Floodlit football PlayZone at Cliff Park, High Street, Harwich
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Tendring Planning Committee on 3 Sept 2026.
What was proposed
The application proposed a floodlit multi-use PlayZone with fencing, lighting, seating, benches, bins and controlled community access.
“Proposal 7.2 This application seeks planning permission for the construction of a floodlit football foundation Playzone located to the south of Park Pavillion and Army Cadet Force Centre and to the east of the play area and gym equipment. The Playzone will be fully encapsulated by 3m high fencing, with a 4 metre high goal recess section to the ends of the Playzone.”
Officer report
The site and surroundings
Cliff Park is public open space with existing recreational facilities, within the conservation area and near Beacon Hill Fort.
“Harm to local habitats • Detract from the visual amenity of the park and beach environment • Lacks supervision, security or management • Cuts off access for everyday users of the park These matters are addressed in the body of the report. Assessment Site Context 7.1 Cliff Park is designated as Safeguarded Open Space in the Local Plan, is owned by Tendring District Council and lies within the Lower Dovercourt Conservation Area.”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended approval because the PlayZone would improve recreation, while public benefits outweighed limited heritage harm, subject to safeguards.
“Conclusion 8.1 The proposed PlayZone would provide an enhanced recreational facility within an established area of public open space, supporting increased participation in sport and physical activity and contributing to the objectives of Local Plan Policy HP5.”
“Recommendation 9.1 Approval (no S106 requirements) Recommendation: Approval That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to no objections from Natural England and Place Services Ecology being received, and subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 9.2, or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including…”
Officer report
Heritage and archaeology
The development would cause low-level heritage harm, but archaeological investigation and mitigation would be secured through conditions.
“Consequently, the concerns relating to the tree planting are not considered to materially affect the acceptability of the proposed PlayZone development. Place Services Archaeology advises that the submitted archaeological assessments satisfactorily identify the significance of the heritage assets affected and confirm the potential presence of below- ground remains associated with the former military use of the site.”
Officer report
Consultation responses
Highways, environmental protection, landscape, Sport England and the town council raised no objection, while heritage consultees raised concerns.
“All consultation responses are available to view, in full (including all recommended conditions and informatives), on the planning file using the application reference number via the Council’s Public Access system by following this link https://idox.tendringdc.gov.uk/online-applications/. ECC Highways Dept 08.01.2026 No objection is raised to the proposal from a highway and transportation perspective.”
“Sport England considers that the proposed Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA), associated fencing, lighting and spectator area would provide significant sporting benefits and accords with Exception 5 of its Playing Fields Policy and paragraph 104 of the NPPF 2024, as the benefits to sport outweigh any limited loss of playing field land.”
Officer report
Public concerns
Three objections and one other representation raised concerns about parking, habitats, appearance, supervision, security, management and access.
“Neighbour / Local Representations Three objections and one representation have been received which raise the following planning concerns: • Parking pressures…”
Officer report
Who spoke
The council’s planning officer gave an oral presentation, and no member of the public registered to speak.
The committee vote
Councillor Land moved the decision, Councillor Alexander seconded it, and the committee agreed unanimously.
“It was moved by Councillor Land, seconded by Councillor Alexander and unanimously:-”
Minutes
The decision
Permission was authorised subject to no objection from Place Services Ecology, the stated conditions and any necessary updates or further ecology conditions.
“(f) the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to no objections from Place Services Ecology being received and subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 9.2 of the Officer report (A.3) (and any subsequently put forward by Place Services Ecology), 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…”
“(g) informative notes be sent to the applicant, as may be deemed necessary, by the Head of Planning and Building Control.”
Minutes
Sources
- Tendring Planning Committee minutes, 3 September 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
- Thursday 3 September 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Vote
- Unanimous
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Tendring committee decisions →
This committee's year
21 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 1 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.