Agenda and minutes

None.

Subject to minute 10B in respect of application no N/2011/0437 be amended to read “That the application be refused as insufficient…” to the beginning of the resolution, the minutes of the meeting held on 23 August 2011 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Oldham declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in item 10a- N/2011/0323 as having publicly expressed an opinion on this application.

Councillor Markham declared a Personal interest in item 10a- N/2011/0323 as her husband was an employee of the applicant.

Councillor Aziz declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in item 10e- N/2011/0759 as being the applicant.

None.

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: East Hunsbury

Councillor Oldham left the meeting in accordance with his declaration of interest as set out in minute 4 above.

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0323 and referred to the addendum that set out an amendment to paragraph 1.1d in respect of the bus service 28, additional comments in paragraph 1.1 concerning pedestrian facilities to the north of the Mereway underpass, clarification that rejection of relocation options of the revised Clannell Road entrance had been made by the Highways Authority (paragraph 2.70), correction of paragraph 2.8 in respect of the distance between recycling facilities and the nearest home in Falconer’s Rise and additional references in paragraph six to the receipt of a petition in favour of the application; representations from a resident of Sandhurst Close and Legal & General on behalf of the Northampton Shopping Partnership; petition and various representations made to WNDC in respect of the original application; additional comments from Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council about the current application; additional correspondence from Councillor Larratt and County Councillor Andre Gonzalez de Savage and amendments to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.

The Head of Planning elaborated upon the context of the site and the scheme details including the impact of the development on other centres, particularly the town centre and noted that the application allowed for controls to be put in place in respect of the amount of the comparison goods sales area which the applicant had agreed to. He also noted that the Highway Authority’s requirements had been met and they were content with the proposal. The residential impact had been mitigated by the suggested conditions.

Councillor Larratt, as Ward Councillor, commented that he did not object to the application per se but had concerns about the boundary treatment in the south-east corner of the site with Sandhurst Close. He was surprised that the Addendum listed representations that had only just come to light and questioned whether the report considered them. He believed that the Highway Authority had felt that they were not in a position to object to the highways aspects and understood that that they had further requirements. Councillor Larratt’s main concerns were in respect of the .com business and the small shops and restaurant being serviced via Sandhurst Close and the effect of the proposed traffic lights at the Clannell Road entrance to the site on the residents of Falconers Rise. He hoped that the Committee would refuse the application on the grounds of loss of amenity and light pollution to the residents of Falconer’s Rise. In answer to questions Councillor Larratt commented that Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council had suggested that the Clannell entrance to the site be relocated further westwards and the car park layout reconfigure so as to avoid the need for a new access off Sandhurst Close; that there had been numerous meetings between the Parish Council and the applicant but no acceptable resolution from the Parish Council’s point of view had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Semilong

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of Application no. N/2011/0403 and noted that the proposal was for a single four bed dwelling and referred to the proposed condition 8 set out in the report to prevent its use as a HIMO to prevent pre-emption of the implementation of the Article 4 Direction in 2012.

Miss Scott, the neighbour, commented that her property was a detached house, approximately 120 years old. She had been surprised by the Jesus Army’s proposals and their description of 1-3 Hester Street as a single house: it had 11 occupants. Building Control had advised her that they would be concerned by the proposed 7.5cm gap between her property and the new build. How would she be able to maintain this wall? She had concerns about the foundations, overlooking and parking. She noted that the Jesus Army had a vast property portfolio and queried why they needed another house as opposed to extending 1-3 Hester Street. She found it odd that the report referred to all these issues but still recommended the application for approval. In answer to questions Miss Scott commented that she had concerns about overlooking through her velux bathroom window and that, in her view, a better alternative would be for the Jesus Army to extend their existing premises.

Mr Veitch, representing the Jesus Fellowship Community Trust, commented that the new build house would not be a single family residence but used as an extension of the facilities at 1-3 Hester Street. It would meet the long term needs of elderly members of their community and would not be used as temporary hostel accommodation. Mr Veitch stated that the property would technically be a HIMO as the residents would be unrelated to each other but would live as a family sharing, cooking, dining and bathroom facilities. The Jesus Army had been present in the area for a long time. In respect of extending 1-3 Hester Street they had felt that it would overbalance the host property and would not fit in with the street scene. In response to questions Mr Veitch commented that he was unable comment on technical aspects of the application or on estates management matters.

The Head of Planning commented that although no parking provision was included in the proposal the existing parking arrangements would be preserved. He confirmed that the application was for a single dwelling house, C3 use, and as such it could be occupied by up to six people but the proposed condition 8 would mean that the property could only be used as a C3 residence. However Mr Veitch was suggesting that use of the property would be as a HIMO, C4 use and as such would be in conflict with the proposed condition 8 to prevent such a use.     

The Committee discussed the application.

The Head of Planning commented that the applicant’s representative had indicated that the premises would be used for communal accommodation although the application had been presented as, and assessed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: New Duston

Item withdrawn.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Castle

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of Application no. N/2011/0722, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out comments from the Town Centre Conservation Area Advisory Committee.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:    That the application be approved as the proposed use as a single dwelling house would bring back into sustainable use a vacant property in the town centre, and was in accordance with Northampton Local Plan Policy H7; with the emerging Central Area Action Plan; and with National Guidance PPS3 – Housing.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Abington

Councillor Aziz left the meeting in accordance with his declaration of interest set out in Minute 4 above.

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of Application no. N/2011/0759, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out two representations from residents of Ashburnham Road and Abington Avenue.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the proposed bay window by reason of its siting and design would not adversely affect the appearance of the dwelling, the character of the area nor adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies E20 and H18 of the Northampton Local Plan.

None.

None

None.

None.