Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for non-attendance were received from Councillors J Bone and S North.  

It was noted that Councillor J Ekins was present as a substitute for Councillor Bone.  

Apologies for non-attendance were received from Councillors Bone and North.  

It was noted that Councillor Ekins was present as a substitute for Councillor Bone.

RESOLVED                that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee (South) of 20 March 2024 were approved and signed as a correct record of the meeting.

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

It was proposed by Councillor Irwin and seconded by Councillor L Lawman that the minutes be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 2024 be approved and signed as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2024 were received.

The chair proposed that the minutes be approved with a small amendment at page 5, third line, to remove the word ‘to’ and a correction to the date of the Equality Act from 2020 to 2010.  This was seconded by Councillor Irwin and on being put to the vote declared carried.

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of 19 June 2024 be approved and signed as a correct record of the meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2024 were received.

The chair presented the minutes for approval with a small amendment at page 5, third line, to remove the word ‘to’ and a correction to the date of the Equality Act from 2020 to 2010. 

It was proposed by Councillor L Lawman and seconded by Councillor Irwin that the minutes be approved and on being put to the vote this was declared carried.

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of 19 June 2024 be approved and signed as a correct record of the meeting.

The chair asked if members wished to make any declarations of interests on the items listed on the agenda and to state if they had made site visits.

Councillor Jackson clarified that he made informal site visits to each site.

Councillor G Lawman confirmed that he had attended the Irthlingborough site, prior to the last planning committee of 19 June 2024.

Councillor Mercer, declared a personal interest in relation to NE/23/01103/FUL – 21 Townsend Leys as he had previously objected to a similar scheme several years before next to his home,

Resolved that the above be noted.

The chair asked members to declare any interests in items listed on the agenda or if they had carried out any independent site visits.

Cllr Jackson confirmed that he had visited all the sites listed on the agenda but had not spoken to anyone

Cllr G Lawman confirmed that prior to the 19 June 2024 meeting that he had carried out an informal site visit to 26-40 High Street, Irthlingborough.

Cllr Mercer during discussion on NE/23/01103/FUL – 21 Townsend Leys, withdrew from the meeting, having previously made an objection to a similar application next to his home some years before.

Resolved that the declarations be noted.

Resolved that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in paragraph 11 of the report.

The committee considered an application for a change of use from a four bed family home (Use Class C3 dwelling) to a Children’s Home (Use Class C2 Residential Institution) with no internal structural or external works to be carried out at 21 Townsend Leys, Higham Ferrers, Rushden, NN10 8LW.

The Senior Development Management Officer, Peter Baish, presented the report, detailing the proposal, description of the site, planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and assessment of the proposal.

It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed at paragraph 11 of the report.

Requests to address the meeting had been received from Louise De Chiara, Assistant Director Governance, Commissioning & Improvement, Northamptonshire Children’s Trust, Councillor Scott Edwards, Portfolio Holder for Children, Education and Skills and the applicant Mr R Patel.

Each speaker addressed the committee, in summary both the Assistant Director and Portfolio holder commended and gave their support to theapplication. Previous children’s homes run by Heartly Care Limited were well run and a valuable asset in meeting the needs of children. Such homes were needed to support the care of children in care.  They noted that there would be a maximum of two children, with two carers and it would be very similar to a normal family environment. 

The applicant also addressed the meeting and explained that he had been involved in the provision of a similar home in Wellingborough, where the occupiers had become part of the community. He ensured the committee that concerns raised over parking were unfounded as there was off-street parking for the vehicles of two carers. There would be limited movement of vehicles as the carers generally did longer hours and shorter weeks.  He also personally lived in the neighbouring house with his family and was not expecting to have any issues with regard to anti-social behaviour.  His experience with the Wellingborough was that there had been no complaints or issues raised by neighbours.

The chair gave the committee the opportunity to ask questions of clarity of the speakers.

Councillors asked for clarification that there would be a maximum of two children and two carers only on site each with their own bedroom and shared living area. This was confirmed.

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 Ekins.

The chair invited the committee to debate the proposed application.

The committee made the following points:

·         The comments of the speakers were noted and it was pleasing to hear that children who needed this sort of home could be accommodated safely.  Councillors, as corporate parents, were grateful that two children would be housed in a safe environment, where they would be properly looked after and able to flourish.

