Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Aziz, Davies and Golby.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2011 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Hallam declared a personal interest in item 12A, application number N/2011/0519, as a member of Northampton General Hospital.

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.

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

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: St Davids

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2011/0372 and elaborated thereon.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved as the proposal would have no adverse impact on the street scene or on the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Park

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2011/0423 and elaborated thereon.

Mr Henderson, a neighbour, stated that his only objection was to the two storey rear extension element of the application. He believed that this extension would block light to his kitchen/ dining area, which was the hub of his home, and would leave a view of a brick wall from the kitchen window. There were similar issues in respect of the bathroom window that was also on the side of their property. He was concerned at the proposal for a side window to the proposed extension which he felt would compromise the privacy of himself and his wife. He believed that the rear extension would have an overbearing effect on his property, have an unacceptable effect on the amenity of his property and would not be in keeping with the general street scene. In answer to a question from Councillor Oldham, Mr Henderson commented that if the side window to the proposed rear extension were to be conditioned to be obscure glazed and to be high level opening this would be an improvement but would not deal with the bulk and mass on the extension itself. In answer to a question from Councillor Meredith, Mr Henderson commented that usually they switched their kitchen lights on at 4.00pm.

The Head of Planning noted that the proposed side window was, in fact, part of the existing building but could be conditioned as discussed. 

The Committee discussed the application and having visited the site as a Committee expressed concern about the scale and mass of the development creating a sense of enclosure to neighbouring properties, particularly 25 Rufford Avenue, due to its siting, scale and proximity to the common boundary and the side kitchen window of no.25. Following debate the Committee concluded that this would harm neighbour amenity in conflict with  Development Plan Policy.

RESOLVED:  The proposed two storey rear extension, by reason of its siting, scale and proximity to 25 Rufford Avenue, would be an overbearing form of development creating an excessive sense of enclosure detrimental to residential amenity of the occupants of no.25.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H18 of the Northampton Local Plan and the Council's adopted SPG on Residential Extensions

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/2011/0432 and elaborated thereon.

The Committee discussed the application.

 RESOLVED:     That the application be approvedsubject to the conditions  set out in the report as the siting, design and appearance of the extension was acceptable and would not be detrimental to visual or residential amenity in accordance with Policies H18 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan and the residential design guide

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Nene Valley

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

None.

None.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward:Upton

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2011/0519 and elaborated thereon.

Councillor Bottwood, the Ward Councillor, commented that he was concerned that previous mistakes in the development of the wider St Crispin site should be avoided, and in particular access to the St Luke’s School site where there were severe problems with congestion ever since the school had opened. He hoped that a rear access from this site to the school could be created and he understood that a path across the school playing field would cost in the region of £10,000. He also hoped that the design of properties in this development and their layout would allow for parking at the front as rear vehicular access on other developments on St Crispin and at nearby Upton were largely unused by residents.

The Head of Planning commented that Councillor Bottwood’s comments in respect of a rear access to St Luke’s school were premature at this point but could form part of discussions before a reserved matters application was made. As the views of the Local Education Authority were unknown, WNDC could be asked to discuss it with them with a view to it being included as part of any Section 106 negotiations.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That WNDC be informed that subject to the following points being fully addressed, the Council raises NO OBJECTIONS to the application as proposed for the reasons set out in the report and that WNDC be asked to discuss with the Local Education Authority the need for a rear access to St Luke’s Primary School with a view to this forming part of any Section 106 negotiations:

·              The revision of condition 10 to better control the type and quantity of town centre uses in this out of centre location in accordance with PPS4.

·              A S106 agreement to secure provision of 35% affordable housing. Provision should also be made for mobility housing.

·              Financial contribution towards educational and community facilities and provision of Primary and Secondary School places is to be made.

·              Financial contribution towards health care facilities is to be provided.

·              The provision of an area of open space to include a Leap, and commuted sum and upgrading of the Neap at St Crispin.

·              A commuted sum for the maintenance of landscaped areas or alternative arrangement and additional works to the Upper Nene Valley Country Park to accord with the Princess Marina Hospital Development Brief.