Agenda and minutes

None

The minutes of the meeting held on 31 May 2011 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

                               (3) That Councillor Strachan and Paul Hepworth be granted leave to address the Committee in respect of application number N/2011/0360.

                               (4) That Messrs Clarke, Hames and Stead be granted leave to address the Committee in respect of application number N/2007/1583.

Councillor Golby declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in item 12A- N/2007/1583 being the seconder of a motion at the Council meeting held on 17 January 2011 which in part called for the reallocation of housing from Buckton Fields to Daventry Town Centre and the removal of Buckton Fields from any development plans.

Report of Head of Planning (copy herewith)

The Head of Planning submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon.

None.

None.

None.

None.

None.

None.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

[Councillor Golby left the meeting in accordance with his declaration of interest set out in Minute 4 above and did not speak or vote thereon.]

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application number N/2007/1583, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum which set out the final response from the Highways Authority and representations made by Councillor Beardsworth.

Mr Clarke, the Chair of Boughton Parish Council, commented that the proposal would have a great effect on Boughton village and that Buckton Fields had a history going back 20 years. The Parish Council believed that development of the site was premature as there were brown field sites available that should be developed first. He referred to the cumulative effect of traffic on surrounding villages and noted that was already congestion in Moulton at certain times of the day. Mr Clarke observed that there was no master plan for the NW Bypass and that not much had changed over twenty years. He believed that the infrastructure should be put in place before development. Boughton had been designated as a village that would absorb limited infill development. The proposal did not take account of the village and he believed that there should be a strategy for the whole area. The proposal would place an intolerable burden on nearby villages and the adjacent part of Northampton.

Mr Hames, on behalf of local residents and the Nene Flood Prevention Alliance, commented that the Council should maintain its previous objection to development of the site because of flood risk; the existing roads and drainage were not able to cope at present. He referred to major plans drawn up in the 1970’s for ring roads to the south and north of Northampton. The southern ring road had been built but the northern had not. A major upgrade of the road network was needed and he believed that the current works at the Cock Hotel Junction would not improve the current traffic problems. He also had concerns about the effect of the proposal in terms of flooding downstream and believed that the proposed SUDs would not cope with a 1 in 200 year flood event. He stated that the Council should not accept further flows into the Nene until this had been resolved, to do so would be irresponsible. In answer to questions Mr Hames commented that he was in dispute with the Environment Agency in respect of their views of flood risk and the effects of SUDs and believed that an independent report they had had commissioned from Scott Wilson had only dealt with the issues cursorily; Northampton remained, in his view, at severe risk of flooding: that the Section 106 contributions to the NW Bypass were insufficient: that the current proposals for a NW Bypass were incomplete in that the route would not be complete and that the standard of the road would be less than that envisaged in the 1970’s; and that he believed that there were plenty of sites where the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12a

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

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Park

[Councillor Golby returned to the meeting]

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application number N/2011/0195 and elaborated thereon.

Barry Waine, on behalf of the neighbours, thanked the Committee for deferring their consideration of this application at their last meeting so as to allow a site visit to take place. He believed that there were two relevant matters, the impact of the extensions and the balcony. He noted the images showing the shadowing effects on the neighbouring properties in January and June respectively and commented that neither he nor his clients had had an opportunity to inspect them previously. He referred to the impact of the balcony on the Conservation Area and noted that a previous application had been refused by reason of scale. He did not feel that anything had changed in the meantime. The balcony was more of a patio. He believed that the application did not meet policies E20, E26 or H18 and asked the Committee to determine the application in accordance with the Development Plan.

David Cole, the agent for the applicant, referred to the shadowing and context photographs and noted that 56 Abington Park Crescent was close by. He noted that the gable end wall of number 49 was north facing and was therefore not overshadowed at all. The first floor of number 50 was already used as living accommodation and a balcony already existed. Privacy for number 51 would be given by the provision of a translucent screen. Mr Cole believed that there would be no loss of light to either number 49 or 51 and that the situation for both would be improved; there was no effect on their outlook and the house was not within the Conservation Area; the proposal was within the building line; and he believed that the proposal was in accordance with policies E20, E26 and H18.

Lee Romang, the applicant, stated that he wished to make the most of his property for his current and likely future family and wished to maintain his rear garden space. The intention of the balcony was to make the most of the views of the park. He wished to maintain privacy too. He had a young family, Abington Park Crescent was a busy road and there was a school nearby and the park itself was busy. His house was not in the Conservation Area and the application had been made following consultation with the Planners. He believed that the balcony at number 56 was similar to his proposal. In answer to a question Mr Romang commented that the neighbouring northern property to number 56 was a bungalow.

