Agenda and draft minutes

Members are asked to declare any interest and the nature of that interest which they may have in any of the items under consideration at this meeting.

Councillors Cecile Irving-Swift and Rupert Frost declared an interest in application WND/2021/0391 West Haddonas friends of the applicant and Councillor Rosie Humphreys declared an interest as a neighbour to the site. They advised that they would leave the room during the discussion and voting thereon. Councillor Rupert Frost also declared an interest in application DA/2020/1051 Badby and advised that he would leave the room during the discussion and voting on the item.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 3^rd November 2021.

Councillor Cecile Irving-Swift advised that she had submitted her apologies for the meeting on 3^rd November 2021.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the above amendment, the Minutes of the Daventry Local Area Planning Committee of 3^rd November 2021 be approved and signed as a correct record.

To receive communications from the Chair.

The Chair advised that the protocol for speaking arrangements for the planning committee had changed on 2^nd December when the new Constitution had been approved at Council; however, for the purposes of this meeting the rules remained as they were when the agenda had been published the new universal Protocol on Speaking at Planning Committees will apply to meetings thereafter.

Councillors were reminded that the next meeting of the Daventry Local Area Planning Committee was taking place on Monday 10^th January.

DA/2020/0469 BARBY – Change of use of land to use as a residential gypsy caravan site comprising 5 pitches accommodating a total of 7 caravans, including no more than 5 static caravans/mobile homes, together with additional hardstanding and construction of ancillary amenity building - The Cavans, Barby Lane

The Area Planning Officer outlined the application for 5 pitches to accommodate a total of 7 caravans on a site to the west of Barby Lane. The site had previously been granted planning permission for change of use for one traveller family in 2017. It was considered that the application complied with policy. Members’ attention was drawn to the list of late representations. Since the production of the late representations another representation had been received but this had raised no new issues.

Councillor Rosie Humphreys considered that the application would result in an over doubling of the existing site and highlighted that normally development in open countryside would not be allowed unless it contributed to the local economy or provided an environmental improvement. The Area Planning Officer advised that traveller sites had their own topic specific policies. The Neighbourhood Development Plan pre-dated the Part 2 Local Plan which considered the provision of traveller sites, and a balancing exercise had to be undertaken that had regard to all policies.

Councillor Alan Chantler submitted apologies on behalf of the Parish Council who had not been able to attend. The Parish Council had raised concerns that the application was contrary to the Neighbourhood Development Plan. Councillor Chantler noted that the Part 2 Local Plan had been adopted 18 months ago and a matter of balance was required. The Parish Council had requested additional screening for the site. Although it was not a planning matter, Councillor Chantler noted that he had received complaints about obstructions in the roadway.

Councillor Cecile Irving-Swift highlighted that the police and fire service had produced guidance for gypsy and traveller sites and that the guidance stated that caravans should be more than 6 metres away from each other to prevent fires from spreading. Councillor Irving-Swift raised concerns regarding the lighting from the site as it was in open countryside and could create light pollution. She agreed that it was an overdevelopment of the site.

Further to discussion regarding the screening of the site, the Area Planning Officer advised that this was covered by condition 5 but could be expanded upon if Members felt this was necessary.

Councillor Wendy Randall spoke in favour of the application and noted that it was well screened as she had not realised it was there; Councillor Randall proposed that the application be approved. This proposition failed for lack of a seconder.

The Area Planning Officer advised that with regard to stipulating a 6 metre distance between each van, although this was not a planning reason to refuse the application, an informative note could be added. The drawings showed an indicative distance between the vans only; however, it was a large site and therefore it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

WND/2021/0391 WEST HADDON - Construction of new cottage dwelling with associated landscaping (resubmission of previously refused scheme under DA/2020/0627) - Land adj 30, West End

The Area Planning Officer outlined the proposal for the construction of a stone built, thatched dwelling in a conservation area. The site was an open area of land, and the conservation area and Tree Preservation Orders protected the trees. The character of the conservation area derived from the open area and added to the form and character of the village. A single dwelling would cause harm to the conservation area on this previously undeveloped site. The Area Planning Officer acknowledged that development could take place in conservation areas but highlighted that the harm of the application had to be considered and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the conservation area. It was considered that the harm caused by the application would not be outweighed by any public benefits. A similar application had been refused by the Daventry District Council Planning Committee in February 2021. This application had greater implications for the health of the trees, than the previous application, as the excavations would be more significant to drop the building down to street level.

Mr Shun spoke against the application, Mr Robertson spoke on behalf of the Parish Council and Mr Coy, the agent, addressed the Committee.

Councillor Phil Bignell, one of the local ward Members, considered that the design was sympathetic and in keeping with the current street scene. The wall was in a poor state of repair and needed to be fixed. No objections had been raised by the Highway Authority and the Parish Council were also supportive of the application. In bringing the proposed house down to street level Councillor Bignell considered that this would improve the street scene. The views into the open space would still be retained. The site had been overgrown and had not been included in the Neighbourhood Development Plan; if the application was not approved the site would decline. Councillor Bignell considered that the proposal for an attractive thatched cottage would not cause any harm and that the trees would be protected.

