Agenda item

Applications for planning permission, listed building consent and appeal information

 

            The Committee considered the planning application report and noted additional    information on the applications included in the late letters’ list.

 

(i)           Planning application WP/20/00858/FUL – 41 Cotswold Drive, Wellingborough

 

The Committee considered an application for a changeof use application from a dwelling C3 to a residential institution C2 (children’s home with one child) at 41 Cotswold Drive, Wellingborough for Mr N Reuben.

The report detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal.

 

The planning application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

 

The Chair then invited the committee to determine the application.

 

One member had concerns that the planning application was recommended for refusal on the grounds there is a need for small dwellings of this type within North Northamptonshire. He referred to the amount of houses of similar size within new developments in the Wellingborough Area ie Glenvale Park SUE, Stanton Cross SUE and Park Farm Way. He also considered the three-bedroom dwelling had sufficient car parking to accommodate the change of use. The member also felt that children should be integrated within the community.

 

The Senior Development Management Officer responded that advice had been sought from Northamptonshire Children’s Trust and the Housing Strategy Officer. She reported that the Northamptonshire Children’s Trust had not confirmed the home was needed or would be utilised by them. She added that the provider could also accept children and young people from another local authority area outside of North Northamptonshire. She advised that the Housing Strategy Officer considered the applicant had not demonstrated a need for the home and confirmed there is a need for smaller dwellings of this type of house and the loss of the current dwelling would add to that need. In relation to parking, the Senior Development Management Officer advised that two car parking spaces are required for three-bedroom houses. She added that garages do not count and a C2 residential institution is required to provide a car parking space for each member of staff. The Senior Development Management Officer commented that there are other more suitable places for this commercial use than in this residential area.

 

Other members spoke and supported the officer’s report and the refusal reasons.

 

It was proposed by Councillor L Lawman and seconded by Councillor Harrington that the planning application be refused.

 

            On being put to the vote, the motion for refusal was carried by 5 votes and 1 abstention.

 

RESOLVED that the planning application be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.         The social benefits of the application are considered limited as the placing authority has not confirmed that they would utilise the children's home.  The site contains a small three-bedroom dwelling and there is an identified and evidenced need for small dwellings within North Northamptonshire.  The proposal has adverse environmental impacts as the parking proposed does not comply with the local standard.  The adverse social and environmental impacts are considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the economic benefits of the proposal. The proposed development would be contrary to policies 1, 8 (b) (i) and (ii) and 30(a) (i) and (ii) of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, the Northamptonshire Parking Standards and the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole.

 

2.         The staff and visitors of the site would be reliant on the private car, and insufficient off-road parking is provided for the proposed C2 use.  The proposed development would be contrary to policy 8 (b) (i) and (ii) of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, the Northamptonshire Parking Standards and advice contained within paragraphs 105, 109-110 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(ii)         Planning application NW/21/00159/FUL – Adjacent 67 and 69 Local History Society, High Street, Finedon

 

The Committee considered an application for a conversion of heritage centre to a one-bedroom dwelling, demolition of rear extension, erection of a single storey rear extension and installation of rooflights to rear (north) elevation, external alterations, adjacent 67 and 69 Local History Society, High Street, Finedon for Mrs J Mann.

The report detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal.

 

The planning application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

A request to address the meeting had been received from an objector and the committee was given the opportunity to ask questions for clarification.

The objector had concerns that the shower room and kitchen would adversely impact on his property, it being affected by noise and smells: he also had concerns for highway safety issues in relation to the on street parking and poor visibility which worsens during school drop off and pick up times; the objector also queried if the dwelling was for one person or two as this would further affect the parking issues; he considered one off road car parking space should be provided.

 

The Chair then invited the committee to determine the application.

 

Members also considered the Listed Building Consent NW/21/00160/LBC during their discussions but voted on it separately.

 

Several Councillors raised their concerns with regard to the effect on the neighbouring property: loss of amenity to Finedon in losing the Heritage Centre: Not sufficient on street or off street parking; highway safety with on street parking on a bend which is on a rise with poor visibility not being able to see round a vehicle; concerns with the nearby adjacent school and potential injury to pedestrians and vehicles with so many cars and considered it impossible to provide safe parking; a comment was made that the High Street has speeding cars and is often used as a cut through by drivers trying to avoid the backed up roundabout in Finedon during peak times.

 

In addition, members had concerns for a possible graveyard within the site as the land to the east of the building was formerly used as a Quaker burial ground and they also wanted to protect the boundary stone wall. The Senior Development Management Officer advised if bodies were exhumed, they would have to be re-buried in consecrated grounds and referred members to the comments in the report in relation to archaeology.

