Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Conroy, Lane and Meredith.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2010 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Church declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in application no N/2009/0843 as a Board Member of WNDC and Member of WNDC’s Northampton Planning Committee.

Councillor Woods declared a Personal interest in application N/2009/0843 as a Board Member of WNDC and Substitute Member of WNDC’s Northampton Planning Committee.

Councillor Hawkins declared a Personal Interest in application no N/ 2010/0997 as a Trustee member of Delapre Abbey Preservation Trust.

Councillor Malpas declared a Personal interest as being known to a member of the public attending the meeting.

None.

Report of Head of Planning (copy herewith)

The Head of Planning, submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and referred to the Addendum that set out further information and updated the report circulated with the agenda.

None.

None.

None.

None.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Delapre

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2010/0997 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out a revised wording to Condition 3.

Councillor Glynane, as Ward Councillor commented that he supported the current application as he had done the previous one. He had been against the construction of the bund in the first place. He noted that the removal of the bund should be at little or no cost to the Council. He was pleased that the report referenced PPS 5 as the topsoil removal had uncovered three British Romano graves and pottery kilns; these would be protected. He observed that issues of alleged contamination of the bund material had never been proved.

Councillor Reeves, as Ward Councillor, commented that he supported the application and noted the recent debate in the media about the removal of the bund. He referred to a letter from the Far Cotton Residents Association noting that residents had discussed the bund and its removal and had made comment about an article in the Chronicle and Echo on 4 January 2011 that residents views on it were split. The 25 residents attending the Residents Association meeting had voted unanimously for the removal of the bund and had noted obscured views, increased traffic noise and limits on access caused by it.

Councillor Clarke, as a founding patron of the Friends of Delapre Abbey commenting that he opposed this application but not the aim to remove the bund. He commented that the Town and Country Planning Acts were clear that where land may be contaminated a risk assessment had to be undertaken at the planning application stage. This had not happened. He circulated a copy of correspondence dated 15 October 2008 from the Council to Mr Christopher Merry that appended affidavits made by Mr Merry and John Thomas concerning the content of some of the bund material that they asserted had come from contaminated sources at the former Express Lifts site and Countess Road. Both Mr Merry and Mr Thomas had indicated that they were happy to make further affidavits if required. In fact they had asserted that there was a long term problem with other bunds throughout the Borough where contaminated material had been used.  He urged the Committee to defer a decision so as to allow the proper tests to take place.

Mr Fitzhugh, Chair of the Far Cotton Residents Association, commented that he was pleased that the report was seeking that the existing planning permission be extended. He felt that there was nothing to be gained by raking over the history of this issue and trying to apportion blame. Instead the focus should be on the restoration of the Abbey and its grounds. He appreciated the comments about the costs of the removal of the bund and observed that if it was suitable the bund material could be sold. He believed that the bund had not served any proper purpose and that its removal would not lead to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

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

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: West Hunsbury

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application N/2010/0997 and elaborated thereon.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED: That an order be made pursuant to Section 119 of the   Highways Act 1980 in respect of the proposed diversion of Bridleway LB6 at Upton Mill, Upton Lane as shown for identification purposes on the plan attached to the report.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: St David

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2010/0946

Councillor Crake as Ward Councillor, commented that she hoped that the site visit the previous day had considered the impact on the neighbours at 228 Boughton Green Road and in particular, the loss of light to their kitchen. The property already had four bedrooms; the proposal would add a fifth. There had already been issues concerning rubbish and 226 Boughton Green Road had made complaints about rats. There were also concerns about the backing up of sewerage. There were no other properties in the vicinity that were in effect HIMO’s and this would change the character of the area.   

Mr Toone, agent for the applicant, commented that he was aware of the issues that had been raised. The proposal complied with planning policies and a pre-application meeting with Planning Officers had taken place and their advice taken account of. Several alterations had been made to the original scheme to meet the concerns of the neighbours. He believed that the concerns about privacy and light had now been resolved. In respect of car parking he stated that the property had better provision that many other properties in the vicinity.

The Head of Planning noted that the separation distance would be approximately 3 meters and that the side windows were to a landing and lavatory respectively. He noted the ground floor side door and window to the kitchen in the neighbour’s property. The domestic waste management issues were for Environmental Health. In answer to questions the Head of Planning commented that the effect of the proposal on the street scene had been taken into account and was considered to be acceptable and that there no windows proposed in the side elevation of the extension; and that the use of the property was established as C4 and as such the property could have six residents before a separate planning permission would be noted.     

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:     That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as by reason of its siting, scale and relation with surrounding development, the impact of the proposed development on the character of the original building, street scene and residential amenity was considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Policies, E20 and H18 of the Northampton Local Plan.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Kingsley

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2010/0971 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 site lay within a primarily residential area. The development proposed would, by reason of its character, appearance, scale and site would not be detrimental to the character of the area, highway safety or the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with policies E20 and H6 of the Northampton Local Plan.  

