

RESOLVED that the updated Local Development Scheme 2023-2027, as attached as Appendix 1 to item A.1 of the Report of the Director (Planning), be approved for publication on the Council’s website.

To seek the Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee’s comments on the initial consultation in relation to the Jaywick Sands Place Plan, which will inform the preparation of a first proper version of the Place Plan for further consultation and adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document.

The Committee considered a report of the Director (Planning) (A.2) which sought its comments on the initial consultation in relation to the Jaywick Sands Place Plan which would inform the preparation of a first proper version of the Place Plan for further consultation and adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

Members recalled that the purpose of the Place Plan was to provide a long-term strategy for the regeneration of Jaywick Sands. As part of producing the regeneration strategy, a series of public consultation events had taken place from 5 September 2022 to 27 October 2022.

The Committee was informed that the feedback had shown showed that people appreciated the beach and sense of community and the character and uniqueness of the community (including the built form). The residents felt that derelict houses and plots should be demolished and used for new functions and also wanted improvement and maintenance of the public realm, including dealing with fly-tipping, potholes and maintaining the green/open space and street lighting. There was strong support from for making Brooklands a one-way street if resident parking issues could be solved. Most owners wanted to make improvements to their properties but requested help to do so. Some renters wanted to move elsewhere, others wanted to stay in Jaywick Sands. There was more support for building new homes on vacant/derelict plots than on greenfield land.

However, concerns had been expressed by residents about the design of new homes, particularly in relation to disabled access. The responses were divided on whether flood risk was a concern with over half the respondents stating they would not move away from Jaywick Sands, or were otherwise unsure, even if flooding was more common.

Most respondents had identified a lack of shops and services locally, with the provision of a small supermarket being the most popular suggestion for additional shops, followed by the need for healthcare.

Importantly, the Environment Agency had commented that it would not support any strategy that would lead to a net increase in population. For example, any new housing off Lotus Way would, in their view, need to rehouse existing residents. However, the Environment Agency did support the replacement dwellings policy as set out in the Council’s consultation draft Jaywick Sands Design Guide SPD. The Environment Agency’s position, if upheld, would have a significant impact on the direction of the Place Plan and how much new development could take place. 

Members were advised that all comments received would be considered in producing a first proper version of a Place Plan, which would itself, be the subject of consultation and adoption as a SPD in due course.

At the invitation of the Chairman, the Planning Portfolio Holder (Councillor Bray) and the Chairman of the Planning Committee (Councillor White) addressed the Committee on the subject matter of this item.

Having considered and discussed all of the information contained in the Officer report (A.2):-

It was moved by Councillor Fairley, seconded by Councillor Chapman BEMand:-

RESOLVED that the contents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

To seek the Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee’s comments on the Jaywick Sands Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document Draft April 2022 consultation exercise.

To seek the Committee’s approval to recommend to Cabinet that the document is adopted with the proposed alterations.

The Committee considered a report of the Director (Planning) (A.3) which:-

(i)     sought its comments on the Jaywick Sands Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Draft April 2022 consultation exercise; and

(ii)    sought its approval to recommend to Cabinet that the document be adopted with the proposed alterations.

It was reported that the following feedback had been received during the consultation period:-

Public and non-statutory bodies

The comments from the public and non-statutory body response could be summarised as follows:-

-    Seafront development must include disabled access to the sea wall and promenade;

-    Designs of buildings should be flood proof and have aesthetic design in keeping with a seaside resort;

-    Consideration should be made to make the new properties wheelchair accessible allowing for appropriate access in the case of flooding;

-    4 storey buildings are not conducive with a seaside town;

-    Building companies should install solar panels as standard;

-    Limited and in many cases impossible access for disabled people to local amenities, shops, dental surgeries and doctors; 

-    Disabled access must be fully considered in the future;

-    Cycle parking – cycle garage, cycle hangars, security of cycling storage should be included; and

-    Developer contributions should be used towards improving the Jaywick-Clacton cycle route.