 

Another member proposed that an additional condition be imposed that the rooflights in the rear elevation be replaced with conservation rooflights to the rear elevation.

 

            A member also raised concerns in relation to protecting any bats on the site.

 

Another member queried the two bathrooms in the one-bedroom dwelling and also referred to the study. He considered this may be used as a second bedroom meaning potentially more than one person living in the property, bringing more on street parking and significant further impact. The Senior Development Management Officer clarified that it is not for planning to determine the number of bathrooms in a proposed dwelling but to ensure it complies with the national space standards and national accessibility standards.

 

During the debate several members stated they would be voting to refuse the application and a member suggested refusal reasons on the grounds of Highway safety, concerns in relation to the protection of the stone wall and bats and a possible burial ground on the site.

 

A member considered the proposal would run the risk of damaging the heritage in Finedon.

 

A comment was made by a member that if the previous use was maintained and the heritage centre remained, parking would still be on the street.

 

Another member stated he would be supporting the proposal and was determining the application on its merits and considered the dwelling could go into disrepair if left.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Lawal and seconded by Councillor Harrington that the planning application be approved with the additional condition for conservation rooflights to the rear elevation.

 

            On being put to the vote, the motion for approval was lost by 2 votes in favour and 4 against.

 

            The motion for approval was declared lost.

 

            The legal adviser and the Senior Development Management Officer advised the members on the implications of their reasons given for a refusal during the discussion and debate.

 

            The legal adviser informed members that the material fall-back position with regard to the existing use would have far more off street parking, as no parking was provided with that use and there is no control of how many people turn up and use on street parking in that vicinity; the burial ground was not a refusal reason and the protection of bats could be dealt with via a condition and could therefore not be used as refusal reasons.

 

            The Senior Development Management Officer added that the parking issues were only during school drop off and pick up times and last for a short period of time in the mornings and afternoons, only in term time. She stated the only place to park is on the highway as there is no off-road parking provided. In relation to concerns regarding a burial ground she advised if there were graves, they would not necessarily be removed and if they were found, this would be dealt with via a condition. In relation to the bats, this could be dealt with via a licence through Natural England.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Ekins that the planning application be refused on the grounds of highway safety and no on-site parking. This was seconded by Councillor L Lawman.

 

            On being put to the vote, the motion for refusal was carried by 4 votes in favour and 2 against.

 

            This became the substantive motion.

 

RESOLVED that the planning application be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.        The proposed scheme would provide no on-site parking to serve the occupiers who would reside in the development.  Only on street parking on  a bend with a rise with poor visibility when vehicles are parked would serve the proposed dwelling resulting in unsafe and inconvenient parking to the detriment of highway safety and the general amenity of the area. The shortfall in off-street parking results in the proposed development being contrary to policy 8 (b) (i) and (ii) of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy. 

 

(iii)        Planning application NW/21/00160/LBC – Adjacent 67 and 69 Local History Society, High Street, Finedon

 

The Committee considered an application for a Listed Building Consent for the conversion of heritage centre to a one-bedroom dwelling, demolition of rear extension, erection of a single storey rear extension and installation of rooflights to rear (north) elevation. Internal and external works including replacement first floor, partial rebuild of part of front elevation, creation of new doorway in existing rear wall, reinstatement of existing panelling at ground and first floor and proposed structural works associated to roof strengthening adjacent 67 and 69 Local History Society, High Street, Finedon for Mrs Jilly Mann.

The report detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal.

 

The Listed Building Consent was recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

A request to address the meeting had been received from an objector and the committee was given the opportunity to ask questions for clarification.

 

The Chair then invited the committee to determine the application.

 

Members had discussed the Listed Building Consent during the discussion and debate for planning application NW/21/00159/FUL (above) but voted on it separately.

 

            It was proposed by Councillor L Lawman and seconded by Councillor Ward that the Listed Building Consent be refused on the grounds of highway safety and no on-site parking.

 

            On being put to the vote, the motion for refusal was carried by 4 votes in favour and 2 against.

 

            This became the substantive motion.

 

RESOLVED that the Listed Building Consent be refused for the following reasons:

           

1.      The proposed scheme would provide no on-site parking to serve the occupiers who would reside in the development.  Only on street parking on a bend with a rise with poor visibility when vehicles are parked would serve the proposed dwelling resulting in unsafe and inconvenient parking to the detriment of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.  The shortfall in off-street parking results in the proposed development being contrary to policy 8 (b) (i) and (ii) of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.