Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Davies and Flavell.

The minutes of the meetings held on 26 June and 10 July 2012                   were agreed and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Aziz declared “predetermination” of application no. N/2011/0998 as having submitted an objection to the application.

The Head of Planning submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon.

None

None.

None

None.

None

None.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Nene Valley

The Head of Planning referred to the Addendum in respect of application no N/2011/1160 that set out representations from Councillor Larratt and Andrea Leadsom MP and in particular referred to the supplementary report and the revised recommendation that the application be approved in principle subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement. She referred to paragraph 5.1 of the supplementary report and commented that following further representations made by the Applicant and their Counsel reconsideration had been given to the weight that should be given to Policies N6, N10 and S9 of the Pre- Submission West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy that were the subject of extant objections by a number of parties including the applicant. Accordingly, it would be difficult to substantiate a decision made based on these disputed policies and therefore the Committee was asked to consider the revised recommendation.

The Head of Planning referred to the report published with the agenda in respect of application no. N/2011/1160 and elaborated thereon.

Councillor Hill, as Ward Councillor, stated that he was pleased to that the recommendation had been altered to approval and commented that the site had established retail use and that the proposal had the overwhelming support of the residents of Wootton and Hardingstone; the area did not have many facilities and there was a need for a supermarket. He also noted that there was some sheltered housing near-by as well as other housing so that people would be able to walk to the supermarket.

Mr Costello commented that although the application site was not within Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council’s area, he was representing the Parish Council who supported the proposal and were pleased that the recommendation had been changed to approval. He stated that this facility was much needed in this part of the town. The Parish Council only had one concern that was to do with the speed limit on the Newport Pagnell Road and whether it should be reduced. He hoped that the Committee would approve the application.

Councillor Nunn, as Ward Councillor, commented that he had never received so many representations in favour of a project as he had for this planning application. He had not received any representations against it.  He believed that it was a good location for a supermarket; the Wyvale Centre was more than just a garden centre and that there were too many outstanding issues and delays surrounding the alternative site for it to be a viable option. He also believed that the revised recommendation to approve was correct following careful consideration of the issues and he urged the Committee to approve the application.

Mr Wright, the Agent, stated that he was delighted that the recommendation had been revised and thanked the Head of Planning for their reconsideration of the issues. He stated that the HCA site had been examined and their reasons for excluding it had previously been submitted to the Planners. Waitrose would be able to open next year and the store would create 120 jobs  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Semilong

Councillor Aziz left the meeting in accordance with his declaration of  “predetermination” set out in minute 4 above.

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0998, elaborated thereon, referred to the Addendum that set out further correspondence from the applicant responses to it and further correspondence from the Agents and the response to it and referred to correspondence from agents on behalf of Asda dated 24 July 2012. The Head of Planning referred to paragraph 7.47 of the report and noted that the Environmental Health Officer had confirmed that proposed condition 15 would meet the issues that they had raised. He also commented that Tesco’s recent announcement that they were withdrawing from the scheme did not affect the Committee considering the application as Royal Mail were the applicants, the operational elements were generic to any similar operator to Tesco and the retail impact study was also relevant for any similar operator. He also noted that in terms of the requested opening hours that Bank Holidays should remain as the same hours for Sundays. In answer to questions, the Head of Planning commented that the provision of travelators would be required by any supermarket operator; that no further comments had been received from Legal and General other than those set out in paragraph 6.19; and although Legal and General had not stated that a large supermarket could not be accommodated within their proposals, equally, the details submitted so far did not indicate provision for one.     

Mr Crutchley, on behalf of Semilong Community Forum, commented that concerns had been raised in terms of the impact of the proposal on local businesses and access to the store. The Forum had asked for extra lighting and facilities for the local community. Semilong was a deprived area and there was a feeling that a supermarket would not help the local community and that the application failed to address the issues in the area. The Forum were concerned about street drinking and nuisance and trolleys being abandoned in the surrounding streets and had previously asked how regeneration of the site would benefit Semilong. 

Mr Cook, the Agent, welcomed the report, the thorough consultation that had taken place and noted that the one and a half hectare site was very accessible. The main structure of the existing building was sound and the site offered a major brownfield regeneration opportunity; little alteration would be necessary for supermarket use. If the building were to be demolished this would probably take three months in itself. Mr Cook noted that few objections had been received and alterations to the proposals had been made following discussions and these included improvements to the public realm and highways. The Highway Authority and Environmental Health had not raised any objections and the Retail Impact Study had not raised any issues. He noted that the situation in respect of trolleys could be conditioned. He hoped that the Committee would approve the application.    

Mr Millest on behalf of Royal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: East Hunsbury

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/04654, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out additional representations from residents of Ravenscroft.

Mr Lewis, a neighbour, stated that he was offended by the proposal and that there had been no dialogue with the applicant except through Solicitors letters; he had not been able to determine exactly where the gates would be. It appeared that the gates would be attached to his property and he noted that the ownership of the strip of land alongside his house was disputed; he had not seen any conclusive proof that the applicant owned it. He had proposed a joint approach to ascertain ownership but had not had a response to this. He believed that the proposal was not to do with security but was more to do with enhancing the value of the three properties. He believed that the land ownership issue was pivotal to the application. In answer to questions, Mr Lewis confirmed that he was unclear as to the exact location of the gates and that although he had a rear access the applicant was disputing his right to use it.

