Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors De Cruz, M Hoare, Malpas and Meredith.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 September 2009 were signed by the Chair.

The Chair noted that Item 12b N/2009/0744 – Reserved Matters Application Including Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale, Pursuant to Outline Consent WN/2006/0013 dated 19.04.07 – Erection of 231 Dwellings, Roads and Sewers and Public Open Space at Former British Timken Site, Main Road, Duston, was to be deferred.

RESOLVED: (1) That Mr Stirling be granted leave to address the Committee in respect of Application No N/2009/0610 – Erection of 4no Detached Houses With Associated Garages, Access and Parking on Building Plot to the Rear of 76 Church Way.

                        (2) That Messrs Holmes and Taylor, Mrs Jackson and Councillor Davies be granted leave to address the Committee in respect of Application No N2009/0644 – First Floor Extension Above Annex (as amended by revised plans received on 11 September 2009) at 21 Huntsmead.

                        (3) That Messrs Button and Clarke and Councillors Perkins and Simpson be granted leave to address the Committee in respect of Application No N/2009/0765 – Part Retrospective Three Storey Side Extension, Single Storey Extensions, Dormer Window and Velux Windows to Existing Building, Front and Boundary Fence at 2 The Drive/3 The Crescent.

1.            Councillor Church declared a personal interest but not prejudicial in Item 10e N/2009/0765 – Part Retrospective Three Storey Side Extension, Single Storey Extensions, Dormer Window and Velux Windows to Existing Building, Front and Boundary Fence at 2 The Drive/3 The Crescent as being the County Councillor for Kingsley Ward and being known to one of the objectors.

2.            Councillor Church declared a personal interest but not prejudicial in Item 12a N/2009/0720 – Change of Use of Ground Floor From a Bank (Class A”) to a Bingo Hall (Class D2) and Formation of New Access Door on to Abington Street at 33 Abington Street and N/2009/0772 – Change of Use to Amusement Centre at 31-33 Abington Street as being a Member of the WNDC Board.

3.            Councillor Matthews declared a personal interest but not prejudicial in respect of Item 9a N/2009/0685 – Construction of Multi Use Games Area on Land at Dayrell Road, Camp Hill as having had previous dealings with a proposal to locate a MUGA in this area.

4.            Councillor Simpson declared a personal interest in Item 12e N/2009/0765 –Part Retrospective three storey side extension, single storey extensions, Dormer Window and Velux Windows to existing building, Front and Boundary Fence at 2 The Drive/ 3 The Crescent, as being known to one of the objectors.

The Chair was of the opinion that the following item be considered as a Matter of Urgency due to the undue delay if consideration of it were deferred:

RTPI Councillor Summer School

Councillors Golby and Matthews made a presentation on their attendance at the RTPI Summer School, which had taken place in Exeter during August 2009.  They elaborated upon the lectures that they had attended and the study tours to Crediton and Tiverton and a visit to the Exeter waterfront.

RESOLVED: That the presentation be noted and that Councillors Golby and Matthews be thanked for their presentation. 

Report of Head of Planning (copy herewith)

The Head of Planning submitted a report and elaborated thereon.  Concern was expressed in respect of an Inspector’s decision to allow an appeal in respect of Application No N/2009/0288 – Proposed Change of Use of Part of the Car Park to Accommodate Car Wash Area at the Romany Public House, Kingsley Road. 

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

None

None.

None

None.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward; West Hunsbury

The Head of Planning submitted a report and elaborated thereon.

The Committee discussed the Application.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the proposed multi use games area would provide a useful local community facility without being detrimental to residential amenity in accordance with PPS23 (Planning and Pollution) and PPG24 (Planning and Noise) and have no significant impact on the site of acknowledged nature conservation value in accordance with Policy E18 of the Northampton Local Plan.

An Addendum of further information consdiered by the Committee is attached.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: St Crispin

The Head of Planning submit a report in respect of Application No N/2009/0028LB and elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum, which set out amendments to Condition 4 following further discussions with the Conservation Officers; and a request to seek a delegation to the Head of Planning to agree any further minor changes to the wording of the conditions.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED: (1) That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in section 6 of the report, as amended by the Addendum, subject to the completion of the Section 106 Agreement to the satisfaction of the Borough Council in respect of the associated planning permission as the proposal would ensure the redevelopment of this prominent semi-derelict site, which would enhance the character of the area and assist in the regeneration of the town overall.  The proposal would also ensure the retention of the majority of the listed buildings on the site that formed an important part of the town’s heritage in accordance with Policy 26 of the Regional Plan and the aims and objectives of PPG15.

                        (2) That the Head of Planning be given authority to agree any further minor changes to the wording of the conditions applying to this planning permission.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Delapre

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of Application No N2009/0606 and elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum which noted the receipt of corrected drawings submitted by the agent and that the Environment Agency had not raised no substantive objections. 

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the change of use to a builders merchants and external changes to the building and forecourt were acceptable by virtue of maintaining the business characteristics of Minton Business Centre, utilising suitable highway access and enhanced the appearance of the building and the site.  For these reasons the changes accord with Saved Policies B2, B3, B14 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan and no other material considerations indicated otherwise.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Weston

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of Application No N/2009/0610 and reminded the Committee that consideration of this application had been deferred at the previous meeting of the Committee so as to allow further comments from the Highways Authority in respect of the access and for a site visit to take place.  The Head of Planning referred to the Addendum, which set out a proposed additional condition in respect of the storage of refuse and materials for recycling.

Mr Stirling noted that the Committee had visited the site on the afternoon of 26 October and he confirmed that the developer had e-mailed him confirming the suggestions now reported by the Head of Planning.  He acknowledged that the developer had tried to meet the concerns of neighbours and Mr Stirling was happy with the proposed conditions.  Mr Stirling made a general comment about incremental infill developments on what was originally a country lane and queried at what point would the planning authority decide that enough development had taken place.