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Kingsthorpe

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2010/1013 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out an additional letter of objection from 2 Branksome Avenue. He referred to the reasons for the previous refusal of the original application set out at paragraph 2.2 of the report and noted that there had been no amendment to the car parking proposals but that the use of the first floor rooms had been reversed so that the bedroom would be at the back, as currently existed, and the living room and kitchen had been moved to the front. In the proposed Flat 4 the rear facing window had been moved to the side elevation to Studland Road. He noted that the existing format of the bay windows would be retained.

Councillor Beardsworth as Ward Councillor commented that the proposal was to convert a family home into four flats. The next door neighbours had two disabled children and had made consequent adaptations to their property and were therefore committed to it. The proposal could result in four or six extra cars with only parking provision for two. She had recently visited the area and parking was already difficult with the Doctors Surgery and Pharmacy opposite and Netto nearby. The proposal would go against the street scene of family homes in that area.

Mr Wykes the next door neighbour at 4 Thornton Road, commented that their property had been in their family for 50 years. They had three children two of whom had disabilities. Their garden was small and they knew their neighbours. They were worried about up to eight strangers living next door. Parking was already a problem that would most likely worsen. He believed that the Committee had the power to take away the stress to his family by refusing the application. In answer to a question Mr Wykes confirmed that his concerns were to do with loss of privacy, noise and the increased use of the side access.

Mr Tony Murphy welcomed the site visit the previous day and stated that Committee members would have seen the difficult geography caused by the small garden at 4 Thornton Road and the feeling of being hemmed in that the proposal would create. He noted that a letter from the Head of Planning had stated that the disability of the neighbour’s children was not a material planning consideration but felt this was alarming. He believed that the Planning Committee’s role was to protect the public. He believed that the revised planning application only made minor changes in respect of overlooking to that refused in October 2010. There would still be up to eight people occupying the four flats. There was no change to the propsed parking arrangements. The existing property had been built as a family home which was what it should be used for: this application was about generating income: the Applicant had not discussed their plans with any of the neighbours.

Mr Paul Toone, agent for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10d

None.

None.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: St James

Councillor Church left the meeting in accordance with his previous declaration of interest.

The Committee adjourned at 19.55 hours until 20.05 so as to allow Members to read the additional information contained in the Addendum relating to this application.

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2009/0843 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out correspondence from Indigo, the Agents for Sainsbury’s, dated 6 January 2011, a summary thereof and a typographical amendment to paragraph 7.40 of the report. In particular he highlighted the planning history of the application, the assessment of the impact of the proposal vis a vis the Town Centre, the sequential testing of alternative sites; the correspondence from Indigo set out in the Addendum; other retail applications that were in the pipeline to WNDC; and a request from Tesco’s that their proposals for their store at Mereway should be considered together with this one. In this latter respect it was considered  that the Tesco’s Mereway proposals were not sufficiently advanced to merit delaying consideration of the Sainsbury’s proposals yet further as no adverse prejudice would occur.

The Head of Planning summarised the context of the Sainsbury's Sixfields extension including the details of the proposals, the history of application, the relevant planning policy, the negotiations that have taken place and downward revisions of the scheme.  The recommendations that are being made are for a Holding Objection to WNDC on matters of retail impact, carbon impact, the need for control of comparison goods floorspace and the need for securing Sainsbury's town centre presence were laid out for the committee to consider.

Councillor P.M. Varnsverry commented that she supported the revised plans and welcomed the partnership working between Sainsbury’s and the Planning Officers. She noted that St James Residents Association had recently had discussions with Sainsbury’s. She queried whether there would be CCTV coverage to help combat anti social behaviour. She endorsed the recommendations in the report and asked if greater provision for the disabled would be made. Councillor Varnsverry also asked whether Sainsbury’s may be able assist with issues to do with the pedestrian crossing in Tollgate Way just outside of the site.

Christian Wakelin, on behalf of Sainsbury’s commented that the store had opened in 1988, employed 365 staff and had 41,000 customers a week. Sainsbury’s had been part of the Town since 1975 and were committed to a Town Centre presence. This proposal represented an £18m investment and would create an extra 120 jobs. From their own customer research, 95% of people supported the expansion of the Weedon Road store. It needed to be updated to reflect Sainsbury’s modern image and to increase the product ranges on offer. They had worked with WNDC on sustainability and a number of measures were included in their proposal; the proposal would increase energy consumption by 2%. If approved the work would commence in the Summer and the store would remain open during it. In answer to questions Mr Wakelin commented that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12a