Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for non-attendance were received from Councillors Simon Rielly, Elliott Prentice and Charlie Best.

It was noted that Councillor Jean Addison was present as a substitute for Councillor Simon Rielly.

RESOLVED                that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee (North) held on 2^nd October 2024 be approved as a correct record subject to a minor amendment in relation to speakers comments raised on item 4.2.

RESOLVED:-

That the minutes of the meeting of Planning Committee (North) held on 2nd October 2024 be approved as a correct record, subject to an amendment in relation to speakers’ comments for item 4.2.

The Chair asked members to declare any interests on items present on the agenda.

Councillor Geoff Shacklock declared on interest in item 4.3 stating that he had met with residents, but he did not consider himself to be pre-determined.

The Committee considered the following application for planning permission, which were set out in the Planning Officers report and supplemented verbally and in writing at the meeting.

The reports included details of applications and, where applicable, results of statutory consultations and representations which had been received from interested bodies and individuals, and the Committee reached the following decisions:-.

Following debate it was:

RESOLVED            That

a)    planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions listed in paragraph 11 of the report and subject to completion of an acceptable Section 106 agreement which secures appropriate planning obligations; and

b)    should an acceptable Section 106 agreement securing appropriate planning obligations not be completed by 25 January 2025, or any further extension of time agreed in writing between the applicant and the Local Planning Authority, that it be delegated to the Executive Director of Place and Economy to REFUSE planning permission.

Members received a report which sought full planning permission for the addition of 3 no. additional floors together with change of use of first floor from snooker club to provide 24 no. apartments with PV solar panels to roof at 9 Montagu Street, Kettering for Messrs D & J Hughes Certain Security Limited. The Planning 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.

Requests to address the meeting had been received from Paul Martin, a third-party objector, Darren Carter, a third party speaking in favour, Councillor Mark Rowley, representative of Kettering Town Council and Mark Kelly, the agent on behalf of the applicant.

Paul Martin attended the meeting and addressed the committee as a third party objector to the proposed development. Mr Martin as the current leaseholder for the development site state that the current business was to made homeless with no alternative premises and that the loss of the business would be detrimental to the local community.

Darren Carter attended the meeting and addressed the committee as a third party speaking in favour of the proposed development. Mr Carter stated the need for heat protection screen for residents of the proposed development due to the nature of incoming sunlight.

Councillor Mark Rowley attended the meeting and addressed the committee as a representative of Kettering Town Council stating objections due to the loss of an important community leisure facility that had been in use for nearly 40 years. Concerns were also raised in relation to the overdevelopment of the site and the detrimental visual impact on the neighbouring street scene as well as light pollution and no biodiversity net gain associated with the development.

Mark Kelly attended the meeting and addressed the committee as the agent on behalf of the applicant to the proposed development. The agent explained to the committee regarding the circumstances behind the proposed development.  

Following the public speakers and for the purposes of debate and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution Rules 19.2 and 19.21 Councillor Wendy Brackenbury moved the recommendation as set out in the Planning Officer’s report and it was seconded by Councillor Robin Carter.

Members raised concerns regarding the potential detrimental impact the proposed development would have on the road infrastructure as well as impact on traffic congestion in the area. Concerns regarding parking were also raised.

Members heard that due to the proposed development’s location in relation to the town centre and alternative transport methods that the site was sustainable.

Concerns were also raised by members in relation to the S106 agreement associated with the development and the lack of contribution offered to health services in the area. It was clarified to members that the Integrated Care Board (ICB) were only seeking contributions on developments of 100 units or more and so was not relevant to this application.

Following debate 

(Members voted on the officers’ recommendation to approve the application)

(Voting: For 5, Against  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Members received a report which sought permission for a mixed use residential-led development comprising 150 dwellings (C3 Use Class), 2,165sqft of Class E Use floor space including external soft and hard landscaping, open space provision, car and cycle parking, renewable energy provision and ancillary infrastructure.  The Planning 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.

The applicant had submitted a viability report which had been independently assessed by Chris White of White Land Strategies Limited.  Having considered all of the parameters, he believed that it was clearly evident that a policy compliant approach was unviable.  The scheme was challenging from a viability point of view and was struggling to provide any affordable housing and S106 contributions as a consequence.