The Area Planning Officer advised that all policies needed to be weighed in the balance; although the Neighbourhood Development Plan formed part of the consideration, the conservation area had been adopted more recently and this carried greater weight. The NDP had not allocated the site for housing. This proposal would not preserve or enhance the conservation area. The similar application that was refused on the site had not been tested on appeal. In defining that conservation area, a detailed assessment had been undertaken.

Councillor Wendy Randall considered that in this time of climate emergency, it was saddening to remove trees and hedgerows, and this was a major concern. The trees were substantial in size and therefore their roots would cover a large area. The open space also provided a natural habitat. Councillor Randall proposed that the application be refused, as per Officer’s advice,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

WND/2021/0592 WEEDON - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission DA/2019/0756 to increase the ridge and eaves height of the approved rear projecting first floor extension - 30, South Street

The Area Planning Officer outlined the application for a variation to increase the height and eaves height of an extension. The developers had already built a substantial part of the extension and had deviated from the plan that had been approved. Such works were at their own risk. Members were reminded that planning was a permissive not a punitive system. The owners of the house had sought to regularise their position and had submitted amended plans which had been refused and dismissed on appeal. The new application proposed to dramatically alter what had been built on site in order to bring it back to more closely resemble the approved scheme. The Committee were shown photographs of the current as built unauthorised development and how it would be altered so that it was very similar to that which had been approved originally.

Mrs Ramshaw spoke on behalf of the Parish Council and Ms Lucas, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

Councillor David Smith, the local ward Member, referring to the appeal that was dismissed considered that the first-floor extension could be viewed from a number of properties, and it was discordant with the area. Councillor Smith considered that the application was against policy and that the first-floor window on the front elevation was out of proportion.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the application had been made as a Section 73 minor material amendment. Complications arose as works to the property had already been carried out and now alterations were being made to the original proposals. With regard to the fact that a smaller window had been installed; this was not considered to be detrimental. The alterations were not considered to be significant and if Members refused the application, the applicants had a right of appeal. The Conservation Officer considered the application to be acceptable.

Councillor Rupert Frost considered that the alterations were substantial and proposed that the application be refused. The proposition was seconded by Councillor Daniel Lister.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the works that had been undertaken on site were unacceptable, however the changes that were now proposed were considered an acceptable solution and would not adversely impact the conservation area. If the application was refused, then the applicant could appeal and enforcement action would need to be considered. This application provided an opportunity to address the current issues. The eaves height on the first floor would be increasing from 6.1 to 6.2 metres and on the rear projection from 5.8 to 5.9 metres which was not deemed to be significant.

Councillor Frost proposed that the application be refused as it contravened RA1 of Part 3 of the Local Plan, as it did not protect the form and character of the setting of the village and was contrary to policy ENV7 b,c and d. On being put to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

DA/2020/1051 BADBY - Change of use of Public House (Sui Generis) to single dwelling (Class C3) and other alteration to the grounds to form associated parking and garden areas - Windmill Inn, Main Street

The Area Planning Officer outlined the application for the change of use of a public house to a single dwelling. Members’ attention was drawn to the list of late representations and advised that another late representation of objection had been submitted following its publication which had not raised any new issues. The Officer noted that this representation had been copied to Cllr Smith who would no doubt make reference to it in his address to committee.

The public house had been on the market for 2 years. A market assessment had been carried out during the course of the application and it was considered that sufficient efforts had been made to market the property.  The Windmill Inn Public House was identified as a ‘Community Facility’ in the Badby Neighbourhood Plan and policy CW3 of the Part 2 Local Plan sought to protect local retail services and public houses. Policy B4 of the NDP stated that satisfactory evidence had to be demonstrated that the site had been marketed for 12 months or more or that the proposal included alternative provision on a site with the locality with similar facilities. There was another public house in the village which was deemed capable of servicing the needs of the village and there were other local hostelries in neighbouring villages

Mr Morris, spoke against the application, Mr Snell spoke on behalf of the Parish Council and Mr Warr, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

Councillor David Smith, one of the local ward Members, reported that he had received a letter from Whittaker Bros to advise that they were putting an offer on the property as they considered the pub to be a viable business. It was a valued pub in the locality with 250 years of history. Councillor Smith did not consider that all avenues with regard to marketing the property had been investigated.

Councillor Jo Gilford, one of the local ward Members, referred to the survey carried out by the parish council and the considerable support for the pub to remain open. Councillor Gilford considered that if it was managed well, the pub would be a viable business, as it had been in the past.

Councillor Cecile Irving-Swift enquired as to whether the offer letter referred to by Councillor Smith could be taken into account in the decision. The Council’s Solicitor advised that no prices had been discussed and the offer could be derisory, therefore not much weight should be attached to it. The applicant had submitted a professional marketing report with their application and Officers had considered this when making their recommendation.

Councillor Cecile Irving-Swift suggested that the application be deferred as the industry had suffered and the parish wanted to retain the facility.

Councillor Wendy Randall considered that both pubs in the village were very different and agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

The Chairman to advise whether they have agreed to any items of urgent business being admitted to the agenda.

None advised.