Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Lodge Road, Daventry NN11 4FP

Contact: Marina Watkins / Jeverly Findlay, Democratic Services 

Link: Please click here to view this meeting online

Items
No. Item

35.

Declarations of Interest

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.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Cecile Irving-Swift declared an interest in application da/2017/0826 as an acquaintance of the father of the one of Doctors at the surgery.

 

Councillor Rosie Humphreys referred to a letter that had been circulated to the Members of the Committee that stated that Councillor Rupert Frost had supported application da/2017/0826 publically. The Chair advised that that it was incumbent upon Members themselves to declare an interest. Councillor Frost advised that he had discussed the matter with the Monitoring Officer and believed that although the matter was finely balanced, he considered that he was able to take part in the discussion.

 

Councillor Jo Gilford declared an interest in application da/2017/0826 as she worked for the NHS.

 

36.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 294 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 10th January 2022.

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED:

 

That the Minutes of the Daventry Local Area Planning Committee of 10th January 2022 be approved and signed as a correct record.

 

37.

Chair's Announcements

To receive communications from the Chair.

Minutes:

The Chair announced that due to a change in the Constitution Members of the Committee would now be able to ask questions of the speakers.

 

38.

Planning applications

Minutes:

Consideration was given to the report detailing the planning applications which had been previously circulated.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That, subject to the variations set out below, the advice set out in the report now submitted be agreed.

 

 

39.

Application DA/2017/0826 Byfield pdf icon PDF 353 KB

Minutes:

DA/2017/0826 BYFIELD –Outline application for new medical centre and residential development Land at Woodford Road

 

The Principal Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the late representations received from the practitioners and the Highway Authority that had been emailed directly to them.

 

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the proposal for a new medical centre in Byfield with means of access and 78 dwellings on an agricultural field. There were currently long open views from the west of Church Street to Woodford Halse. And an historic retaining wall running along the boundary of the field which was considered to be an important feature of the street scene. From the Woodford Road there was a well-established hedgerow which provided screening which was reduced in the winter.

 

The initial application for the site had sought consent for 90 houses and the medical centre. Following an independent viability assessment the number of houses that were now proposed had reduced to 78. The original application had also proposed two means of access to the site and strong concerns had been raised regarding the impact of one of these on the historic wall and the significant engineering works that would be required. The new application proposed only one access from Woodford Road. Indicative drawings had been received there were remaining matters of landscape, layout, appearance and scale which were reserved.

 

Members were advised that the application had been deferred by the Daventry District Council Planning Committee in January 2020 and the following information was requested: 1. details, scale appearance and layout of the medical centre; 2 more definitive details of costs of the medical centre; 3 to determine whether additional funding would be required; 4 the level of occupation of the dwellings required for the financial contribution for the medical centre ; 5 consideration by the owner as to whether the land would be gifted to the community 6; the impact of the development on the highway and mitigation secured and 7 the timing of the implementation of that mitigation. Since that application had been considered the Settlements and Local Plan Part 2 had been adopted and the National Planning Policy Framework had been revised. Members had to give regard to all these material considerations.

 

It was undisputed that the site lay outside of the confines of the village and the application was therefore contrary to policy RA6 which allowed for development only if it was essential to the community in an appropriate location. Although it was acknowledged that the surgery was an essential service, the land and building would remain in private ownership. Officers were not convinced that the current surgery was under threat of closure, although it was acknowledged that it was undersize for the current patient list. The comments received from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) stated that they had no plans to close the surgery. The current surgery was considered to be acceptable for the current needs of the residents.

 

The provision of the housing as an enabling development to provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

40.

Application WND/2021/0174 Guilsborough pdf icon PDF 378 KB

Minutes:

WND/2021/0174 – Guilsborough Demolition of existing bungalow and garage. Construction of 2 storey dwelling and garage to rear of site and single storey dwelling to frontage– The Skerries, High Street

 

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application for the demolition of the existing bungalow and garage to be replaced by a two storey dwelling and garage and a single storey dwelling. The existing bungalow benefitted from an extant permission to create a second storey to create a 4 bed dwelling. The site was in the confines of the village and the Highway Authority had raised no objections to the proposal. The main concerns were with regard to the impact on residential amenity, overlooking and loss of light. The rear garden of the bungalow was substantial and Rose Cottage overlooked this garden. The flats above the village store had glazed windows on their eastern elevation and their amenity would not be adversely affected by the scheme.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that Members had received a recent communication from the objectors but this had not been sent to Officers.

 

Paul Mynard and Martin Pett spoke against the application. David O’Neill spoke on behalf of the Parish Council. Councillor Charles Morton, one of the local ward Members, addressed the Committee. Pat Dooley, the agent, addressed the Committee.

 

Councillors asked the neighbours and the representative from the Parish Council questions.

 

Councillor Phil Bignell considered that the view from Rose Cottage would be altered significantly by the proposal. Further to an enquiry from Councillor Peter Matten, the Principal Planning Officer advised that a loss of a view was not a planning consideration. Officers considered that the application was acceptable.

 

Councillor Alan Chantler considered that the new bungalow would be in line with the adjacent property and therefore the impact on the street scene would not be significant. Councillor Chantler did not consider that the impact on Rose Cottage would be unacceptable and proposed that the application be approved, this was seconded by Councillor Rosie Humphreys.

 

Councillor Rupert Frost proposed that the application be refused as he considered that it would have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties and was contrary to policies R1 and RA2 C, ENV 10 and the Guilsborough Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor Phil Bignell seconded the proposal adding that the scale of the development would impact on the neighbours’ amenity.

 

Further to an enquiry, the Principal Planning Officer advised that between the proposed new dwelling and Rose Cottage there would be a distance of 16 metres, but Rose Cottage was at an oblique angle.

 

Councillor Daniel Lister considered that there would be a loss of amenity for the neighbours due to the change in the gradient and this would particularly affect Elm Tree House.

 

Councillor Phil Bignell added that the site was in the historic core of the village. Policy R1 allowed for housing development if as a result there would be an environmental improvement or if local services were under threat. This application would not result in an environmental  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.