Requests to address the meeting had been received from Theresa Bannigan and Hannah Pratt, third-party objectors; Councillor Lyn Buckingham, a ward Member; Sav Patel, Agent and Patrick Boyle, the applicant.

Theresa Bannigan attended the meeting and addressed the committee.  She was representing over 50 residents and advised that they were not against development of the site but objected to the current proposal.  Their concerns included height, density, noise and light pollution, inadequate infrastructure, inadequate surface water drainage and traffic management issues, including parking. The committee was asked to consider the detrimental consequences and long-term implications of permitting this development and to reject the proposal. 

Hannah Pratt attended the meeting and addressed the committee.  She was representing 50 residents who neighbour the proposed development.  It was acknowledged the site needed redevelopment but the committee were asked to consider the detrimental consequences and long term implications if this design was approved.  Their major objections and concerns included height and density, the design not being considerate to existing residents in terms of overshadowing, pollution and the size of the proposed dwellings.  The committee was asked to seriously consider the consequences of permitting this development.

Councillor Lyn Buckingham attended the meeting and addressed the committee.  Redevelopment of the site was very much needed but it had to be the right development.  The report did not adequately address some of the concerns that had been raised, including waste management.  The proposed number of affordable housing units had significantly dropped from 45 units down to 7.  The development was at one of the lowest points in Corby and excess water would have an impact on flooding.  Both the Environment Agency and Anglian Water had raised concerns and those concerns were not being listened to.  The committee was asked to ensure the concerns that had been raised were adequately addressed.

Sav Patel attended the meeting and addressed the committee and fully endorsed the planning officer’s recommendation.  His client had fully engaged with officers at the pre-application stage to agree the details in terms of design, scale and layout. Extensive public consultation with local residents and key stakeholders had also taken place and amendments to the scheme have been made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Following debate it was:

RESOVLED            That planning permission was GRANTED subject to conditions listed in Paragraph 11 of the report.

Members received a report which sought planning permission for the conversion of former workshop buildings to create three dwellings.  The Planning Officer presented the report which detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultation and an assessment of the proposal. An update was also provided to confirm that the mitigation against the recreational pressures clause to the zone of influence had been received.

Requests to address the meeting had been received from Pat Silburn and Jan McLean-Smith, third-party objectors; Councillor Shaun Moffat, a parish councillor, and Lauren May, Agent for the applicant.

Pat Silburn attended the meeting and addressed the committee. Whilst the reuse of redundant buildings and utilising the site was positive for the village, residents had concerns that this proposal was overdevelopment as there would be a 10% increase in housing in a hamlet with no infrastructure.  The access road was a private single track road with no speed limit and no passing places, with a wide range of vehicles using it.  The greatest concern was child safety as the school bus, dropped off and picked up 10 meters from the proposed site on a blind bend.  As a private, unadopted road the surface water drains were not maintained by the local authority and when it frequently became blocked, flooding occurred only two meters from the proposed access. 

Jan McLean-Smith attended the meeting and addressed the committee.  Whilst a sympathetic development of the site would be a contribution, this application was seen as overdevelopment.  The number of parking spaces allocated was challenged as all visitors would have to drive to the site and would end up parking on the road and verge, constituting a hazard to visibility and safety.  It was believed that vehicles would have to back out onto the narrow village road on a bend, causing a potential hazard.  Villagers contended that the current plans represented overdevelopment and that they should be refused.

Councillor Shaun Moffat attended the meeting and addressed the committee.  The Parish Council, in principle, supported the redevelopment of the site and reuse of the dilapidated buildings, but felt that it must object to the current application on a number of grounds.  The proposed three dwellings appeared to constitute overdevelopment of the site and resulted in limited amenity.  Whilst parking appeared to meet current policy requirements, there would potentially be overspill vehicles which would need to park on the narrow lane causing problems for other road users.  Due to the size of the parking area, vehicles would only be able to leave the site by reversing out onto a bend and the Parish Council did not feel that this was acceptable in terms of vehicle and pedestrian safety.  No provision of refuse bins could be seen on the plans and it was hard to see how they could be accommodated in the courtyard parking area.  Also, no provision of drainage or cesspits could be seen on the plans and parish councillors felt that further information  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

There were no urgent items of business.