Agenda and minutes

Apologies for non-attendance were received from Councillor Kirk Harrison.

The Chair invited those who wished to do so to declare interests in respect of items on the agenda.

The following informal site visits were declared:

• Wood Farm House, 11 High Street, Collyweston – Councillor Jennie Bone
• 11 Higham Road, Rushden – Councillors Bert Jackson and Jennie Bone
• 37 High Street, Irthlingborough – Councillors Bert Jackson, Jennie Bone and Roger Powell
• 27 Bradfield Road, Rushden – Councillors Bert Jackson and Jennie Bone

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the Area Planning Committee Thrapston held on 1 February 2023 be confirmed as a correct record and signed.

Two storey dwelling with single storey granny annexe.

Recommendation: Grant

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

Conversion of existing building to one-bedroom dwelling.

Recommendation: Grant

The Committee considered an application for the conversion of an existing building to a one-bedroom dwelling.

The Senior Development Management Officer presented the report which detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal, providing full and comprehensive details.

It was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the committee report.

The Chair invited the Committee to determine the application.

During debate on the application, the following points were made:

•      The images of the existing building showed a Collyweston slate roof and as the building was in the conservation area, could a condition be added to retain the roof in perpetuity.  In response, officers advised that the wording of condition 3 could be modified to take into account members concerns.

•      It was noted that the required visibility splay would not be able to put in place.  The Officer advised that to include the visibility splay would require the removal of part of the existing wall but as the agricultural use was being removed it was felt that the splays were not required.

•      As the dwelling would be more than 45 meters from the highway, would there be a turning circle for emergency vehicles.  Also, would the width of the access road accommodate the size of those vehicles.  It was confirmed that without changes to the application, they would not be able to be achieved.

•      In response to a question as to whether a condition could be included to provide fire sprinklers in the building, officers confirmed that this would be covered by Building Regulations and was not required, however it could be included as an informative.

It was proposed by Councillor Andy Mercer and seconded by Councillor Geoff Shacklock that planning permission be granted, subject to the rewording of the condition related to the roof and the inclusion of an informative on fire sprinklers.

On being put to the vote, the motion for approval was unanimously carried. 

RESOLVED:-

That planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions (and reasons) numbered in the committee report and the amended condition and informative.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 6 dwellings.

Recommendation: Grant

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of six dwellings.

The Principal Development Management Officer presented the report which detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal, providing full and comprehensive details.

It was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the committee report.

Requests to address the meeting had been received from Dorothy Maxwell, an objector and Richard Colson, the agent, and the Committee was given the opportunity to ask questions for clarification.

Mrs Maxwell stated that the application made no sense.  The development would be cramped, over developed and have a difficult access with the junction at Washbrook Road being very bad.  There would be cramped amenity space and little parking.  The Committee needed to listen the planning inspector and local residents as this application was not substantially different to the previous application.

Mr Colson stated that he and the applicant welcomed the recommendation made by the officer.  This new application had addressed the concerns which had been raised in the appeal decision.  The number of dwellings had been reduced and the provision of parking had been improved.  Access to the site could also be accommodated.  The Local Highways Authority had still objected as there were over five properties using an access but there was now one less dwelling.  The recommendation was welcomed, and the objections had been overridden by the Inspector’s report.

The Chair invited the Committee to determine the application.

During debate on the application, the following points were made:

•      Members raised concerns about the entrance to the site and the impact on traffic as it was between two sets of traffic lights and was a very busy section of the road.  There was also concern at the impact the proposed gates would have on traffic.  In response, it was advised that the gates were more than 5.5m from the highway, which Highways advised was sufficient.  There was also a condition for the detail of the gates.

•      It was acknowledged that this application was an improvement on the original but there was disappointment at the lack of proposed amenity space.

•      There were still over five properties from a private driveway.  In response, the officer advised that the Planning Inspector had found that the earlier proposal for seven dwellings would not cause harm to the network and users.

•      Asked as to what weight the Committee needed to give to the Planning Inspector’s report, the legal advisor advised that the Inspector had examined the highways issues in a planning context and therefore a high weight should be given.

