Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

The two containers sitting on top of each other, with the height being greater than the building around these, is this acceptable?

That is a matter for your debate and judgement. Officers would have nothing to warrant refusal on that basis if found to be unacceptable.

Where the Highways Conditions are included with the red lines on the Officer presentation, is making sure that they are adhered to Essex County Council’s responsibility and not Tendring District Council’s?

The conditions on this application will be imposed and referred to the enforcement team if they were not complied with should the application be granted. In terms of the wider site, the road itself is subject to ECC Highways and their enforcement.

Do we know what has prompted the applicants to apply for planning permission at this point and not considerably earlier?

It was a referral from our enforcement department, so Officers asked for an application to be submitted.

It is not a material consideration. The site is subject to a different application, whilst dealing with that application, Officers can only apply public funding responsibly. With enforcement, there has to be a degree of time before amenity comes into effect.

If the site was not already there, what would be the Officer recommendation?

Whilst the advantage of a retrospective application is that Officers and Members can see what the application would look like, the requirement is to treat this application as if the site was not there and judge it on its own planning merits.

How long has this been outside of planning permission?

The existing 2 portacabins were in situ during a previous application in 2021, the others were in situ from June 2024.

Why has it taken so long for the Council to pick this up?

It has taken a while to get to this point. There was a reason to delay coming forward on this application because during the years in between, Officers have had a larger Surya Foods application that took precedence rather than taking forward this application (also JR and legal agreement matters). In planning, there is no penalty (with the exception of Listed Buildings) with respect of retrospective buildings. Members have to deal with the merits that are before them and not on the fact that it is a retrospective application.

Were the applicants aware that they needed planning permission?

Officers would hope they would be aware of the ongoing enforcement investigation that was opened at that time.

Could Officers expand on that please?

It is not within your remit to consider a different balance of the planning merit that is before Members simply because application is a retrospective application, Members’ role is to consider this as a proposed application. The applicants are allowed to make that application, there is nothing in the legislation stopping the applicants from making the application. The applicants are allowed to go through the normal planning process. In terms of if the applicants knew of their breach, that should not be given any weight. Members should think about if this application carries harm in planning terms.

Does the extending of the land have bearing on the Surya Rice application? Is there a judicial review that Members are not aware of?

In terms of the judicial review on the application, as far as the Officers know, it has not gone any further. In respect of if there is an overlap between this site and the other site, yes there is an overlap. If Members were to approve this application, it would carry on operating. If the Suyra Food application was to be implemented, which is not at this time, it does have conflict with this application, but that is for the applicant to resolve as necessary in that other application, not this one. The owners of the land are the same which means they could deal with that land quite quickly.

What was the reason for the long delay? (in respect of Surya)

There was a legal agreement that was necessary to be complete which took some time including a Highways related delay because some land had a Highways matter attached to it with some ownership issues over Highways land. Judicial review also delated the decision. In this case, there were a few reasons why this took a while.

Essentially, this is a new application and that is what is being judged today, is that correct?

Yes.