The Head of Planning commented that each application needed to be considered on its merits and that the Highways Authority would be mindful of other developments that had taken place in the vicinity and their impact on the road network.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and Addendum as the proposed development would have no undue detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of the locality and residential amenity of nearby occupiers or highway safety and therefore accords with Policies E20, H6 and H10 of the Northampton Local Plan and Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Ecton Brook

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of Application No N/2009/0644 and elaborated thereon. 

Mr Holmes, the owner of 16 Botmead Road, expressed concerns that the proposed extension would have an overbearing and dominating effect on his property and garden.  He acknowledged that the scheme had been revised but felt the proposal was still intrusive.  He noted that the gap between the wall of the annex and his boundary fence would only be two or three metres.  Mr Holmes stated that he and his wife made much use of their rear garden and felt that their enjoyment of it would be affected.  He believed that the proposal was contrary to Policy H18 and believed that the applicant’s revisions to the scheme did not go far enough. 

Mrs Jackson, a resident of 19 Huntsmead opposite the application site, believed that the proposal would have a severe impact on the street scene.  She believed that the proposal would not be in keeping with the other houses and that the proposed dormer window would look odd, particularly with the building that it was attached to.  She felt that the overall impression would be one of being cramped.  She hoped that the annex would not be used as a dwelling, as it looked as if it could be.  She also noted the very limited parking in the area.

Councillor Davies, as Ward Councillor, stated that the estate had been laid out with a mixture of house types, without overlooking and limited vehicle access to the properties.  Parking was mainly off-street.  He noted that this property had a double garage with a small drive.  Councillor Davies supported the comments made by Mr Holmes and noted that velux windows in the roof would overlook 16 Botmead Road.  He also concurred that the overall impression would be of a cramped development. 

Mr Taylor, the applicant, commented that he lived at 21 Huntsmead with his wife, two sons and his mother lived in the annex.  His family did not wish to move and he apologised for any distress that had been caused to his neighbours.  He believed that the Head of Planning’s report was accurate and that the development was in keeping with the area.  In respect of the concerns expressed in relation to parking, he noted that there would be no more cars using the property.  He noted that the annex was currently used by his mother and that planning conditions would prevent its use as a separate dwelling unit.  In respect of concerns of overshadowing he noted that, because of the orientation of the properties, any overshadowing would be into his garden.

The Head of Planning noted that in respect of Mr Holmes comment, the distance between his boundary fence and the existing garage annex was some four metres and some twelve metres to his bungalow.  The original submission had been for a full length extension but the present proposal was a little over half of that scheme.  The Head of Planning noted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10d

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Kingsley

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of Application No N/2009/0765 and noted that Recommendation 2 should be amended to read “That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to issue …”.  The Head of Planning referred to the Addendum, which set out additional letters of objection received from residents of The Crescent and The Drive.  The Head of Planning noted that the Planning officer’s concerns were in respect of the awkward roof form and transition from the existing property to the extension. 

Mr Button, a resident of 1 The Crescent, commented that he had lived in the area for thirty five years and there was much local concern about the proposal.  He noted that 1 and 2 The Drive were late Victorian houses built as a pair to match each other.  He considered that the proposal was out of keeping with the original dwelling and had a dominating affect on the street scene.  He noted that the applicant had already submitted two sets of revised plans and also the lack of onsite car parking.  He queried why the pavement crossover was to be removed, which appeared to further restrict off street parking.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application. 

Councillor Simpson, as the Ward Councillor, noted that he appeared to be notified of a planning application for this site nearly every year.  He stated that previously boundary walls had collapsed and trees had been removed.  He believed that the proposal would make the nursing home dominate the area and he felt that the proposal pushed the boundaries of what should be considered acceptable.  He noted that some discussion had taken place about Phippsville either being included within the Racecourse Conservation Area or a new conservation area being created.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application. 

Mr Clarke, the agent for the applicant, commented that the principle of the extension had been agreed by the Committee in June.  The intention was to access rooms on the second floor by lift.  Since June, the Community Care Commission had revised standards and required bedrooms to have en-suite bathrooms.  That was why the original application had now been revised to accommodate these changes.  The difference was that the roof line would now be some 2.7 metres higher and 0.3 metres wider than the original planning permission.  Views would be obscured by existing trees and street scene and he felt that there were no grounds on which the Committee could refuse the application.

Councillor Perkins stated that his mother was a resident of the care home and he had grown up in and around The Crescent and The Drive.  He believed that it was in the public interest to allow the application.  The home had received a number of awards for the care provided and he confirmed that since June 2009 the County Council had applied new standards, which required the changes to the original planning permission.  He also noted the increasing elderly nature of the population and also the fact that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10e

None

None.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Castle)

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of Application Nos N/2009/0720 and N/2009/0772 and referred to the Addendum, which noted the Regeneration Team’s rejections to the proposals.  Members were made aware of the two distinct site areas covered by the two applications. 

The Committee discussed the proposal.

RESOLVED: That WNDC be informed that the Committee strongly objects to both consultations as the proposal for an amusement centre in this location would reduce the opportunity to bring back retail use to a significant unit in Abington Street, contrary to the advice in PPS6 – Planning For Town Centres and Saved Policies R5 and R6 of the Northampton Local Plan.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Old Duston

The Head of Planning commented that issues as set out in the Addendum had recently arisen between the applicants and WNDC in respect of the number of dwellings agreed to in the outline planning permission and this proposal.  For this reason it was now proposed that consideration of this application be deferred pending resolution of the situation. 

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.