Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Hallam.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2011 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

The Head of Planning noted that in respect of item 10b, N/2011/0403, the applicant had subsequently withdrawn the application.

                        That Messrs Clarke and Stead, Mrs Bartlett and Councillors Yates and Beardsworth be granted leave to address the Committee in respect of Item 12b, N/2011/0883.

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 Golby declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in item 12a- N/2011/0882 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.

Councillor Golby declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in item 12b- N/2011/0883 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.

Councillor Golby declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in item 10e- N/2011/0635 as representing residents views on the application.

Report of Head of Planning (copy herewith)

The Head of Planning submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries, elaborated thereon and commented that the appeals in respect of N/2009/0566 and N/2011/0493 had been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

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 recorded above.

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2011/0323 and reminded the Committee of the reasons for the deferral of consideration of the application at the previous meeting. He commented that Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council had met with Tesco’s but that there remained a difference of opinion between them. The Committee’s previous concerns had been in respect of highways issues and he reminded the Committee that the application needed to be determined on the basis of what was presented to them. The Head of Planning referred to the Addendum that set out a resume of what had happened since the last meeting, Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council’s response to the meeting held with Tescos, and representations made by Legal and General Investment Management and residents since the meeting of the Committee on 13 September.

Mr Gonzalez de Savage, on behalf of residents, stated that it had been evident at the Wootton and East Hunsbury  Parish Council meeting that Tesco’s had not been willing to act on the wishes of the local community. The Parish Council and residents were against the application because of the access arrangements to the site off Clannell Road. He acknowledged that Tesco’s were a successful company and there had been a three year dialogue with them over their proposals. The Parish Council’s and the residents preferred option was for the Dot Com business vehicles to exit the site via the Mereway roundabout as at present. They were concerned at commercial traffic exiting the site into residential streets and using those streets as a means of access to other parts of the Town and outlying villages to the south. Tesco’s as a major employer and priding itself as a good neighbour could have redrawn its plans but had chosen not to do so. There were concerns about obstruction to neighbours opposite the site. Mr Gonzalez de Savage commented that Highways Agency representatives had indicated to him that commercial traffic could enter and leave the site via the Mereway roundabout. In answer to a question, Mr Gonzalez de Savage confirmed his statement that Highways Agency representatives had indicated to him that commercial traffic could enter and leave the site via the Mereway roundabout and that Dot Com vehicle drivers had stated to him that they had been advised to use the residential streets instead. 

Mr Nunn, the Chairman of Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council, noted that the public meeting of the Parish Council with Tesco’s had taken place on 12 October. This meeting had also confirmed that a large number of residents supported the Parish Council’s position. The Clannell Road access to the site remained the main public concern together with safety issues in respect of Sandhurst Close. The Parish Council believed that the proposals represented an over development of the site and suggested that the Committee would not be able to approve the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Councillor Golby left the meeting in accordance with his earlier declaration of interest.

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0882 elaborated thereon and noted that Daventry District Council would determine the application on 20 October 2011. He referred to the Addendum that set out five further objections to the scheme and a copy of a letter sent by the Nene Flood Prevention Alliance to the Environment Agency. The Head of Planning noted that when the application had been considered on 21 June 2011 the Committee had expressed concerns relating to highways matters and education. Daventry District Council in refusing the application in July had sought a review of the Highways Agency advice and had commissioned independent advice that the highways mitigations were adequate. That advice was that the mitigations agreed with the Highways Agency were adequate. He also that the advice from the Education Authority was also clear that a secondary school was not needed on the site.

Mr Clarke, Chair of Boughton Parish Council, commented that the proposal represented a tripling of the size of the parish. The existing Boughton village was designated as for “limited infill”. The Parish Council had been surprised that an application had come forward so quickly after the refusal in July and had written to Daventry District Council on 30 September 2011. This application was the same as that rejected previously except for the information in respect of the traffic impact assessment. This site was greenfield and the cumulative effect of developing it and Dallington Grange would be bad for both Northampton and the surrounding villages. Mr Clarke noted that there was no current route for a North West Bypass. He believed that there was nothing about the current application that changed the original view that it should be objected to.

