Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lynch.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 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 Golby declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in Item 12a – Application for Consultation N/2011/0865 as a member of WNDC’s Northampton Planning Committee.

Councillor Hallam declared a Personal non-prejudicial interest in Item 12a – Application for Consultation N/2011/0865 as a substitute member of WNDC’s Northampton Planning Committee.

None.

Report of Head of Planning (copy herewith)

The Head of Planning submitted the List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon.  He referred to the appeal of application N/2011/0195 that had been allowed by a Planning Inspector. He also referred to the decision in respect of N/2011/0195, which had been dismissed.  He reminded members of the Committee that this planning application had been refused by the Committee against the officers’ recommendation and encouraged members to review the Inspector’s decision.  It was noted that since the report had been prepared the appeal, in respect of N/2011/0270 had been dismissed

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 given earlier in the meeting.

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application number N/2011/0323, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that included additional representations from objectors and should have included a reference to a representation from County Councillor Gonzalez de Savage. He reminded the Committee of the extensive discussions to date, the proposals, and what changes had been made, since the application had been refused at the Committee meeting held on the 18^th October 2011. It was noted that the Committee’s previous concerns related to highways issues, especially traffic and pedestrian safety implications of the proposed change in vehicular access for Dot.com and the location and nature of an enlarged and traffic light controlled entrance to the Tesco Store from Clannell Road, both of which had been substantially revised by Tescos.

Councillor Larratt, as Ward Councillor, commented that he was pleased Tescos had made steps to improve the application. However, he confirmed that he was still concerned about litter and the landscape. He reported that the Highway Agency agreed that there was a need for a Section 106 agreement. He explained that his main concern was the revised access; especially the proximity to 28 Falconers Rise, which was already close to the highway. The problems would be further exacerbated by the installation of traffic lights and suggested that a roundabout or ‘dog-leg’ road be implemented and should the application be approved the Highway Authority be asked to consider this.

Mr Davidson, a resident of Falconers Rise, commented that he objected to the proposed installation of traffic lights and the location of the recycling facilities. Referring to other properties on Falconers Rise, he commented that the gardens of the properties acted as a buffer zone. However, his bungalow was directly opposite the proposed junction, which would be less than 2 metres from his bedroom window and the traffic lights within 1.5 metres. He commented that the location of the recycling centre was to allow for easy access of recycling vehicles to the M1 and he also expressed concern that the revised access would encourage rat running through the car park to / from the Mereway roundabout; the problem would only get worse and he requested that the exit be closed off completely.

Mr Costello reported that the position of Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council remained the same and they wanted the Committee to reject the application. He commented that the site had been described as a ‘major development’ and argued that as such, should not be developed further in a residential area. He noted that some of the amendments had gone some way to address the concerns of residents, but that they were not enough. He questioned the viability of the increase in floor space compared to the increase in actual retail space and asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor Eldred, as Ward Councillor, commented that one of the main  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

Report of the Head of Planning ( copy herewith)

Ward:St James

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application number N/2011/0504 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum and the comments of the Highway Authority including an additional requested condition re the highway layout.  The layout of the car park would be reconsidered by the application of the Highway Authority. He commented that the application was for 14 houses, located on land next to St James Church which is a former school site, fronting onto Greenwood Road. Each property would have its own rear private garden and there would be on-site parking for 16 cars. He commented that there were no planning reasons to prevent the development.

Councillor Wire, as Ward Councillor, referred to a number of concerns raised by local residents, notably that a small part of the area had been earmarked for Community use. He stated that there had already been a loss of heritage to the St James’ area and commented that it would be aesthetically more pleasing if some of the original features were to be maintained and requested that consideration be given to the inclusion of the use of school frontage be a condition placed on the application. He commented that the current site was in a state of disrepair but hoped that consideration be given to the heritage and history of the St James’ area. 

Mr Croucher, on behalf of St James Residents Association, commented that St James had lost a lot of its heritage and would like to see the preservation of as much of the fabric of the building as possible. He also reported that there was an area of curtilage, which was listed as being part of the church, and was owned by the Diocese of Peterborough. He also expressed concern about the parking problems currently experienced and stated that this would be further exacerbated by the new development.

