The Chairman of the Committee (Councillor Guglielmi) made the following opening remarks:-

“Good evening, Members, Officers, members of the public, and everyone joining us online. Welcome to this meeting of the Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee on Tuesday, 25^th August 2026, held in Clacton Town Hall Committee Room. I am pleased to open the meeting and thank you all for your attendance.

I have a few words that I would like to say before we go to the actual agenda itself. The work of this Committee has been pivotal to defining how our communities will grow and change, and I would like to once again thank our officers for the sterling work undertaken in preparing the reports and supporting papers, and the excellent quality of the maps that have been produced.

I would also like to thank all those who have so far engaged and contributed to the consultation whose views have helped to inform and shape the progress of our Local Plan.

The Committee is this evening asked to endorse the final draft of the Local Plan and to recommend a six-week public consultation. Because of the introduction of mandatory and unprecedented housebuilding targets by the Government in 2024, forced upon the Council and our communities, the overall scale of additional housing growth set out in the Local Plan,1069 new homes per year, will no doubt attract further objections. But let me assure everyone that we all agree that these figures are unrealistic, unachievable, and incredibly difficult to plan for.

Our Officers have therefore worked wonders to accommodate this requirement. Although the Submission Version contains notable changes that should address some of the previous objections, it still contains some unpopular policies and proposals needed to achieve the number of dwellings forced upon us.

On this very topic, I feel that a word of warning is due to all of us to resist any further changes that may be suggested, simply because at this very late and crucial stage, any alteration to what we are considering this evening will create delay.

Anyone who strongly disagrees with what has been produced so far, can argue their case when the plan will be heard in public in the new year, and of course during the next round of public consultation that will soon get under way.

It is absolutely crucial that we meet the end of December 2026 deadline and submit the Plan to the Planning Inspectorate to be independently examined; if we don’t, the risk is to be having to restart the whole process under a new planning system, and I think I am right in saying that we all understand the consequences of that, and the “free for all” regime that it will generate.

When we come to the appropriate stage of the agenda, I would very much like Officers to explain in more details the full meaning of recommendation D on page 51, which asks the Committee to: note that the submission of the Local Plan to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor Everett (with no substitution).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on 8 June 2026.

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Monday 8 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 or Non-Registerable Interests, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

Councillor M Cossens made the following statement:-

“I rent land for storage purposes at Birch Hall, and this is a registered Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and the site is referenced within the Sustainability Report in Appendix 2 to Item 6 – Report A1, however it is mentioned because the site was submitted for housing purposes of which I was unaware of and am unsure of the exact location.  But, in any event it has been discounted and rejected for the reasons provided within the Place Services document, as not being suitable, and is therefore an unallocated site.  Having sought the Monitoring Officer’s advice in advance of this meeting, my DPI is not a matter being directly decided upon or affected by any decision to be made this evening and therefore, I am able to participate in the meeting without any dispensations.”

Councillor Bush declared an interest in Strategic Policy SPL1: Managing Growth and specifically the classification of Little Oakley as part of the Harwich and Dovercourt Strategic Urban Settlement as it affected part of his Ward.

In the interests of transparency and having noticed that one of the listed public speakers was a representative of the Lawford Tye Action Group, the Portfolio Holder for Housing & Planning (Councillor Baker) declared that he was a former member of that Action Group.

Similarly, the Chairman of the Committee (Councillor Guglielmi) declared for the record that he attended meetings of the Lawford Tye Action Group.

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 Officer report due 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 on the Officer report.

Several members of the public, attended and made oral statements, in relation to report A.1 of the Corporate Director (Planning and Community). Those statements touched upon the following matters:-

Bill Marshall

·      Well done to Officers and the Committee who had produced an excellent and futuristic Local Plan in trying and challenging times with a target of adoption after modification before Spring 2027;

·      Officers used AI to assist with the data needed to make this Local Plan sound;

·      undoubtedly PINS will feed the Local Plan through its own AI due to the lack of Planning Inspectors;

·      what confidence do Officers have that this double AI process will be successful?;

·      on the Update Sheet, railway stations are mentioned – TDC could promote Fox Street, Ardleigh mainline sidings as a new transport centre and hub that could serve the “Tolchester” Garden Community, Colchester and beyond.