The Head of Planning commented that this application needed to be considered on its merits and that what had been done at other properties in the vicinity was not a material consideration. He confirmed that the property was not in the Conservation Area. He noted that the shadowing pictures showed indicatively, shadowing at 1pm in January and June and that boundary treatments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Park

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0295 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out further representations from the Highway Authority raising specific concerns regarding the need to secure improvements to cycle infrastructure in the vicinity of the site without which they would object to the application, a response thereto and revised wording to proposed conditions 3, 6, 8 and 15.

Scott Bryden, architect for the applicant, commented that Aldi had revised the dimensions of the building which had in turn slightly lowered the roof line by .5m. The car parking spaces had been slightly widened. Previous objections concerning lighting within the site and the retention of the boundary hedge had been dealt with. In answer to questions Mr Bryden commented that it was anticipated that between 14 and 17 full time equivalent jobs would be created and confirmed that the boundary hedge would be retained and tidied up.

In answer to a question, the Head of Planning comment that a specific public realm project within the Town Centre as part of the Section 106 Agreement had not yet been identified.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:    That the application be approved in principle subject to the prior completion of a S106 legal agreement as detailed below and the conditions set out in the report and as amended by the Addendum, as the proposal would represent the effective reuse of previously developed land and would not unduly impact upon the amenities of surrounding occupiers. By reason of the scale of the proposal and subject to the suitable use of planning controls, the development would not adversely impact upon the viability and vitality of other established centres. The proposal therefore complied with the requirements of PPS4, PPS23, PPG13, PPG24 and Local Plan Policies E20, E40 and T11.

                          The S106 agreement shall secure the following matters:

i) Payment is made to fund improvements in bus stop provision within Wellingborough Road including the provision of real time update equipment and to fund its ongoing maintenance;

ii) Payment is made to fund improvements to the town centre environment in order to offset any impacts upon this centre as a result of this development being permitted;

iii) That the development is only occupied as a ‘Limited Assortment Discounter’ supermarket and for no other use within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).

iv) That the net level of retail floor space does not exceed 990m².

v) That an obligation be secured ensuring that the level of retail floor space used for the display and sale of comparison goods does not exceed 15% of the total net retail floor space.

In the event that the S106 legal agreement is not secured within three calendar months of the date of this committee meeting, the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to  refuse or finally dispose of the application on account of the necessary mitigation measures not being secured in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Castle

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0360, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out  a summary of correspondence from the owner of neighbouring premises and suggested amendments to the proposed conditions.

Councillor Strachan, as Ward Councillor, and on behalf neighbours and the local residents association, commented that he believed that the proposal would be to the detriment of the area and would not enhance viability or vibrancy; there was no provision for car parking. He had concerns of noise and cooking smells to the neighbours and noise from the street of people arriving and leaving the premises. He queried whether noise proofing would also deal with vibration. Residents disagreed that there would not be an impact on car parking and he asked the Committee to refuse the application on grounds of noise, smells and anti social behaviour.  

Paul Hepworth, the applicant, commented that he believed that there would not be any anti social behaviour. His target market was 40 plus. There would be traditional old English pub games and the bar would not sell lager or alcopops. He had reassured neighbours about the use of the premises who had withdrawn their earlier objections. In respect of noise there would only be low background music as conversation was to be a feature of the premises. The so-called balcony at the rear was to be used for a small kitchen garden. The premises was Victorian with thick internal walls. In answer to questions Mr Hepworth commented that the former Lettings Agency had been vacant for some 14 or 15 months and that he had taken some time to find a suitable use for the premises that would run alongside his accountancy business.

The Head of Planning noted that cooking smells and noise was covered by the proposed conditions and vibration was also covered by the noise mitigation controls

The Committee discussed the application

RESOLVED:     That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and as amended by the Addendum, as the proposed use would enhance the vitality and viability of the Kettering Road District Centre and would not lead to any undue adverse impact on adjoining residential properties. The proposal thereby complied with Policy E28 of the Northampton Local Plan and the guidance in PPS4 - Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Delapre and Briar Hill

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0408 and elaborated thereon.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:     That the Head of Planning be delegated authority to determine the application.

None.

None.