The Head of Planning commented that the building was not listed in its own right nor curtilage listed for the reasons set out in the report and thus an application for Listed Building Consent would not be required.   Therefore this was not a ground for rejecting this application for conversion into flats. He added in respect of the building referred to by Cllr Wire that there had been pre-application decisions about the potential use of this building for community purposes but that it did not form part of the current planning application and was not within the application site.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED: 1. That the application be approved in principle subject to the prior completion of a S106 legal agreement and conditions set out in the report as the proposal would represent the affective reuse of previously developed land and would not unduly impact upon the amenities of surrounding occupiers.  As a result of this, the proposal complies with the requirements of PPS1, PPS3, PPS5, PPS23, PPS25, PPG13 and PPG24 and Local Plan Policies E20, E40 and H6

             The S106 agreement shall secure a payment to fund  ...  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 number N/2011/0928 and elaborated thereon. He commented that the application sought permission to convert part of the ground floor of the building to a restaurant unit – the upper floor would consist of five flats.

Mrs Biddle, on behalf of the Town Centre Conservation Advisory Committee, commented that the property was a large retail shop, which was included in the Central Area Action Plan (CAAP). She expressed her concerns about the non-retail use of the shop and the adverse impact that it would have on the conservation area. She stated that she objected to what she considered the over-development of the site and suggested that five flats were too many for the locality.

Ms Wenham commented that St Giles was a great street and that the loss of ‘Churches’ china had impacted on the area with a decrease in footfall. She commented that as a result of the proposed application, should it be approved, one retailer had stated that they would close. She stated that the proposed changes would have a detrimental affect on the Street and that the Council should be encouraging people to shop there and therefore not allow the application.

Mr Ay, the applicant, commented that the property had been empty for almost three years and over that time, the Council had lost considerable rental income from the property. He stated that there were an increasing number of empty shops and that St Giles Street was not as active as the high street and that the application had respectfully taken in account the requirements of the Derngate Conservation Area.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:   That the application be refused for the following reason:  The proposed change of use of the ground floor of the application premises from shop (Class A1) to restaurant (Class A3) would harmfully affect the character and appearance of the Derngate Conservation Area contrary to Policy E26 of the Northampton Local Plan and the aims and objectives of PPS5.

None.

None.

Report of the Head of Planning ( copy herewith)

Ward: Rushmills

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

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application number N/2011/0865 and elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum and commented that the proposal for two units were deemed too much of an encroachment on the green space area and provide an appropriate response to this sensitive gateway location adjacent to the open countryside in terms of siting, mass and general design / appearance, and should therefore be rejected. However, he further commented that the second recommendation as stated in the report, provided a positive way forward.

Mr Rawlings, the agent, commented that the application was a £25 million investment of both regional and national significance. The draft National Planning Policy Framework encouraged the planning system to be less complex and more accessible, and to promote sustainable growth and therefore the application should be considered on its merits. He stated that the benefits that the application, if approved, would consist of an increase in employment, investment, trade and an additional spend to the Northampton economy. In response to a questions, Mr Rawlings explained that he was conscious that the area of development was a ‘gateway’ approach to Northampton and that many of the suggestion made by NBC had already been discussed; it was a document subject to ongoing work.

The Head of Planning confirmed that Mr Rawlings had been pro-active with regards to engaging with the Council in that a meeting had already been arranged for the following week between officers of the Borough Council WNDC and representatives of the applicant.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:   That WNDC be informed that the Council objects to the         application in its current form for the following reasons:

·        Having regard to the details submitted it is apparent that the applicant has aspirations for a large scale form of development that encroaches into designated Greenspace and would conflict with development policies, notably E1, E14 and E6 of the Northampton Local Plan.

·        Although there would be economic development benefits to be gained from the proposed development it is unlikely that these would outweigh the apparent Policy conflicts.

And requests that WNDC work with the applicant and NBC officers to identify an indicative form of the development that would clearly comply with the prevailing policies.  The indicative proposals must pay due regard to the requirements of the Development Plan notably Local Plan Policies E1, E6, E14 and D1 as well as Policy B8.  To this end it is recommended that revisions to the proposal be sought to:

·        Limit the scale of floor space.

·        Secure elevations / built form appropriate to this prominent entrance to the town in accordance with the objectives of Policy E14 of the Northampton Local Plan.

·        Secure a reduction in the visual scale of the development generally and specifically by not encroaching into the Greenspace designation and its visual impacts upon adjacent open countryside and, at a greater distance, impacts upon the character and appearance of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12a