Agenda and minutes

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

There were none.

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

It was moved by Councillor Alexander,  seconded by Councillor Casey and RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 28 September 2021 be approved as a correct record.

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.

Councillor Fowler declared a personal interest in Planning Application 21/00376/DETAIL - LAND TO THE SOUTH OF RAMSEY ROAD AND EAST OF MAYES LANE RAMSEY CO12 5EW due to her being a resident of Mayes Lane. She stated that she was pre-determined and had therefore not attended the Committee’s site visit for this application. Councillor Fowler also stated that she would withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate juncture and would take no part in the Committee’s deliberations on this application.

Councillor Fowler also declared a personal interest in Planning Application 21/01395/LBC - THE HARWICH TREADWHEEL CRANE ST HELENS GREEN HARWICH CO12 3NH due to her holding the role of Secretary of the Harwich Society.   She stated that she was pre-determined and had therefore not attended the Committee’s site visit for this application. Councillor Fowler also stated that she would withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate juncture and would take no part in the Committee’s deliberations on this application.

Councillor Bakerdeclared a personal interest in Planning Application LAND TO THE SOUTH OF LONG ROAD AND TO THE WEST OF CLACTON ROAD, MISTLEY CO11 2HN due to formerly being a Ward Member for that location.  Councillor Baker also stated that he would withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate juncture and would take no part in the Committee’s deliberations on this application.

Councillor Alexander declared a personal interest in Planning Application 21/01104/FUL 4-8 EDITH ROAD, CLACTON-ON-SEA CO15 1JU due to his being a Ward Member for that location. He stated that he was not pre-determined and that therefore, he would participate in the Committee’s deliberations 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.

There were none on this occasion.

The current application is seeking consent with regard to the reserved matters of landscaping, layout, appearance and scale. Importantly, the application relates only to the residential aspect of the development approximately 85% of the site, not the Employment Land in the south east corner (the remaining 15%) that is expected under a separate Reserved Matters application in the future.

The application was requested to be referred to Committee for a decision by Cllr. Coley.

Earlier on in the meeting, Councillor Baker had declared a Personal Interest in this application insofar as he was both a former Ward Member for that location and pre-determined. He therefore withdrew from the meeting whilst the Committee considered and made its decision on this application.

It was reported that the host site had obtained outline approval on appeal for the erection of up to 485 dwellings, up to 2 hectares of employment land (A2/A3/B1/B2; B8; D1 uses), with associated public open space and infrastructure on the 23 December 2019. The outline approval was for all matters to be reserved, other than strategic access points onto the public highway.

The Committee was informed that the current application sought its consent with regards to the reserved matters of landscaping, layout, appearance and scale. Importantly, the application related only to the residential aspect of the development and not the Employment Land in the south east corner,   which was expected to be dealt with under a separate Reserved Matters application in the future.

Members were aware that the application had been referred to the Committee for its decision by Councillor Coley for the following reasons:

•           The identification of which dwellings were considered as Affordable Housing & the status of those dwellings;

•           The developer’s commitment to Renewable Energy Facilities;

•           There was no information at all regarding the Employment Land, although the application title included this area for consideration. It was blank on the maps;

•           We also had concerns regarding the number of flats proposed (46) and no provision for private amenity space; and

•           The Design and Access Statement was limited in its content

All of those concerns had been addressed in the Officer report and updated reports and plans had been submitted.

The Committee was advised that the site was outside the defined Mistley settlement boundary of the saved Local Plan but within the settlement boundary of the emerging Local Plan. The principle of residential development had been accepted by the granting of outline planning permission, which had also established the position of the accesses.

It was considered by Officers that, in respect of Access, Appearance, Layout, Scale and Landscaping, the application had demonstrated that the development would be of high quality, would respond to its surroundings and would be sustainable. The detailed plans had complied with the outline requirements, and the usual design parameters (garden sizes, distance between dwellings and level of parking). The reserved matters were considered acceptable with no material harm to visual or residential amenity, or highway safety.

