Four-person care home at Latimer, 88 Church Way, Northampton

What was proposed

The application sought to change a three-bedroom dwelling into a care home for up to four wheelchair-using young adults needing support.

“Change of use from C3 Residential to C2 Residential Institution for use as a care home for up to 4 residents. The residents will be young adults who require wheelchair-accessible accommodation and associated support.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a large detached house in an established residential area, with split levels, mature trees, a rear garden and driveway parking.

“The application site is situated in an established residential area, in the Weston Favell area of Northampton. The character of the site and surrounding area is mainly large, detached houses and established trees that are visible from the public realm.”

“The subject property is a large detached 3 bedroom dwelling on a split level, with a lower ground floor providing a utility and garage and 3 bedrooms, kitchen dining and living rooms on the upper ground floor. There is a large rear garden with mature trees and shrubs providing screening. At the front there is a paved driveway that slopes steeply downwards away from the road, with mature trees and parking for several cars.”

Officer report

Earlier permission and related proposal

A rear extension already had permitted development approval but was unbuilt, while a similar care home application was proposed at number 84.

“There is extant permission for the single storey rear extension shown on the plans, although this remains unbuilt, and was approved as being permitted development under application 2025/2525/PNHPD, using householder permitted development rights for larger home extensions.”

“The majority of the proposed rear extension represents infill, this would require some minor fenestration and internal alterations to this area, with the existing rear door in the current living room being removed to leave an internal opening to access the new extension with sliding patio windows/doors to the rear elevation of the extension.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended delegated approval subject to conditions, finding the proposal acceptable after assessing its principle, amenity, highways, appearance and trees.

“The following consultees have raised no objections to the application: • Environmental Health (Subject to conditions), Highways, Arboricultural Officer, (Subject to conditions).”

“The report looks into the key planning issues in detail, and Officers conclude that the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, environmental protection and the tree officer raised no objections subject to conditions, while 49 objection letters were received.

“Consultee Name Position Comment WNC Arboricultural Officer No objection subject to conditions The Council's Tree Officer raises no Arboricultural objection to the proposal.”

“The LHA is therefore satisfied that the development would not have an adverse impact on the safety or operation of the local highway network. WNC Environmental Protection No Objection subject to conditions Environmental Protection raises no objection to the proposed change of use subject to conditions.”

Officer report

What residents objected to

Objectors raised concerns about safety, parking, trees, noise, disturbance, character, site levels and the cumulative impact of two care homes.

“There have 49 objection letters raising the following comments:”

“Highway Safety - concerns re increased activity and the safety of pedestrians, school children walking or cycling to school nearby and lack of visibility and lack of off-road parking spaces; • Tree Protection Matters - impact on trees/loss of trees, visual amenity • Loss of neighbouring amenity with noise, disturbance, increased traffic etc.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A residents’ representative and the local ward member spoke against the application, while the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

What members asked for

The committee sought a site visit to assess highway safety and access, plus further information about management, layout, amenities, residents, parking and space.

“It was proposed by Councillor Nigel Berrill and seconded by Councillor Christine Ware that a decision on the determination of application 2025/3896/FULL be deferred for the purposes of a Committee Site Visit to enable any highway safety impacts of the proposed development and the proposed access onto Church Way to be assessed, and for the applicant to provide further information on the following:”

“Proposed operation and management plan, layout and amenities, resident numbers, parking, and space.”

Minutes

The vote

The deferral motion passed with seven votes in favour, one against and one abstention.

“The motion was put to the vote with seven votes cast in favour of the proposal, one vote cast against with one abstention, therefore the motion was carried, and the application was deferred.”

Minutes

What the committee decided

The committee deferred the application for a site visit and further information about operation, management, layout, amenities, resident numbers, parking and space.

“For the purposes of a Committee Site Visit to enable any highway safety impacts of the proposed development and the proposed access onto Church Way to be assessed.”

“To enable the applicant to provide further information regarding the proposed operation and management plan, layout and amenities, resident numbers, parking, and space.”

Minutes