Agenda item

The Committee considered the planning application report and representations made by public speakers at the meeting.  It was noted that there was additional information on the applications included in the update sheet.

(i)         20/01587/FUL – 102 Nene View, Irthlingborough

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing building and erection of 8 dwellings including landscaping, formation of vehicular accesses to highways and highway improvement works.

The Committee noted that the Local Highway Authority had objected to the application and raised the same concerns regarding the width of the road, the increase in the number of vehicles, as well as the inadequate turning heads and poor visibility. Access and turning space for large vehicles, particularly emergency and service vehicles was of great concern. Members noted that the proposed increase in road width of 500mm was minimal, and vehicles would continue to     park on the pavement.

The Committee also raised concerns regarding the impact of the development on local heritage sites, namely the church. It was felt that the development would not be in keeping with the existing street scene and would be an intensification of use. Members sought clarification regarding surface water drainage and potential flooding issues.

In response to the issues raised, officers advised that it was felt that the Local Highway Authority had not taken the existing situation into account, and that the proposed road width of 4.8m would be an improvement. The Committee was advised that the site was in flood zone 1, and a drainage strategy could be conditioned if Members felt it necessary. There would also be conditions addressing both landscaping and archaeology.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·         Highway safety – The development would lead to an intensification of use of Nene View which is a sub-standard road, by introducing eight new dwellings. This could lead to difficulty for emergency, delivery and refuse vehicles accessing Nene View. No pedestrian footpath would be provided which would increase the safety risk to pedestrians. In addition there is limited visibility from Church Street to Nene View and the proposed intensification of use of this junction would increase this being a safety concern. The turning heads would not allow for a fire tender to turn around.

·         Impact on the character and setting of the Grade 1 listed building, St Peters Church, and the loss of a historic wall, which would cause less than substantial harm.

On being put to the vote the Committee agreed to refuse the application, contrary to officer recommendation, for the two reasons specified. The wording of the reasons to be delegated to the Planning Development Manager in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair.

(ii)        Enterprise Centre, Michael Way, Raunds

The Committee considered an application for partial change of the use of Enterprise Centre to allow up to 6,750 sq ft of floor area to be used for flexible Class E/Class F1 (training) use.

During debate on the application the Committee sought clarification regarding parking provision, and whether the proposal would benefit existing users of the Enterprise Centre as well as external parties.

In response to the issues raised, officers advised that there was sufficient parking provision, and the proposal was seeking to support the viability and       vitality for the existing users of the Enterprise Centre.

It was moved and seconded that the application be granted. On being put to the vote the Committee agreed to Grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the officer report.

(iii)       164 High Street, Irthlingborough

The Committee considered an application for the conversion of 3-bed dwelling into two 1-bedroom self-contained apartments. All works internal.

The Committee noted that splitting the building into two separate dwellings would not result in an intensification of existing parking issues, and the space within each proposed dwelling was acceptable.

It was moved and seconded that the application be granted. On being put to the vote the Committee agreed to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the officer report.