Minutes of the Interim Meeting held on 16th February 2016
Present: Sharon Henley (Chairman), David Lane, Angela Brodie, Graham Yandell, Keith
Mason, Jonathan Hillyard
Plus 14 Parishioners.
895. Apologies for Absence: Sue Stanley (Personal)
896. Declarations of interest. Angela Brodie (Item 897 i)
897. Planning Application Received
i) Planning Application No. DA/2015/1164
Land adjoining Sheepfold Grange, Main Street, Upper Stowe
Prior to discussion of this item Councillor Brodie, having declared an interest,
After a long discussion and listening to the views of a number of parishioners
who attended the meeting the Parish Council decided unanimously to strongly
object to the application for the reasons listed as Appendix A to these minutes.
At the conclusion of discussion and voting on the above item Councillor Brodie
rejoined the meeting.
ii) Planning Application No. DA/2016/0067
Jarhne Lodge, 31, Main Street, Church Stowe
The Parish Council have no objection to the above application.
898. Review of Past Planning Application
i) Application No. DA/2015/0195
Land at Stowe Hill, Watling Street 1 Gypsy Site Standing.
To consider response to Planning Decision to approve the application.
There was much discussion and expressions of annoyance at the way the Planning Committee
had reached their decision resulting in two votes being decided on the casting vote
of the Committee Chairman.
It was unanimously decided that the Parish Council should send a formal complaint
to the DDC Monitoring Officer. Graham Yandell and David Lane kindly agreed to draft
the letter on behalf of the Parish Council. In addition it was suggested that individuals
present at the Planning Committee Meeting might also like to send letters of complaint.
Planning Application No. DA/2015/1164 Land adjoining Sheepfold Grange Main Street,
Stowe IX Churches Parish Council strongly object to the above application for the
1. Proposed development is outside village confines and historical boundaries. Granting
permission for this application will approximately double the developed area
of the small village of Upper Stowe.
2. Paragraph 55 details special circumstances whereby local planning authorities
might permit new isolated homes in the countryside. We contend the application
fails the following special circumstances;
a) The proposed development is not sensitive to the defining characteristics
of the beautiful surrounding countryside
b) The development does not significantly enhance its immediate setting. We
consider it to be more a “blot on the landscape”.
3. Item 6 on the Application Form clearly states there are no proposals to change
public rights of way within or adjacent to the site. As the drawing of the boundary
lines show, Public Footpath FE6 is clearly partly on or adjacent to the site.
How is it proposed to manage access to this well used footpath?
4. This is the third application under Paragraph 55 in our small village of Stowe
IX Churches within the past few months. We are most concerned this will
lead to a proliferation of more such applications in order to gain planning permission
for dwellings in the open countryside and outside the village confines.
5. The Planning Report forming part of the application makes reference to submission
of the application to OPUN for independent assessment of the suitability
of the application to meet the requirements of Paragraph 55.
The report from OPUN is not included in the supporting documents available to
the Parish Council. We trust that it will be available to Daventry District Council’s
Planning Dept. in order that they may satisfy themselves that it provides
valid independent evidence to support the application.
In addition to the above reasons for our strong objection we would like to make the
following comments should planning permission be granted.
1. The guest annex should be ancillary to the main property and not be used as a
2. Construction traffic should access the site to and from the A5 via Northfield
Lane and not use Leys Hill. This latter road is already heavily used by visitors
to the Old Dairy Farm Retail outlet as well as village residents and local farm
3. The property should not be subdivided into smaller residential units at a later