Mat Court

·      gave thanks for the removal of SAH4;

·      supported the two sites at the Well House site, Chestnut Way and at the BT Exchange, New Street in Brightlingsea;

·      his concern was the three greenfield site allocations at Pannell Place, Vicarage Field, Church Road and land north of Robinson Road, Brightlingsea;

·      TDC’s requirement was 18,173 homes and this Plan identified 18,334 homes to be built;

·      removal of all 75 homes from those three greenfield sites would still leave 86 above the overall requirement;

·      Pannell Place was consulted upon for 10 homes, and it was now proposed for 20 homes despite TDC’s own assessment that identified a nearby wildlife site and a pond described as a likely wildlife habitat;

·      Vicarage Field raised a more fundamental question – in June 2024 a Planning Inspector had dismissed appeals for just two homes there, stating that all the site fell within the coastal protection belt, the proposal was unacceptable in principle, and it was an inappropriate location for a residential development.

·      The Inspector had also found harm to the nearby Grade II Listed property Greythorpe;

·      TDC’s December 2025 assessment had found this site to be unsuitable and had questioned whether 18 homes could be achieved and would likely cause great heritage harm, and the field is still shown as within the coastal protection belt and yet it was now proposed for 30 homes;

·      the new Sustainability Appraisal now described the site as being outside the coastal protection belt – what changed? What new evidence was there to justify this?;

·      MSA35 Robinson Road cannot be considered in isolation – there was an already implemented permission along that corridor for 104 holiday lodges, 36 retirement units and 5 houses – an even larger application was pending determination;

·      don’t know the ‘real world’ impact of this yet – Brightlingsea had a single access, and the cumulative impact would matter;

·      MSA34 and MSA 35 were not in the Regulation 18 consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

To present the Tendring District Local Plan ‘Submission Version’ to the Planning Policy and Local Plan Committee and seek its agreement for this important document, along with the associated Sustainability Appraisal and Habitat Regulations Assessment, to be recommended for approval by Full Council to proceed to six-weeks’ formal public consultation in line with Regulation 19 of the statutory plan-making process.

The Committee considered a comprehensive report of the Corporate Director (Planning & Community) (A.1) which provided it with the Tendring District Local Plan ‘Submission Version’ and which sought its agreement for this important document, along with the associated Sustainability Appraisal and Habitat Regulations Assessment, to be recommended for approval by Full Council to proceed to six-weeks’ formal public consultation in line with Regulation 19 of the statutory plan-making process.

It was reported that the Submission Version contained the full suite of revised planning policies and detailed policies maps incorporating both the changes to housing and mixed-use site allocations considered and agreed by the Committee at its last meeting held on 8 June 2026, and other recommended changes to policies and maps aimed at improving the Plan and addressing potential soundness issues, having taken into account the many representations received in response to the public consultation on the earlier Preferred Options Draft, carried out in February and March of this year.

The Committee was made aware that, although the Submission Version contained notable changes that should address some of the previous objections, it still contained a few policies and proposals that were known to be unpopular locally and would undoubtedly attract further objections. However, as had been reported and discussed extensively with the Committee over the course of the Local Plan review process, the overall scale of additional housing growth set out in the Local Plan had been forced upon the Council following the introduction of mandatory housebuilding targets by the Government in 2024 and the consequence of failing to have an up-to-date Local Plan that met Government requirements was losing control of the pattern and quality of development; continued vulnerability to uncoordinated, unwanted and unplanned speculative development; and the risk of Government intervention or planning decisions being overturned on appeal. 

Given the importance of the Local Plan, this report contained detailed commentary on the various risks and consequences of not proceeding to the next stage of the Local Plan review process as well as the risks that were likely to be encountered in moving forward to the next stage. Those included the Planning Inspectorate’s limited capacity to examine the number of Local Plans expected to be submitted across the country before the end of this year, the likelihood of continued public objections, the risks involved in progressing a Local Plan with very limited headroom contingency within the supply of sites for housing and mixed-use development, the ongoing need for the Council to make difficult and potentially unpopular decisions both on the Local Plan and on planning applications, the ongoing risk of planning appeals, the risk of Government intervention, the likelihood of public criticism of the consultation exercise, the risk of economic and housing market conditions not supporting the delivery of proposals in the Plan and the risks if, for whatever reason, the Planning Inspector concluded that the Local Plan was not sound.    

Members were told that the Submission Version should be treated as the final draft of the Plan that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.