As such, it was the opinion of Officers that the Reserved Matters could be agreed subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation of the original Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the extension of the perimeter walking trail all the way round the outside of the site and signposts to the public footpaths beyond plus also the proposed Planning conditions outlined in section 8.2 of the Officer report. The reason the Deed of Variation had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee as the applicant is Tendring District Council. This application seeks Listed Building Consent for repair works, including underpinning, weatherboard and roof covering replacement, and timber and ironwork repairs.

Earlier on in the meeting, Councillor Fowler had declared a Personal Interest in this application insofar as she was both Secretary of the Harwich Society and pre-determined. She therefore withdrew from the meeting whilst the Committee considered and made its decision on this application.

It was reported that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the applicant was Tendring District Council itself.

The Committee was informed that this application sought Listed Building Consent for repair works, including underpinning, weatherboard and roof covering replacement, and timber and ironwork repairs.

Members were advised that the application site was a Grade II* Listed Building and had been the subject of consultation with the specialist heritage advisors - Historic England and ECC Heritage; neither of whom had raised any objections to the proposed works.

In addition, Harwich Town Council had raised no objections and no letters of representation had been received.

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.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Alexander and RESOLVED that the Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to the following:-

-

Conditions and Reasons:

1.       The works hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

Reason - To comply with the requirements of Section 18(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents:

- Drawing No. 21214/01 REV B

- Drawing No. 21214/10 REV B

- Drawing No. 21214/11 REV B

- Drawing No. 21214/12 REV B

- Drawing No. 21214/13 REV B

- Drawing No. 21214/14 REV B

- Drawing No. 21214/15 REV B

- Drawing No. 21214/16 REV B

Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee as the development is proposed by Tendring District Council on a section of coastline that is owned by Tendring District Council. The site is located outside the Development Boundary within both the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft 2017.

Members were informed that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the development had been proposed by Tendring District Council itself for a section of coastline that was owned by the Council. The site was located outside the Development Boundary within both the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft 2017.

It was reported that the application site was located north of Walton-on-the-Naze at the Naze Peninsular at the point the land and sea met.  The proposed works would take place between the current extents of the formal flood wall at the northern extent of the Naze Peninsular.

The Committee was informed that the application sought full planning permission for the installation of temporary measures such as sand filled bags as groynes, gabions to cliff face, and clay fill to the earth embankment in order to slow down/prevent coastal erosion in the area. By protecting the sea wall from further damage, the proposals would also protect the surrounding farmland and Anglian Water sewage treatment works that served the surrounding population and other assets such as Hamford Saltmarshes, which included part of the SPA and Ramsar site.

Officers felt that the proposed development, subject to the suggested conditions, would be of a scale and form appropriate for the intended use. The impact on biodiversity had been closely assessed and deemed acceptable. The proposed development would not result in any significant material loss of residential amenities. The works were expected to be completed in 8 weeks from start to finish. The application was, therefore recommended by Officers for approval subject to conditions.

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.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Harris and unanimously RESOLVED that the Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to the following:-

Conditions and Reasons:

1.         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The proposed works shall take place between the months of September and March only.

Reason - To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. In the interest of residential amenity.

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents:

De01/03/21/100          Proposed plans and sections

De01/03/21/101          Existing plans and sections

Tdc01/03/19/104 a      Location 2 - proposed plans and sections     

Tdc01/03/19/107         Block plan

Tdc01/03/19/100 a      Location 4 access works

Tdc01/03/19/105 a      Location 3 - existing plans and sections

Tdc01/03/19/103 a      Location 2 - existing plans and sections

Tdc01/03/19/106 a      Location 3 - proposed plans and sections

Ecologic 250 unit information (including plans) received 12 October 2021

Location  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160.

The application is before Members at the request of the Assistant Director of Planning and because there are minor conflict with policies and guidance relating to what is expected on standards for residential accommodation.

Earlier in the meeting Councillor Alexander had declared a personal interest in this Planning Applicationdue to his being a Ward Member for that location. He had stated that he was not pre-determined and therefore he participated in the Committee’s deliberations on this application.

It was reported that the application was before Members at the request of the Assistant Director (Planning) as there were a minor conflict with policies and guidance relating to what was expected on standards for residential accommodation.