•      If the Committee were minded to grant the application, a condition should be added for the drive to be made to an adoptable standard.

•      It was noted that there was a tiled ornamentation on the site, and members believed that this should be retained as it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Conversion of building to 4No 1 Bed flats, together with two storey rear and side extension and change of use from retail / storage to residential.

Recommendation: Grant

The Committee considered an application for the conversion of a building to 4No 1-bedroom flats, together with a two-storey rear and side extension and change of use from retail/storage to residential.

The Senior Development Management Officer presented the report which detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal, providing full and comprehensive details.

It was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the committee report.

A request to address the meeting had been received from Councillor Dorothy Maxwell, a Ward Member and the Committee was given the opportunity to ask questions for clarification.

Councillor Maxwell stated that this application was an overdevelopment of the site within a conservation area.  The proposed flats were cramped and there would be a lack of privacy.  Parking would also be an issue and the applicant’s parking survey did not take into account daytime parking.  There would also be issues with waste.  The loss of a shop would have an impact on the economy of the High Street.  The application should be refused to protect residents and over development of the property.

The Chair invited the Committee to determine the application.

During debate on the application, the following points were made:

•      It was noted that the proposed units met or exceeded the required standards for one-bedroomed flats, however they were not large enough.  The building would be more suited for three units.  Four units was too many and there was also a lack of amenity space.

•      The lack of parking provision was noted.  The surrounding roads had limited time parking during the day and spaces were very limited.

•      Whilst two of the units exceed the minimum space standards, it was suggested that the developer be asked to look at only three units to improve their quality.  In response, officers advised that all of the proposed units met the national minimum standards.  It was accepted that it was difficult to get amenity space in a town centre setting.

It was proposed by Councillor Lee Wilkes and seconded by Councillor Geoff Shacklock that planning permission be granted.

On being put to the vote, there were four votes for the motion, two against and one abstention, therefore the motion was carried. 

RESOLVED:-

That planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions (and reasons) numbered in the committee report.

Proposed detached dwelling and associated works.

Recommendation: Grant

Councillor Barbara Jenney left the meeting for the following item.

The Committee considered an application for a proposed detached dwelling and associated works.

The Principal Development Management Officer presented the report which detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal, providing full and comprehensive details.

It was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the committee report.

The Chair invited the Committee to determine the application.

During debate on the application, the following points were made:

•      Members questioned how the back garden could be accessed and where waste bins would be stored.  In response, the officer advised that there would be a side access to the back garden and bins would be stored at the front of the building.

•      It was noted that the previous application had been approved on appeal, where the principle of development on the site had been approved.

•      The parking spaces had to be reduced but they did not now meet the visibility splay standards.  If the Committee were minded to grant the application, an additional condition for 2m x 2m visibility splays should be included.

It was proposed by Councillor Lee Wilkes and seconded by Councillor Geoff Shacklock that planning permission be granted, subject to the additional condition for 2m x 2m visibility splays.

On being put to the vote, there were five votes for the motion, none against and one abstention, therefore the motion was carried. 

RESOLVED:-

That planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions (and reasons) numbered in the committee report and the additional condition.

Councillor Barbara Jenney returned to the meeting.

RESOLVED:-

That Meeting Procedure Rule 10 (Guillotine) be suspended to enable the Committee to continue the business on the agenda.

Erection of an industrial storage building anchored to existing hardstanding.

Recommendation:  Grant

The Committee considered an application for the erection of an industrial storage building anchored to existing hardstanding.

The Principal Development Management Officer presented the report which detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal, providing full and comprehensive details.

It was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the committee report.

The Chair invited the Committee to determine the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Gill Mercer and seconded by Councillor Geoff Shacklock that planning permission be granted.

On being put to the vote, the motion for approval was unanimously carried. 

RESOLVED:-

That planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions (and reasons) numbered in the committee report.

The Chair thanked members, officers and the public for their attendance and closed the meeting.

The meeting closed at 9.05pm.