Agenda item
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Thursday, 30th October, 2025 5.00 pm (Item 44.)
- View the background to item 44.
Change of use of land to leisure use and construction of two holiday lodges.
Minutes:
Members heard that this application was before the Planning Committee following a call-in from Councillor Harris, on the grounds that, in his opinion, the proposal represented a form of backland development, would result in highway safety issues, and also potential harm to existing and neighbouring residents. The proposal sought permission for the change of use of land to tourism use and the erection of two lodges for holiday purposes.
The Committee was made aware that the site was outside of a Settlement Development Boundary and policies contained within the Local Plan did not specifically mention holiday lets in the types of tourism opportunities to be promoted within the District and overall were not clear whether a small-scale proposal such as this represented a departure. A recent appeal decision had allowed the conversion of a stable block into two holiday units, and while that differed from this application, it did add some weight to the acceptability of the current scheme. Furthermore, the proposal was considered by Officers to result in a small boost to the tourism offering within the District, and was also not within an isolated and unsustainable location.
Members were told that planning harm had not been identified as no objections had been raised regarding the impact to the character of the area, or to the impacts to neighbouring amenities, and Essex County Council Highways had raised no objections following the submission of additional information.
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 Senior Planning Officer (MP) in respect of the application.
There were no updates circulated to Members on this item.
Stephen Nixon, the agent, spoke in support of the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
Could Members have comments on the status as backland? |
In terms of the backland residential development policy, where there are various requirements, this application would be looking at the access point which has had the same discussion on a previous application, it would be in the investigator’s view to see the access as a proposal whereas this is an existing access. To demonstrate that a long access would cause harm, it would have to be argued that it is new development in order to cause that harm, as an existing development, it would be hard to find the harm. |
|
Can Members get confirmation on the sewage outlet? |
It is a septic tank on this occasion. |
|
Can Members and Officers be absolutely confident that there is no potential for discharge of the septic tank for sewerage that close to the lake? |
Our position is that Officers could not 100% guarantee that would not be the case. Officers could suggest that if Members were minded to recommend approval where Officers could secure details of the septic tank and exactly how that would work but Officers do not have those details as part of this application (A.2). Officers understand that it is a fishing lake that is a separate entity so Officers do not believe that there would be any problems but because that information is not available, it is hard to guarantee it would not happen. If Members were to recommend approval, Officers could put a condition in place to allow Officers to receive that information at a later stage. |
|
Where was the sub-station going to be? |
The sub-station has been subject to a separate planning application that has previously been determined, it is to the north of the land. In terms of the visibility, Essex Highways did initially raise objections, but all the information was submitted by the agent for the application and Essex Highways have now said that they are satisfied and now raise no objections. |
|
Have any letters of representation been received by the neighbours? |
The only communication that Officers have received is from Councillor Harris and Tendring Parish Council but otherwise nothing in support or against the application. |
|
Has the wildlife sensitive lighting design scheme been submitted? |
It is in the conditions (number 10). It is a prior to occupation condition as part of the recommendation for approval. |
It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Alexander that the application be deferred on the reasons as follows:-
- to learn where the sewage would go; and
- for the wildlife sensitive lighting design scheme to be submitted.
On being put to the vote, the motion was declared LOST on the Chairman’s casting vote.
It was moved by Councillor Goldman, seconded by Councillor Smith and:-
RESOLVED that:-
1) the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 10.1 of the Officer report (A.2), the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Monitoring Conditions, notwithstanding details of no lighting unless approved (swap of light strategy condition) and foul sewerage conditions to be approved, or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained; and
2) the sending to the applicant of the informative notes as may be deemed necessary.
Supporting documents:
PDF 365 KB