Agenda, decisions and minutes

Resolved to note that apologies for non-attendance were received from Councillors Bert Jackson and Steven North.

Resolved to note that apologies for non-attendance were received from Councillors Bert Jackson and Steven North.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 2024 were received.

The chair proposed that the minutes of the meeting be deferred for approval until the next meeting of the committee. 

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of 20 March 2024 be deferred for approval until the next meeting of the committee. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 2024 were received.

The chair proposed that the minutes of the meeting be deferred for approval until the next meeting of the committee. 

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of 20 March 2024 be deferred for approval until the next meeting of the committee. 

The chair took the opportunity to thank Councillor Jennie Bone for her period as chair of the planning committee and extended the committees congratulations on her appointment as deputy chair of the council.

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

The following members made a declaration:

Informal site visits had been undertaken by Cllrs Bone, Irwin and G Lawman to the site at 36-40 High Street, Irthlingborough.

Resolved to note the declarations made and the site visits by members.

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

The following members made a declaration:

Informal site visits had been undertaken by Cllrs Bone, Irwin and G Lawman to the site at 36-40 High Street, Irthlingborough.

Resolved to note the declarations made and the site visits by members.

Resolved that planning permission be refused, contrary to the officer recommendation, due to the following reasons:

·       Loss of amenity;

·       Failure to comply with the adopted parking standards of North Northamptonshire Council.

·       Over-development of the site

The final wording of the refusal to be delegated to officers in consultation with the chair and vice-chair of the committee.

The chair adjourned the meeting for 10 minutes so those members of the public who were present could leave the meeting and to enable him to vacate the chair so the vice-chair could to take over the chairmanship for the next item.

The committee considered an application to make alternations to an existing property, and to add a second-floor roof extension to form three new apartments located at 36-40 High Street, Irthlingborough, Wellingborough, NN9 5TN.

The Senior Development Management Officer, Chris Hill, presented the report which detailed the proposal, description of the site, 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 conditions listed in the report.

Requests to address the meeting had been received from an objector, Reverend Canon John Westwood and Irthlingborough Town Council representative, Caroline Cross. The committee was given the opportunity to ask questions of clarification of the speakers.

The speakers addressed the meeting and in summary raised the concerns of those residing in Warrens Close, who considered the proposal was an over-development of the site which was in the conservation area, with access via a narrow residential cul-de-sac.  There was insufficient parking, as the parking places had already been allocated, and on-street parking was very limited and any development would cause congestion. Access for emergency and utility vehicles would also be compromised as there was limited space and a small turning circle.

It was also considered that a three-storey development was not in keeping with the area, the character of the build would be out of place, the stability of the property and suitability of the foundations of the current building were also questioned.  The effects of the development to the wildlife in the nearby community garden and the visual effect on the street scene were also questioned. Reference was also made to the letter of objection submitted by the local Member of Parliament, Tom Pursglove on behalf of the residents.  

The chair thanked the speakers for addressing the meeting.

For the purpose of debate and in accordance with the council’s constitution, meeting procedure rules 19.2 and 19.21 the chair moved the recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in paragraph 11 of the report.  This was seconded by Councillor Bone.

The chair invited members to debate the proposed application.

The committee made the following points:

·        The availability of parking was a key issue. It was felt that the proposed parking was insufficient and did not meet the approved parking standards.  Whilst it had been suggested that parking could be found nearby it was a considerable distance and not acceptable for residents to park this far away, also 24-hour parking was not allowed in the nearby council car park. Disappointment was expressed that highways were not in attendance at the meeting for members to question the findings of the parking beat survey and the measurements provided for alternative parking provision and the statement that the shortfall in   parking spaces could be accommodated in the surrounding area.

·           Members questioned the parking survey and officers responded to advise that the methodology of the parking survey was widely used and was undertaken at a time  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Resolved that:

(i)            the application be refused, contrary to the recommendation of the

officer;

(ii)          the final wording of the refusal be delegated to officers in consultation with the vice-chair of the committee.  

The meeting reconvened with Councillor Irwin, as vice-chair, in the chair.

The committee considered an application for Spire Works, Park Road, Raunds, Wellingborough, NN9 6J for the change of use of ground floor to retail shop and the change of use of the upper floor to residential flat with internal and external alterations.

The Senior Development Management Officer, Chris Hill, presented the report which detailed the proposal, description of site, 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 conditions listed in the report.

Requests to address the meeting had been received from Mr Hancock, Mr Nannini, Mr Bill Cross, Raunds Town Council, Planning chair and Ward Councillor, Councillor Helen Howell.  Mr Hancock was unable to attend the meeting and his place was taken by Mrs Joyce. The committee was given the opportunity to ask questions of clarification of the speakers.

Mr Nannini and Mrs Joyce, in summary, each explained their concern over the proposal for various reasons including the lack of parking, highway issues, which were deemed as very dangerous due to the sharp bend, difficulties with deliveries due to the highway restrictions of yellow lines, the ability to park outside a retail premises, would also be difficult and parking throughout this area was problematic.  Several near misses had been witnessed in this area.  There was a lot of school traffic at peak times of the day with school children walking to or home from school. There was also concern about the removal and potential volume of waste. They considered that the retail space was not appropriate for the area and had this been a proposal for a domestic property they may have felt differently. Generally, this was not considered to be a suitable place for retail use.  

Bill Cross, town council representative, referenced the town council’s concern that this was a Grade 2 listed premises, historically being a Boot and Shoe Factory and well known in the area for its historical value.  As such it was considered important to keep the character of the building; there were concerns about the proposed alterations to the windows and it was felt that they should remain as per the original, with cast-iron windows, rather than be replaced with coated aluminium. The town council also considered that a retail unit would be detrimental, and 21 letters of objection had been sent citing various reasons of concern. This was a well-known building and considered important to bring back into use keeping its character and heritage value.

Councillor Helen Howell, as ward councillor, also addressed the meeting, she expressed disappointment that the property remained in disrepair and she was keen to make sure that the property came back into use. She was not opposed to the development of the site but felt this had to be carried out carefully with a sympathetic approach. She referenced the wall and ramp which obscured part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Resolved that:

(i)              the application be refused, contrary to the recommendation of the officer;

(ii)             the final wording of the refusal be delegated to officers in consultation with the vice-chair of the committee. 

The committee considered an application for the change of use of ground floor to retail shop and change of use of upper floor to residential flat with internal and external alterations at Spire Works, Park Road, Raunds, Wellingborough, NN9 6JL.

The senior development management officer presented the report which detailed the proposal, description of 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 listed building consent be granted, subject to conditions listed in the report.

For the purpose of debate and in accordance with the council’s constitution, meeting procedure rules 19.2 and 19.21 the chair moved the recommendation that the listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions listed in paragraph 11 of the report.  This was seconded by Councillor Bone.

On being put to the vote there were nine votes against the motion, which was declared lost.

It was proposed by Councillor G Lawman that the application be refused, due to heritage issues, with the wording for refusal being agreed by officers in consultation with the vice-chair, this was seconded by Councillor A Mercer. 

The vice-chair put the proposal to refuse the application on the grounds of heritage issues, with the wording being delegated to officers in consultation with the vice-chair to the vote. This was declared carried with nine votes in favour.

Resolved that:

(i)              the application be refused, contrary to the recommendation of the officer;

(ii)             the final wording of the refusal be delegated to officers in consultation with the vice-chair of the committee. 

The vice-chair thanked members, officers and the public for their attendance and closed the meeting at 9.40pm.

                                                Chair…………………………………..

                                                Date……………………………………