Eight bungalows at West Lodge Sparrows Corner, Great Oakley, Harwich
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Tendring Planning Committee on 14 Oct 2026.
What was proposed
The application proposed demolishing West Lodge and building eight detached bungalows with access, parking, landscaping and infrastructure works.
“Development: Planning Application - Demolition of existing residential dwelling and erection of 8 bungalows with associated access, parking and amenity.”
“This application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling known as West Lodge and the erection of 8 detached bungalows with associated access, parking, landscaping and infrastructure works (net increase in 7 dwellings).”
Officer report
The site and surroundings
The site included the existing dwelling and rear land, with residential development around three sides and countryside beyond the northern boundary.
“The site extends approximately 0.6 hectares in size and currently comprises West Lodge and its extended residential curtilage. The land is predominantly grass with a limited number of shrubs, and is partially enclosed by mature trees along the site boundaries. The site also contains a disused swimming pool.”
“The site is situated on the northern edge of the built-up area of Great Oakley. West Lodge and its immediate rear garden are located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary (SDB) of Great Oakley, whilst the remainder of the site lies outside the SDB.”
Officer report
Why officers recommended approval
Officers considered the proposal sustainable because it provided seven homes, related well to the settlement and could be accommodated by local infrastructure.
“The proposal conflicts with Local Plan Policies SPL1 and SPL2 because the majority of the site and the proposed dwellings lie outside the defined Settlement Development Boundary for Great Oakley. However, this conflict must be considered alongside the Council’s current housing land supply position, the relevant decision-making policies of the NPPF 2026 and all other material planning considerations.”
“The Council can currently demonstrate 3.22 years of deliverable housing land. The proposal would provide a net increase of seven dwellings and make a modest but positive contribution towards meeting the District’s identified housing requirement. The site is physically well-related to the existing built form of Great Oakley, is enclosed by residential development on three sides and is visually contained by established boundary vegetation.”
Officer report
Who spoke
The applicant’s agent spoke in support, while a member of the public and the local ward member spoke against the application.
Members’ questions
Members questioned biodiversity net gain, local wildlife, contamination risks and whether conditions would provide sufficient safeguards.
“Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- Officer’s response thereto:- Could you explain in relation to BNG bio net gain and why that cannot be achieved? (Amy Lang) The development will secure the biodiversity net gain requirements in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the legislation that is covered by the conditions within the report.”
“The report also refers to a 30-year period and states that “any off-site biodiversity gain must be maintained for at least 30 years.” Could you explain this further and clarify how that 30-year period relates to achieving and maintaining the required biodiversity net gain? (John Pateman-Gee) The baseline position is established by assessing the existing site using the Government’s biodiversity metric, which assigns a value to the existing habitat.”
Minutes
The committee’s decision
After a motion and seconder were named, the committee authorised planning permission subject to the stated conditions and necessary informatives.
“(a) the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 9.2 of the Officer report (A.1), 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…”
“(b) informative notes be sent to the applicant, as may be deemed necessary, by the Head of Planning and Building Control.”
Minutes
Councillors at the meeting
- Maria FowlerChairLabour
- John WhiteVice-ChairIndependent
- Maurice AlexanderConservative
- James CodlingReform UK
- Bernard GoldmanIndependent
- Daniel LandDeclared an interestNot In A Political Group
- Geeta SudraIndependent
- Ann WigginsLib Dem
- Aimee Louise KetecaReform UK
Proposed by Councillor Bernard Goldman, seconded by Councillor John White.
Source: Plota analysis of the council's minutes; parties from the council's list of councillors.
Sources
- Tendring Planning Committee minutes, 14 October 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Tendring's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Tendring Planning Committee
- Council
- Tendring
- Date
- Wednesday 14 October 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Councillors
- 9Independent 3Reform UK 2Conservative 1Labour 1Lib Dem 1Not In A Political Group 1Show councillors
- Public speakers
- The john pateman-gee
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Tendring committee decisions →
This committee's year
24 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 1 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.