The Committee was advised that the application site was known as Nos. 4, 6 and 8 Edith Road and was located on the east side of Edith Road (Clacton-on-Sea) and close to the junction with Marine Parade.  The site  lay within the Settlement Development Boundary of Clacton-on-Sea as defined within both the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017). The immediately vicinity was predominantly residential in character and a mixture of residential development comprising two, three and four storey semi-detached, terrace dwellings, the occasional detached dwelling and apartment blocks surrounded the site.         

The development proposal consisted of a change of use to a sui generis for 34 supported living units, including infill extension and other external alterations.

Given the current shortage of affordable homes in the District, Officers considered that facilities such as this played a vital role in providing short-term accommodation for sections of society in need, which was supported by national policy. Furthermore, the site was located in a highly sustainable, built up area of Clacton-on-Sea and within easy walking distance of a local convenience store, a café, the beach and other amenities. There were bus stops along Marine Parade West providing regular services to Walton, Frinton, Colchester and indeed other urban centres with ample services and job opportunities.  The site was within walking distance of Clacton Railway station providing excellent links to London.

Members were advised that the existing and authorised use on site was a combination of low budget guest houses/hotel, a hostel for the homeless, and some lawful self-contained flats.  Collectively and having regard to the existing authorised uses, the site consisted of nos. 4, 6 and 8 Edith Road could provide either low budget guest houses/hotel, or accommodation in the form of a hostel for the homeless, or accommodation in the form of 5 self-contained flats for up to 36 unrelated people or groups of people/families equating to up to 36 individuals. 

It was reported that the principle of supported living units being provided in sustainable urban centres close to shops, services, open spaces and other amenities was supported in both local (emerging and adopted) policies as well as in the NPPF.  The proposal would homogenise a current incompatible series of residential land uses (low budget guest houses/hotel, a hostel for the homeless, and some lawful self-contained flats), and would bring forward functional and appropriate temporary accommodation for ‘at risk’ people and the vulnerable, which would be, subject to conditions,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

This application has been called to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Steady and Councillor Barry for the following reasons:

•           The proposal is contrary to the Development Plan

•           Highway and Traffic Impact

•           Adverse impact on ancient woodland

•           Is outside the development area

•           The proposal could impact on highway safety at a difficult location and where school children are regularly walking.

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of 5 no. self-contained residential bungalows with associated parking, landscaping and amenity space at land to the rear of Strangers Way, Church Road, Brightlingsea. 

It was reported that this application had been called in to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Steady and Councillor Barry for the following reasons:-

•           The proposal was contrary to the Development Plan

•           Highway and Traffic Impact

•           Adverse impact on ancient woodland

•           Was outside the development area

•           The proposal could impact on highway safety at a difficult location and where school children were regularly walking.

Members were informed that this application sought planning permission for the erection of 5 no. self-contained residential bungalows with associated parking, landscaping and amenity space at land to the rear of Strangers Way, Church Road, Brightlingsea. 

The Committee was made aware that the site was located to the rear of the properties known as Strangers Way and Stronvar in Church Road, Brightlingsea.  Church Road comprised generally of large detached buildings set on large plots.  To the west of the site was a small development which had been granted permission at appeal in 2017 for the erection of 4 detached bungalows to the rear of Homefield, Church Road, Brightlingsea.

The site was located outside of the Settlement Development Boundary as defined under Policy QL1 of the adopted 2007 Local Plan. However, the publication draft of the Local Plan had included the site within the proposed Settlement Development Boundary, with no change proposed in the most recent modifications.   The Local pPlan was at a very advanced stage of preparation, and should be afforded considerable weight.

Members were further informed that the immediate locality was characterised by a mixture of two storey, one and a half storey and single storey dwellings.  They were all detached dwellings and located on large plots, with the exception of a small development of bungalows to the rear of ‘Homefield’, which was considered to set a precedent for in-depth development in the locality. 

The design, layout, access, were considered by Officers to be acceptable.  The proposal would result in no significant material harm to residential amenity or highway safety. 

It was also considered by Officers that the proposal would not adversely affect the Ancient Woodland or any protected species.

