Ingleby Barwick firearms sale plan 'perplexes' councillors

Stockton Council was asked for planning permission to use a house on Portchester Close, Ingleby Barwick, to sell firearms and ammunition. A reception room would be used as a “secured sales area” to meet customers and collect goods under the proposals, and customers would have to show evidence of membership of shooting clubs, or firearm or shotgun certificates.

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. The business would sell firearms between 10am and 6pm Monday to Saturday, “by pre-arranged appointment only to persons approved by the Police Licensing Authority, and not to the general public”, according to the plans.

The proposal for The Rings area attracted 52 comments in objection, 29 in support, since it was received in June 2023. The council’s planning committee discussed the plan at its meeting at Dunedin House, Thornaby, yesterday afternoon (July 6).

“It is deeply concerning – and frankly unreasonable – that anyone would consider selling firearms on a quiet residential street where families and small children live and play,” one objector wrote on the council’s planning portal. “This is a completely inappropriate location for this business, and introduces unnecessary fear into a peaceful family neighbourhood.”

Another objector wrote: “My children were terrified when they heard about the planning application and were shocked to think that a business like this could be operating a matter of metres from our home. This has caused unnecessary anxiety in a place where they are supposed to feel safe.”

A supporter, meanwhile, wrote: “I would use this service. I also believe social media has hyped the application with ill-informed comments about the use and ownership of firearms.”

Planning service manager Simon Grundy said: “The main concerns of objectors relate to highway safety, off-street parking, public safety, anti-social behaviour, fear of crime, particularly with the use being considered unsuitable for the area.”

Council officers found the “small-scale business at home” acceptable in principle. But they believed it could set a precedent.

They thought it “caused a heightened sense of fear of crime” which completely undermined residents’ perceptions of safety and the area’s character, “due to the measures required to make the business safe, the pre-conceptions and connotations attached to the nature of the business proposed and the vagueness of how the business will operate”. They recommended refusal of the plan.

Cleveland Police also recommended rejection of the plan as “inappropriate” for a housing estate, fearing it “may attract criminality to it, and therefore may represent an increased danger to the public”. They said they were not sure how appointments could be controlled and suspected “people might simply turn up unannounced”.

The applicant, Gurmeet Singh Takhar, told the planning committee: “I’ve held a firearm licence for 16 years. We keep everything in a cupboard.

“We need permission from the police before we sell anything like this. After sale we need to inform the police again. It’s not like other shops.”

Jagjit Takhar said there were strict controls: “It’s not just like any business. The applicant will have measures in place where the firearms are kept in a very controlled and secure environment which have been approved by the police.

“The clientele that will be coming will also follow these strict procedures. It’s not just open to anyone.

“There was a lot of misinformation spread online about the nature of the business, who would be attending the premises. On the footfall, this will be very minimal.”

Discussing the plan, Councillor Tony Riordan said: “I’m almost convinced we’ve had a similar application to this in the last couple of years. I can’t recall the outcome of that, whether it was this same premises or a different premises.

“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.

“I do see the objection of the police that it’s not quite clear what the business is going to run like,” he said, suggesting the debate and decision be postponed to find out more, “rather than rushing into it and potentially leading to an appeal”.

Cllr Sylvia Walmsley recalled a previous application being refused. Cllr Norma Stephenson said: “Some of us think it was refused, some think it was agreed. We need all the information.”

Mr Grundy said: “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 of the plan, for more information “to arrive at a sound decision”.