The South Planning Committee of West Northamptonshire Council met on Thursday 9 January 2025, approving three planning applications. The committee granted permission for the conversion of agricultural buildings at West Lodge Farm, Courteenhall, for a farm shop, café, and commercial units. They also approved the change of use of land at Clifford Hill Mill, Little Houghton, for the external storage of containers, HGVs, and coaches, subject to amendments to conditions. Finally, the committee resolved that had an appeal not been made, they would have approved the erection of a boundary fence on Land South of Horton Road, Hackleton.

West Lodge Farm, Blisworth Road, Courteenhall

Permission was granted for the conversion of an existing agricultural building at West Lodge Farm, Blisworth Road, Courteenhall, to a farm shop and café (Use Class E) and two commercial units (Use Class E(g)(iii), B2 and/or B8). This includes the creation of a new access from Courteenhall Road, car parking, and landscaping.

The application, reference 2024/1178/MAF, was recommended for approval by officers, with delegated powers to the Assistant Director for Planning and Development to grant permission subject to conditions. Stacey Rawlings, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application, expressing concerns about Condition 20 regarding operating hours for the farm shop and café, suggesting it could be punitive and potentially bypassed under permitted development rights.

In response, Senior Planning Officer Shamal London explained that an amendment to Condition 20 had been proposed to allow for later operating hours on Saturdays and Sundays, and on bank and public holidays. Officers also decided to delete Condition 22, which related to the sourcing of goods for the farm shop and café, acknowledging that it would be unreasonable to impose such a condition given the potential for this to be carried out under permitted development rights.

Councillor Anthony Bagot-Webb proposed, and Councillor Dermot Bambridge seconded, that the application be approved with the amended Condition 20 and the deletion of Condition 22. The motion was carried by eight votes to none.

Clifford Hill Mill, Little Houghton

The committee considered application 2024/2601/MAF for the change of use of land at Clifford Hill Mill, Little Houghton, for the external storage of containers, HGVs, and coaches, which was retrospective.

Ethan Glover, a Planning Agent representing the Davidge Usher Trust, objected to the application, requesting a deferral until a suitable Traffic Management Plan, with local stakeholder involvement, could be agreed and implemented, along with a condition on operating hours. Barry Waine, the applicant's agent, supported the application, stating that the additional storage containers did not generate HGV movements and were available for local businesses and individuals, deeming the proposed Traffic Management Plan sufficient.

Little Houghton Parish Council submitted a written statement requesting deferral due to insufficient notice of the application, preventing adequate preparation and representation. They also noted the absence of a traffic survey by the Local Highways Authority and deemed the proposed highway conditions inadequate. Councillor Fiona Cole, local ward member, also submitted a written objection, requesting deferral for a committee site visit, correction of errors in the report, conclusion of the traffic survey, time for local stakeholders to respond, development of a robust traffic management plan, clarification on the target decision date, and consideration of more comprehensive conditions.

Democratic Services Officer Richard Woods confirmed that the agenda and reports were published in accordance with legal requirements, allowing for the determination of the application.

Councillor Ken Pritchard proposed, and Councillor Anthony Bagot-Webb seconded, a deferral to allow for a committee site visit, more notice to local stakeholders, agreement of a Traffic Management Plan, and review of operating hours conditions. Development Management Team Leader Nathan Lowde explained that the Traffic Management Plan could be dealt with by way of conditions, and that controlling operating hours would be unreasonable and unenforceable. He also clarified that the 10 February 2025 target date was the expiry of the application's time limit, after which the council would risk an appeal against non-determination.

Councillor Ken Pritchard subsequently withdrew the proposal for deferral. During the debate, some members expressed that while conditions for the Traffic Management Plan were sufficient, they should be more robust and monitored by a Transport Review Panel Group.

Councillor Sue Sharps proposed, and Councillor Dermot Bambridge seconded, that the application be approved, subject to an amendment to Condition 4 to ensure the Traffic Management Plan is reviewed by a Transport Review Panel Group within six months of approval and annually thereafter. This motion was carried by five votes to none, with three abstentions.

Land South of Horton Road, Hackleton

The committee considered application 2023/7948/FUL, which related to a non-determination appeal for the proposed erection of a boundary fence on Land South of Horton Road, Hackleton.

Development Management Team Leader Nathan Lowde presented the report, explaining that the purpose was to establish the committee's position had the application been determined by them. The Planning Officer explained that the site was subject to an Article 4 directive removing permitted development rights for enclosures.

In response to questions about the proposal's impact on land subdivision, the Planning Officer stated that the erection of stock fencing was considered acceptable, compatible with the rural setting, and would not cause visual harm or subdivide the land. It was therefore considered that the proposal would have been recommended for approval in line with sustainable development principles.

Councillor William Barter proposed, and Councillor Wendy Randall seconded, that the committee agree that, had an appeal not been lodged, the application would have been approved subject to the conditions set out in the Case Officer's report. This motion was carried by eight votes to none.

The committee resolved that, had an appeal not been made, they would have approved the application in accordance with the Case Officer's recommendation and conditions.