Appendix A Planning Report – June 2026

REPORT FROM THE PLANNING GROUP – June 2026

APPENDIX A

• Granted Applications

• Refused/Withdrawn Applications

• Pending Applications

• New Applications

• 25/01313/FUL – Change of use, 76 London Road

The applicant has responded to all of our comments and claims that they all can either be resolved through appropriate conditions or will be acceptable.  With respect to the additional comment below, we are pleased that the applicant has stated that they do not plan to use the right of access as a part of the take-away business.  There is, however, a suggestion that the Parish Council has a potential conflict of interest due to a councillor that could be affected by the development.  I suggest that this requires a response.

Additional comment sent:

It has just occurred to Bozeat Parish Council that the new shops might seek to regularly use the rear access to the premises using the right of access of the existing shop that runs behind No. 70 London Road and No. 1 Easton Lane.

On previous application WP/19/00109 (withdrawn) Highways considered that this access is not suitable for use because of the restricted visibility when exiting onto the stopped-up part of Easton Lane.  Although there is a possibility of encountering another vehicle, the greatest danger is to pedestrians who would be unsighted until the front of the vehicle had crossed the pavement.  This is already a busy pedestrian route both for users of the village shop and as a route to the school.  Pedestrian traffic would also increase to access any new shops/facilities that would be created by this scheme.

The photographs below illustrate the lack of visibility and that the lane not metalled.  It is owned by No. 70 London Road and No. 1 Easton Lane.  The photographs also show that the lane rises which results in it being at first floor level which raises additional concerns about potential noise issues for residents if the lane was used by noisy vehicles such as delivery motorbikes.

Should permission be granted we feel that it is essential that it should include a condition that prevents the use of this unsuitable access to the shops/facilities on anything more than an occasional basis.

Suggested response to conflict of interest:

The Parish Council notes the response to our comments and is pleased to see that there is no intention to use the right of access to the rear of the take-away.  The Council is, however, disappointed that the applicant’s suggestion that our comments could constitute a conflict of interest.  We would like to assure the planning team that when a councillor has any perceived interest in a scheme, they declare a conflict of interest and do not take part in the discussions.  The Parish Council represents all residents of the parish equally and that it is our duty to protect their interests regardless of whether or not they are members of the council.

We aim to raise only material planning concerns in our comments and rely on the professionalism of planners to weigh to our concerns appropriately when determining applications and setting planning conditions where they are necessary to address them.

• 26/01120/FUL – 2-storey extension and garage conversion, 99 London Road

This application is for a two-storey extension and garage conversion and other external works.

The submitted plans lack any context of the adjacent properties.  The proposed extension is very close to the boundary with no. 97 and set on higher ground making it feel more like a three-storey building.  It is also to the south of no. 97 and so would cause loss of light.

Suggested response:

The Parish Council objects to this proposal because of the impact that it would have upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring property at 97 London Road.

The plans do not show the context in which the development would take place.  It can be seen from the Streetview below that unlike to the south side of 99 London Road which is undeveloped, no. 99 is very close to 97 London Road.  It also shows that no. 99 sits above no. 97.  The consequence of this is that the proposed rear extension would tower over the rear of no. 97 and feel overbearing.  Furthermore, because no. 99 sits to the south no. 97, the extension would also block the light to the conservatory and other rooms at the rear of no. 97.