Councillor Yates, as Councillor of an adjoining Borough Ward, stated that this application was 98% the same as the application made in June. He commented that some residents adjoining the site had not been notified of the proposals by the applicant. He queried whether there were grounds to object to the application on the basis of lack of consultation with adjoining residents. Councillor Yates noted that the Cock Hotel junction was currently operating at 130% of capacity and the improvements currently under way would only improve the situation to 110% of capacity. A development of this size would only worsen this situation still further. Kingsthorpe already suffered some of the worst air quality in the County.    

Mr Stead of FOBA, commented that he was surprised that the current application was substantially the same as the previous one and noted the applicant’s comments that the proposed National Planning Policy Framework strengthened the case to allow development unless the disbenefits of so doing clearly outweighed the benefits. The situation concerning the North West By-pass was key. The Secretary of State had saved the By-pass proposal into the Milton Keynes South Midlands study and consequently it had been part of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12a

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0883 elaborated thereon and noted that this application was amended form of a similar application submitted in 2008 and that Daventry District Council would determine the application on 20 October 2011. He referred to the Addendum that set out five further objections to the scheme and a copy of a letter sent by the Nene Flood Prevention Alliance to the Environment Agency. He noted that the advice sought by Daventry District Council in respect of the Highways Agency proposals in respect of N/2011/0882 also covered this application and concluded that the highways mitigations were adequate.

Mr Clarke, Chair of Boughton Parish Council, commented that the Parish Council did not believe that this application should be twin tracked with N/2011/0882 It was really a first phase of development. He referred to the masterplan for development of the whole site which had identified the need for 1.5 form entry primary school on the site. This proposal was too small to require such provision in its own right.

Councillor Yates, as Councillor of an adjoining Borough Ward, stated that this application was 98% the same as the application made in June. He commented that some residents adjoining the site had not been notified of the proposals by the applicant. He queried whether there were grounds to object to the application on the basis of lack of consultation with adjoining residents. Councillor Yates noted that the Cock Hotel junction was currently operating at 130% of capacity and the improvements currently under way would only improve the situation to 110% of capacity. A development of this size would only worsen this situation still further. Kingsthorpe already suffered some of the worst air quality in the County.   

Mr Stead of FOBA, commented that he did not understand why this  application had come forward as a separate entity. He believed that in effect it represented a first phase of development. He concurred that this proposal would not support the provision of a primary school but just moved the pressure to provide it into any subsequent second phase of development. He believed that this was unacceptable and found the modal shift projections for transportation to be dubious. He urged the Committee to object to the application.

Mrs Barlett on behalf of WASPRA, commented that this Greenfield site was under threat. She noted that Daventry District Council’s policy HS2 expected the development of the North West Bypass. HS2 required provision of the By-pass on the completion of the first 150 units.She commented that although the effect of 376 new properties on the Cock Hotel junction might not be as great as N/2011/0882 it would still generate up to 2,000 extra car movements a day. It would still move the traffic bottleneck further into Northampton. She concurred that this application represented a first phase of development, that there was no primary or secondary school within walking distance of the site and that the application should be resisted.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12b

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Headlands

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2011/0481 and noted that the word “not” should be deleted from the fourth line of paragraph 7.13.

Councillor Subbarayan, as Ward Councillor, commented that he did not object to the application per see. He stated that the site notice had been difficult to find and had been obscured by vegetation. The issue of concern was the status of the existing car park that was believed to belong to the Community Centre. On Sundays in particular the Community Centre was well used and cars parked all along Wheatfield Road South. He asked that reconsideration be given to that part of the application proposing four dwellings that would be built largely over the current car park. He believed that taking away the car park could jeopardise the future of the Community Centre. In answer to questions Councillor Subbarayan stated that at least 12 cars could use the car park and that the proposal would remove all of the off street parking for the Community Centre.

