Decision on suburban firearm shop deferred

The applicant wants to sell firearms and ammunition from a house on Portchester Close

A decision on a plan to sell firearms and ammunition from a suburban home has been deferred by councillors.

Stockton Council was asked for planning permission to use a house in Ingleby Barwick to sell the weapons.

The proposal for Portchester Close has attracted 52 comments in objection and 29 in support since it was received in June 2023.

Council officers and Cleveland Police recommended plans be refused but the planning committee unanimously agreed to defer its consideration until more information could be gathered on a similar application.

The delay in the plan being discussed by the Labour-led council was due to the applicant requesting more time to try and overcome the police force's objection.

'May attract criminality'

Customers would have to show evidence of membership of shooting clubs or firearm certificates and the business would only sell by pre-arranged appointment to people approved by the Police Licensing Authority, according to the plans.

If approved, it would serve a maximum of two to three customers a day from a property covered by security cameras and a 24-hour alarm system.

Applicant Gurmeet Singh Takhar told the planning committee on Wednesday the clientele that would be coming will follow "strict procedures".

"It's not just open to anyone," he said. "There was a lot of misinformation spread online about the nature of the business, who would be attending the premises."

Council officers found the "small-scale business at home" acceptable in principle, but they believed it could set a precedent and recommended it be refused.

Cleveland Police also recommended the plan was rejected as it was "inappropriate for a housing estate", fearing it "may attract criminality".

The force said it was not sure how appointments could be controlled and suspected people might turn up unannounced, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.

'Nothing on system'

The application also puzzled several councillors over how a similar application was handled in the past.

Conservative councillor Tony Riordan said: "When I was reading this application I was a bit perplexed, thinking we've passed one previously with the same processes, yet we're objecting to this one."

Riordan suggested the debate and decision be postponed to find out more.

Independent councillor Sylvia Walmsley recalled the previous application being refused.

Councillor Norma Stephenson, Labour, said: "Some of us think it was refused, some think it was agreed. We need all the information."

Planning services manager Simon Grundy told the meeting: "We think we've dealt with something similar in the past but we haven't found anything on the system."

Councillors unanimously agreed to defer their consideration for more information "to arrive at a sound decision".