Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Davies.

(copy herewith)

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2012 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Hibbert declared a Personal interest in application no. N/2012/0067 as his daughter had signed a petition objecting to the proposal.

Councillor Yates declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in application no. N/2012/0067 as being of Cabinet when it considered the CAAP and St John’s Development Proposals on 12 October 2011.

The Chair was of the opinion that the following item be discussed as a Matter of Urgency due to the undue delay if considered were to be deferred.

National Planning Policy Framework

The Head of Planning circulated the Addendum and noted that the National Planning Policy Framework had been published on 27 March 2012 and replaced the existing planning policy documents and in essence, put all national planning policy advice into one document: training would be made available to Councillors. He elaborated upon the new Policy Framework and noted that the Addendum set out its implications in respect of the applications for consideration later in the meeting.

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.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Rushmills

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2012/0170 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out the effects of the NPPF on the application, additional representations from the County Council Archaeology Adviser and Northampton Wildlife Trust, the Applicants response to the Wildlife Trust, updates to the report in respect of contaminated land, flood risk and car parking and additional or amended proposed conditions.

Mr Charles, as Chair of Northampton Skateboard Park, commented that skateboarders in Northampton had been campaigning for new facilities for several years since the closure of Radlands. Skateboarders at present had to travel out of Northampton to use other facilities despite there being a large number of people wanting to participate. Skateboarders wanted a facility that would encourage competitions and therefore draw more people to the Town who as a by-product would spend their money on goods and services in Northampton. Mr Charles noted that since the anti skateboarding bye-laws had been introduced the need for a venue for skateboarders had become more pressing. He commented that not everyone was interested in football, rugby or cricket and that skateboarding was a healthy activity. He believed that the proposal before the Committee was forward thinking. In answer to questions Mr Charles commented that the Northampton Skateboard Park Group represented approximately a thousand skateboarders; that members of the Skateboard Group had agreed to manage the issues of litter themselves; and that the facility had been designed to accommodate a number of activities, at all ability levels including young children on scooters.  

Mr Ogle, on behalf of the Council as applicant, invited questions from the Committee. In answer to questions Mr Ogle commented that the change to the opening hours of the car park was to avoid its use by commuters; that the Council would have an ongoing maintenance liability for the facility; that the Events Team were keen to organise events with the Skateboard Group; and that usage of the site would be monitored and support given to help develop the use of the site as appropriate.

The Head of Planning noted that the Skateboard Park would have flexible opening hours and that further discussions could be held with the Applicant in respect of car parking so as to allow safe drop off and pick up arrangements at those times when the car park was closed to the public. He also noted that the lack of facilities in the County Town was an important point and the provision of this facility would prevent some journeys to other places and as a physical activity complied with national policy. In answer to questions, the Head of Planning commented that dropping off points could be dealt with by signage; that the Skateboard Group could advertise the facilities via a website; and that the issue of the car park opening hours was still being discussed, there were two options being considered, and that proposed condition 10 dealt with this.   

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

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

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Nene Valley

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2011/1249, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out the effects of the NPPF on the application, and additional representations from Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council and residents in Villagers Close and Berry Lane.

Mr Howson, stated that he represented residents in Berry Lane, who strongly objected to the proposed access onto Berry Lane but not to the proposed development of the site itself. He believed that there were issues of safety for pedestrians as Berry Lane narrowed at its far end and was negotiated by six buses a day. He believed that the previous planning permissions for the site were not relevant. Mr Howson asked that the Committee consider an alternative exit from the site onto Wooldale Road that he believed provided a better route for children and parents going to Caroline Chisholm School. He commented that children’s safety should be a concern to the Committee. In answer to questions Mr Howson commented that Wooldale Road ran at the back of Berry Lane and that no houses fronted onto Wooldale Road. 

Mr Renn, the architect, commented that the site had two previous permissions for residential development and that the access arrangements had been approved on each of those occasions by the Highway Authority. He believed that the site had no immediate effect on that part of Berry Lane referred to by Mr Howson which he also believed was some hundred metres distant. Discussions had taken place with the Environment Agency and flooding issues had been resolved. This proposal was for a lower density development than the previous two that had received permission and this aspect had been generally welcomed at a public meeting of the Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council in November 2011. In answer to a question Mr Renn commented that the applicant had investigated an alternative exist onto Wooldale Road but the difference in levels had led to a difficult engineering problem.

The Head of Planning clarified that the previous planning consents were a material consideration and noted that the existing permission for 21 houses could be enacted that would have a more intensive use of the site and more vehicle movements. In answer to questions the Head of Planning stated that the threshold where the provision of affordable housing would apply was 15 units; it was not known if the applicant had deliberately pitched this application so as to avoid the need to provide affordable housing; the NPPF had removed national advice on density which was now to be decided locally; that the proposed density was in keeping with the locality but might not be acceptable elsewhere; and that the Highway Authority had not required a Section 106 agreement for a TRO in the context of the current application in contrast to their position in respect of the application considered in February 2011.  

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:     That the application be approved in principle subject to:

               (1)  Prior  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Castle

Councillor Yates 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/2012/0067, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out the effects of the NPPF on the application, an amended reason if the application were to be approved taking into account the NPPF, four further representations about the application, comments from the Environment Agency and Anglian Water and comments from the Highway Authority including additional conditions. He reported that two further representations from residents had been received. The Head of Planning described the development of the site from 1740 to present and emphasised the elevations for each side of the site and also emphasised the steps taken to mitigate the daylight effect on residents in Bloomsbury House. He believed that the final proposal represented a better solution than if the normally accepted standard in respect of daylight had been agreed. The Head of Planning noted the Highway Authority improvements to Swan Street and St John’s Street to make them two-way were part of a wider scheme of road improvements not related to this application. He commented that the principle of residential development of the site was established but it was not possible for planning to differentiate between different types of residential development.

Mrs Hallissey, on behalf of residents of Bloomsbury House, Guildhall Road and Victoria Promenade, commented that she was not adverse to student accommodation in the town centre but queried whether this was the right location for it. She referred to Policy H21 of the Northampton Local Plan that proposed that there should be a mixed development of the site that included some residential use. She believed that this proposal would lead to a lack of privacy, light and peace for existing residents; Bloomsbury House had been designed to be predominately south facing to take advantage of the topography but this would now be nullified. Mrs Hallissey commented that the Highway proposals for Swan Street and St John’s Street would create a rat run and that residents of Bloomsbury house had already lost the use of St John’s Multi Storey Car Park. She believed that the scale of the proposal had been dictated by the need to have a financially viable scheme. In answer to questions Mrs Hallissey commented that only those residents who had bought a car park space with their flat were able to use the underground car park at Bloomsbury House; other tenants at Bloomsbury House had acquired a ten year lease of parking spaces at St John’s Multi Storey Car Park but these had come to an end; some residents did currently use St John’s surface car park; and residents amenity at Bloomsbury House would be effected by looking out onto bricks and windows rather than the existing open aspect.

Mr Richardson, a local businessman, stated that his business interests in the Town Centre were likely to benefit from this proposal, however, notwithstanding this,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

None.

None.

None.

None.