·         Members expressed surprise that the item had come before the committee. The officer clarified that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Resolved that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions listed in paragraph 11 of the report and subject to an amendment to condition 10 listed in the report, such amendment to ensure that only the permitted development rights in relation to the car ports in plots 4 and 5 are removed and that the final wording of the condition be delegated to the officers in consultation with the chair of the planning committee.

The committee considered an application for a proposed residential development of six number dwellings and conversion and extension of officer to form three number flats at Ringstead Business Centre, 1-3 Spencer Street, Ringstead, Kettering, NN14 4BX.

The Senior Development Management Officer, Peter Baish, presented the report detailing the proposal, description of site, planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal.  

It was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions listed at paragraph 11 of the report.

One request to address the meeting had been received from Sharon Allison, of Sursham Tompkins & Partners acting as agent for the applicant.

Ms Allison explained how the development had come about and detailed how the plans had been put together to achieve a sustainable well-designed site, with a selection of homes that were in keeping with existing properties and the challenges of the differing levels of the site.

The chair invited the committee to raise any points of clarification.

A member commented that the gardens of some of the properties were small.   Ms Allison confirmed that was the case, but they were adequate and big enough to comply and house necessary amenities.

A further comment was made about the design of the properties facing Spencer Street with a suggestion that some improvements could be made to reflect the existing design of neighbouring properties to make the new properties look more aesthetically pleasing. This was noted.

Regarding accessibility it was noted that some of the properties did not meet the requirements.  Ms Allison clarified that this was due to some of the properties having stepped access due to the levels of the site.  The steps were, however, shallow and whilst not being wheelchair accessible did meet the requirements for the ambulant disabled. Internally the properties complied.

A member asked if there would be over-looking because of the levels.  It was clarified that this would not be an issue. The car parking area was at a level with the gardens.

Also relating to the levels, a question was asked about water run-off from the parking area. It was clarified that a permeable surface was to be added with soft landscaping, so no issues were expected. 

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

The committee made the following comments:

·         It was noted that the builders had a good reputation. The design was favourable and suited the village setting and existing properties and the development of the untidy site was welcomed and would enhance the area.

·         Compliments were extended on the design to bring the scheme forward, which was of high quality, providing good accommodation for a village site.

·         Comments were made about condition 10 and the permitted development rights, whereby there would be a need to seek planning permission for alterations.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

The committee received a report relating to a 2^nd floor extension to form three new apartments and to also inform it of the decision of a planning appeal.

The report detailed that the planning appeal decision, in relation to planning appeal APP/M23/00350/FUL for application NE/23/00350/FUL which had been allowed, as appended to the report.

The Senior Development Management Officer, Peter Baish, explained that the Planning Inspectorate had dismissed the reasons for refusal given by the Planning Committee and such decisions were materially the same reasons for refusal given when application NE/24/00111/FUL was refused by the committee on 19 June 2024. This indicates that a lesser scheme, of one less flat, would also be granted on appeal. The planning decision from 19 June 2024, has yet to be issued and as the appeal decision forms a materially significant matter for any decision the application is brought to committee again for the consideration of members with updated conditions to reflect those given by the Planning Inspectorate.

A request to address the committee had been received from Irthlingborough Town Council representative, Caroline Cross. She raised the continued concerns of the parish council about this being within the conservation area, and the proposed height of the additional storey and the impact it would have on Warrens Close.

The chair invited the committee to ask questions for clarity. There were none.

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 Irwin.

The chair invited members to debate the proposed application.

The committee made the following points:

·         There was disappointment expressed over the appeal decision.

·         There remained concerns over the various issues previously raised.

·         It was noted that to take this to a judicial review would be expensive and not a feasible option.

·         It was also noted that the current application was for less than the one granted and as such the application would also be granted by the Planning Inspector.

·         Whilst the committee did not wish to approve the application, it considered that there would be little point in not doing so.

·         A comment was made about the plant room and a potential noise nuisance. It was noted that there was already some associated plant equipment on the roof that was controlled.

The chair put the motion that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in paragraph 11 of the report to the vote. The motion was declared carried with eight votes in favour and three abstentions.

Resolved that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed at paragraph 11 of the report.

Resolved that the chair closed the meeting at 8.21pm.

Resolved that the chair closed the meeting at 8.21pm.