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 Team Leader (SCE) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of the following proposed condition in addition to those set out in the Officer’s Report: 

“Prior to the occupation of any dwelling a scheme detailing how a minimum of 20% of the energy needs generated by the development can be achieved through renewable energy sources shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall detail the anticipated energy needs of the scheme, the specific renewable technologies to be incorporated, details of noise levels emitted (compared  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162.

The application is referred to the Planning Committee at the Ward Members request. The application involves the erection of a two-bedroom dwelling together with parking and associated landscaping.

It was reported that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the Ward Member’s request.

Members were aware that this application involved the erection of a two-bedroom dwelling together with parking and associated landscaping.

The Committee was informed that the site was located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Little Bromley in the emerging Local Plan and the proposed modifications had not changed this, and that very significant weight should therefore be afforded this emerging spatial policy consideration. In addition, the proposal would not, in the opinion of Officers, result in harm to the existing character of the area or wider street scene in general with regards to the design, siting, scale and external appearance of the development. The proposal would also have no detrimental impact on residential amenity or highway safety.

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 Team Leader (JJ) in respect of the application.

Alistair Mugford, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Parish Councillor and Chairman John Buxton, representing Little Bromley Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor White, seconded by Councillor Placey and RESOLVED that the Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to a financial contribution towards RAMS and the following:-

Conditions and Reasons:

1.         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason - To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and document:

-           Drawing No. 20 1705 LOC Rev A – Location and Block Plan

-           Drawing No. 20 1705 01 Rev B – Landscaping Plan

-           Drawing No. 20 1705 02 Rev B – Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations

-           Planning Statement

-           Ecological Impact Assessment

Reason -  ...  view the full minutes text for item 163.

This application seeks approved of the Reserved Matters associated with the granting of planning permission 19/00917/OUT for the construction of 31 dwellings and 10 almshouse type bungalows for older persons and associated open space.

Members of the Planning Committee resolved to approve the outline planning permission at the Planning Committee meeting held on 19 May 2020 and requested that the ‘Reserved Matters’ application is referred back to the Committee.

Earlier on in the meeting, Councillor Fowler had declared a Personal Interest in this application insofar as she was both a resident of Mayes Lane and pre-determined. She therefore withdrew from the meeting whilst the Committee considered and made its decision on this application.

It was reported that this application sought approval of the Reserved Matters associated with the granting of planning permission 19/00917/OUT for the construction of 31 dwellings and 10 almshouse type bungalows for older persons and associated open space.

Members  had previously resolved to approve the outline planning permission at the Planning Committee’s meeting held on 19 May 2020 and had requested that the ‘Reserved Matters’ application  be brought before the Committee.

As established through the granting of outline planning permission (19/00917/OUT) the principle of residential development for up to 41 dwellings (including 10 almshouses) on this site was acceptable.

The detailed design, layout and landscaping were considered by Officers to be acceptable. The proposal would result in no material harm to residential amenity or highway safety and was considered acceptable in urban design terms.

The various details and technical reports submitted to meet the requirements of certain conditions placed on the outline permission (as outlined within the application description) had been reviewed by consultees and were acceptable in the opinion of the Officers.

The application was therefore recommended for approval by Officers subject to the conditions outlined at section 8.2 of the Officer report.

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 Team Leader (JJ) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting stating that  following the publication of the committee report, it  had been brought to the officer’s attention that contaminated land reports and information previously submitted to the LPA by the Applicant had, due to staff turnover, not been made available to Environmental Protection (EP) colleagues to review. 

Environmental Protection (EP) had provided updated comments which included the following:

“As per the Groundsure report, dated 21st April 2021; conclusions of the risk assessment indicated there was a LOW/MODERATE risk associated with the site; Given the references made to PAH’s found on the adjoining site, the aforementioned conclusions of the Groundsure report, and in accordance with our standard guidelines, we would request further investigations be undertaken.  Consideration have been given to the attached letter and the request for a Watching Brief to be imposed, however given the historical contamination with the locality and the conclusion of the Groundsure report, we are requesting further assessment be undertaken.

Therefore, the EP team requested the following be conditioned on any associated approval or request prior to determination:

Contaminated Land: In light of the conclusion highlighted in the Groundsure report and in line with our previous comments in April 2021, the EP Team requested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 164.