Statutory consultees responses:-

·           Affinity Water: no specific comments, welcome mention and continued consistent application of Policy PPL5: Water Conservation, Drainage and Sewerage from the Tendring Local Plan;

·           Coal Authority: no comments;

·           Historic England: no specific comments;

·           Marine Management Organisation: no specific comments, standard advice regarding the Coastal Concordat reiterated;

·           National Highways: no comments; and

·           Natural England: no specific comments.

·           Essex Police: no comment

Essex County Fire and Rescue Service (ECFRS) had submitted a number of detailed comments, the key issues in relation to this document being that it noted that the design guide discussed and considered climate change over the longer term.  ECFRS agreed that climate change was a vital consideration due to the increased vulnerability in the Jaywick area and the possible range of impacts arising for vulnerable residents in the area from climate change. ECFRS supported engagement with communities. ECFRS also had advise consideration of:-

-    suitable principles in design to avoid deliberate fire setting;

-    road widths to be accessible whilst not impeding emergency service vehicle response  through safe access routes for fire appliances including room to manoeuvre (such as turning circles);

-    the inclusion of electric vehicle charging points is welcomed, however, the position of the charging points should be considered in relation to fire spread to properties in the event of a fire in an electric vehicle;

-    support the proposed provision of off street (on plot) parking;

-    the location of storage of refuse should consider the potential for fire spread in event of an accidental or deliberate fire within stored refuse.

The NHS Suffolk and North East Integrated Care Board had supported the objectives of the SPD. However, they had made the following comments:-

·           The need to ensure the community is fully  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To report to Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee the Brightlingsea Hall and All Saints Church Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan prepared for the Council by Essex Place Services, and for the Committee to agree a recommendation to Cabinet that this be published for consultation.

The Committee considered a comprehensive report of the Director (Planning) (A.4) which reported to it the Brightlingsea Hall and All Saints Church Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan prepared for the Council by Essex Place Services, and requested that the Committee agreed a recommendation to Cabinet that it be published for consultation purposes.

Alterations to Boundaries

The boundary currently included the listed church, its surrounding churchyard, and the Hall with historic barn complex which was now occupied by businesses.

It was proposed that the area be extended to include the pair of early nineteenth century dwellings to the south of the area. They contributed positively to the historic character and appearance of the area. Their location and proximity to the road created a sense of a gateway for the Conservation Area. They were prominent in views towards the Church to the north-west. The building was red brick with details such as the flat headed arches at ground floor level, and single polychromatic diamond above the original central entrance. The simple but decorative detail added to the quality and character of the building and Conservation Area. Although some changes had occurred, such as the loss of original windows and roofing, and timber lean to extensions on both sides, the building still made a positive contribution. It was considered, therefore, that the Conservation Area and building would both benefit from inclusion within the boundary.

Designated Heritage Assets

There was one designated heritage asset within the Brightlingsea Hall and All Saints Church Conservation Area, the Grade I Listed Church of All Saints (List UID: 1337182).

This building had been listed due to its special architectural and historic interest under Section 1 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Proposed non-designated heritage assets

Local listing was an important tool for local planning authorities to identify non-listed buildings and heritage assets which made a positive contribution to the locality. This Appraisal had identified heritage assets, which made a positive contribution to the Conservation Area and could be considered for local listing in the future. This list was not exhaustive, and further buildings could be identified as non-designated heritage assets through the planning application process. Buildings and features within the Conservation Area which were considered to be non-designated heritage assets included:

·      Brightlingsea Hall

·      All Saints Church Lych-gate

Heritage at Risk

The Grade I Church of All Saints was included on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register, as being in a ‘very bad’ condition and at immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric, with no solution agreed. As a key, landmark building of the Conservation Area, it was important that a solution was agreed to work towards taking this building off the register.

Archaeology

Throughout the Conservation Area there was the potential for a multitude of below-ground heritage assets yet to be discovered. In general, the appraisal promoted a cautious approach to development which might disturb or destroy those assets.

Assessment of significance

A detailed assessment of significance of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.