Agenda and minutes

Apologies for non-attendance were received from Councillors Coleman, Jenney, A Mercer, G Mercer and North.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2023 be approved and signed as an accurate record of that meeting.

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

The following informal site visits were declared:

Councillors Bone and Jackson had attended all three sites detailed on the agenda.

The chair informed the committee she was going to reschedule the agenda and would be taking agenda item 6 NE/23/00900/FUL – 13 Church Street, Woodford first.

The committee considered an application for the demolition of an existing single storey flat roof extension and its replacement with a new single storey flat extension at 13 Church Street, Woodford.

Assistant Development Officer, Erika Davies, presented the report, explaining the reason why it had come before the committee and detailing 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 Ekins and seconded by Councillor Lawman that permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

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

Resolved that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions within the report.

.

The committee considered an application for outline planning permission, for the erection of up to 450 dwellings, a community/retail/and or health facility, improvement works to the existing A6/Bedford Road roundabout including provision of shared pedestrian/cycle access, parking, landscaping, drainage features, open space and associated infrastructure (all matters reserved except access from the A6/Bedford Road.

Principal Development Management Officer (Consultant), William Tysterman, presented the report to the committee, 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 the planning application be approved subject to officers agreeing a final Early Years Education contribution and the prior completion of a Section 106 obligation relating to affordable housing, provision of open space, highway improvements, education, air quality, education sports contributions and subject to conditions to include those listed in the report, with minor alternations where necessary being delegated to officers.

A request to address the meeting had been received from Mr Cooke of Marrons Planning, the agent for the applicant, the committee was given the opportunity to ask questions for clarification.

Mr Cooke spoke in favour of the application which had been put together responsibly, with consideration being given to sustainability and biodiversity.  Provision was included for safe pedestrian and cycling options within the site. A positive response had been received from consultees.  If approved, work would continue to the detailed design stage.

Councillor Ekins referenced the provision of affordable units and asked if 25% of the homes would remain in place as affordable.  Mr Cooke responded to confirm that they were committed to provide affordable homes, which would be secured through the Section 106 agreement.

The chair invited the committee to determine the application.

During the debate the following points were made:

·       Comment that this appeared to be a good development with several affordable units, which were needed.

·       Section 106 funding would ensure there was Sports and Medical provision and good wheelchair access.

·       Comments were made about access to the site during construction and the need for such to be carefully managed with a second entrance being essential for the safe movement of construction traffic and eventually residential traffic.

·       Concern was expressed regarding the roundabout and the need for improvements to be made thereto.

·       Concerns were also expressed about the access size during development, and potential disruption due to vehicle movements. Officers clarified that highways had confirmed the access was wide enough and was acceptable.

·      A comment was made that the highway speed limit was believed to be 60mph and this was considered to be too fast.   Officers  confirmed that the speed limit leading to the site was 40mph.  The committee considered this would benefit from being further reduced.

It was proposed by Councillor Ekins and seconded by Councillor Wilkes that the application be approved subject to officers agreeing a final Early Years Education contribution and the prior completion of a Section 106 obligation relating to affordable housing, provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

The committee considered an application for the erection of a 76-bedroom care home (C2) with associated amenity areas, eight care home staff apartments, access road and car parking spaces on land North of Raunds, fronting Brick Kiln Road, North Street, Brooks Road and Midland Road, Raunds, Northamptonshire.

The Principal Development Management Officer, Sunny Bains, presented the report to committee, 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 conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal Agreement.

Requests to address the meeting had been received from David Hicks of Country Court Care, the agent and Bill Cross from Raunds Town Council. The committee was given the opportunity to ask questions for clarification.

Mr Hicks spoke in favour of the application. He explained, in summary, that the proposed build was bespoke and that there was a need for this type of facility with the ageing population. The building would comprise 76 bedrooms over three floors, along with staff accommodation and good quality materials would be used in the build. In addition to the bedrooms, there would be a reception area, day space, a dining room and kitchen along with parking facilities which would accommodate visitors and those working on the site. 

Mr Cross spoke, in summary, and shared his concerns over the proposed development, considering this to be detrimental to the location. He expressed concern over the access to the site and the poor location of the entrance, the future strain on the health care service with the GP Surgery having insufficient capacity to take on any further patients, and the fact that the site was also prone to flooding. He was also concerned that there was insufficient parking on the site and that public transport was limited with the nearest bus stop being 200metres from the site and he considered that this proposal did not best serve the community.

The chair invited the committee to determine the application.

During the debate, the following points were made:

·       In relation to the NHS capacity a financial contribution of £15,900 had been sought from the Clinical Commissioning Group and a question was asked as to how this figure had been put in place. The officer explained that this had been an estimate of the required support to ensure the new population had access to good quality primary health care services.   

·       The legal officer advised that a Section 106 contribution could only be used for the purpose of infrastructure.  An additional surgery would be funded from general taxation.

·       It was noted that this was a care home and not a nursing home, and residents who needed medical attention would potentially be transferred to hospital.

·       Parking concerns were raised as there was no alternative place to park. The officer clarified that intensive studies had indicated that there would be no impact on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

The chair thanked the committee, officers and public for their attendance and closed the meeting at 7.59pm.

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

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