Mr Skinner, on behalf of Abington Community Association, challenged the statement that part of the existing car park was unused. Up to 230 people might attend an event and even with car sharing would mean over 50 vehicles trying to park nearby. The car park in its current form had existed since 1990 for residents, users of the Community Centre and users of the former Dallington Centre. Mr Skinner queried the sense of the proposal given that, at the request of another part of the Council, the Community Association were considering taking over the management of it which was a Council policy. He noted that the whole area including the Community Centre site had been purchased by the predecessor Council in 1900 and that part of the land given over to the Dallington Centre had transferred to the County Council upon local government reorganisation in 1974, hence the confusing picture of land ownership. In answer to questions Mr Skinner commented that there was no public off street parking in the vicinity with only some private parking available at the Beech Avenue Medical Centre and that the Community Association had previously asked about acquiring the car parking but had been refused. 

The Head of Planning commented that no legal agreements or covenants had been found relating to the Community Centre’s use or rights in respect of the car parking. He confirmed that all adjoining landowners had been consulted, a site notice displayed and advertised in the press. He reminded the Committee that the Highway Authority had raised no objections. In answer to a question the Head of Planning confirmed that the Council owned the Community Centre.   

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Meredith proposed and Councillor N. Choudary seconded “That consideration of the application be deferred so as to allow reconsideration of the car parking associated with the Community Centre by the Council and the Head of Planning”

Upon a tied vote the Chair used her  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: St James

Item withdrawn.

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/2011/0683 and elaborated thereon.

Mr Hasuji, the occupier, commented that no objections had been received to the application. The area was a defined local centre and there would be no loss of retail provision. Ladbrookes had consulted the Police and had taken on board the suggestions that had been made. Environmental Health were also happy with the application. Mr Hasuji queried the necessity of proposed condition 2 as it had already been agreed to. In answer to questions Mr Hasuji commented that it was difficult to estimate footfall but perhaps between 20 to 40 people per hour at peak times; most customers tended to walk to betting shops; and that five jobs would be created.

The Head of Planning reported that Environmental Health had indicated that they were happy with the application and that Highway Authority had raised no objection to the application.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the proposed use, by reason of the existing range of shop uses in the vicinity of the site and the nature of the use, would have no adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the centre or on the amenities of existing neighbouring residents. The proposal would thereby comply with Local Plan Policy E20 and the aims and objectives of PPS1, PPS4, PPG 24 and PPG13.

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/ 0668 and elaborated thereon.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That advertisement consent be given subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: New Duston

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0635 and elaborated thereon.

Councillor Golby commented that residents had expressed concern that they were unaware of the meeting of the Committee. They were concerned at the cumulative effect of continual approvals to applications over time. Residents queried whether it was appropriate to allow a business such as this to grow in a residential area such as this. There were worries about the fire risk and incidents that had happened in other parts of the country. There had been additional queries about emergency planning and noxious smells. In answer to questions Councillor Golby commented that that Duston Parish Council had not formally submitted any comments and that use of the site would be tolerated if it remained as it currently was.

(Councillor Golby in accordance with his earlier declaration of interest took no further part in the discussion of the application and did not vote thereon.)

The Head of Planning noted that the site had a complicated history and in answer to questions commented that both the advice of the Environment Agency and the Highway Authority had been sought and that he was not aware of any prosecutions resulting from non-compliance with the Environment Agency licence of the site.  

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the proposed development, by reason of its nature, scale and siting, would not result in the undue extension or intensification of the existing lawful use of the site and would have no adverse impact on the visual or residential amenity of the area in accordance with Policies E19, E20 and B19 of the Northampton Local Plan and the aims and objectives of PPS1, PPG13 and PPS23.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Upton

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0591 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 proposals would preserve and enhance the special historic character of the site without harm to other interests of acknowledge importance in accordance with Policies E1, E9, E11, E12 and E18 of the Northampton Local Plan and the advice contained in PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment).

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Castle

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0795 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out the correct listing of the building.

The Head of Planning in answer to a question commented that the proposal was acceptable because there was no impact on the building itself, the works were allowable in the context of the grade of the listing of the building and that the works would be reversible.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  1.   That the Secretary of State be notified that the Council have resolved to grant Listed Building Consent for the proposed works.

                       2.  That; subject to no objection being received from the  Secretary of State, Listed Building Consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Castle

Item withdrawn.

None

None.