Mr Stockdale, the applicant, commented that his application met the formal planning requirements and that he had taken on board all the objections received. He noted that the neighbours at number 20 Ravenscroft were in support of the proposal. The positioning of the gates satisfied the Highway Authority; they would open automatically and quietly. He had tried to place any restrictions on Mr Lewis using his rear access. In answer to questions Mr Stockdale commented that the gate posts would be free standing, in the drive itself and that the proposal was also about a perception of security.

The Head of Planning displayed a photograph showing the positioning of the gates and confirmed that the gate posts were positioned on the applicant’s land. He commented that the Applicant had signed a certificate, part of the planning application form, stating that all of the site was in his ownership and this had been confirmed by the Land Registry and noted that having satisfied this point from the planning perspective any other land ownership issues were not a planning matter. The Head of Planning commented that the Committee had to consider the application on its merits taking any material comments, including those made by neighbours, into account.  

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:      That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the proposed development due to its scale, siting and design would not have an undue detrimental impact on the appearance and character of the area nor on highway safety in accordance with Policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan and guidance in the NPPF.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Park

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0533, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that noted the receipt of revised plans.

Mr Anderson, a neighbour, noted that the bungalows were semi-detached and he had objected because of the effect of the first floor dormer extension on natural light to the roof lantern over his kitchen which was the main source of light to the kitchen especially from the Spring to Autumn. He believed that the box like structure would be overbearing and darken his kitchen so that electric lighting would have to be used much more frequently. He also believed that that the proposal would ruin these 1920’s bungalows that he understood were unique.

Mrs Jaffes, the applicant, commented that the bungalows were set back from the road and therefore the impact on the street scene would be limited. She had explored a number of schemes and a previous one with a larger dormer extension had also been objected to by the neighbour. Although this proposal was smaller by 92cm the neighbour was still claiming that it would be overbearing. In the proposal she was happy to accept that the windows to the proposed bathroom should be high level and she noted that timber cladding would be used to lesson the impact of the dormer extension from the garden. Mrs Jaffes commented that she believed that she had done everything possible to meet the neighbour’s objections and asked the Committee to approve the application. In answer to questions Mrs Jaffes commented that previous discussions had taken place with the neighbour about reroofing the both properties and that the property needed remodelling and updating to make it better suited for modern living; the neighbour had undertaken some remodelling himself.

The Head of Planning noted that the materials used would need to match the existing and that this was conditioned; that the high level windows could be conditioned to match the existing windows and the roofing material for the dormer extension was most likely to be felt. In terms of permitted development he noted that the single storey extensions and hip to the gable conversion could take place without planning permission so that in effect it was only the dormer extension that required consent. In answer to a question the Head of Planning commented that the property was not in a conservation area.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:     That the application be approved subject to the receipt of amended plans showing high level windows to the rear dormer as referred to in the report and the conditions set out in the report as the proposed development would have no significant adverse impact on the streetscene or on the amenities of existing neighbouring residents. The proposal thereby complied with policies E20 and H18 of the Northampton Local Plan.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Eastfield

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0588 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 proposed development, due to its siting, scale and design, would not have an undue detrimental impact on the appearance and character of the area and complied with Policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan and guidance in the NPPF.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Billing

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0638 and elaborated thereon.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:   That subject to no new objections being received by the expiry of the consultation period that raise new material planning considerations, the application be approved as the impact of the development on the character of the original building, street scene and residential amenity was considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Policies E20 and H18 of the Northampton Local Plan.

None

None.

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0122, elaborated thereon and in particular referred to paragraph 7.1 of the report that set out the additional information supplied by the applicant.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:   That Northampton Borough Council objects very strongly to the application for the following reasons:

·           The Retail Assessment submitted with the scheme fails to pay adequate regard to the impact of the development upon Northampton Town Centre or Weston Favell District Centre.  The application site is within 13km (8 miles) of the eastern edge of Northampton and the catchment of a development of this nature and scale would clearly cover Northampton and the residential areas served by its town centre.  The Retail Assessment currently submitted makes unrealistic assumptions regarding the catchment of the proposal and thus, fails to pay adequate regard to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework in terms of the retail impact and the sequential approach (paras 24- 27).

·           The sequential assessment conducted in relation to Northampton town centre is flawed and fails to adequately assess the ability of Northampton town centre to accommodate development of the scale proposed.  NBC, along with its partners, are currently in detailed discussions with Legal and General (the key landowner) relating to a major town centre redevelopment incorporating a substantial increase in retail floorspace at the Grosvenor Centre.  The submission version of the Northampton Central Area Action Plan identifies that the Grosvenor Centre will accommodate between 32,000 – 37,000 (gross) A1 comparison goods floorspace.  NBC maintain that Northampton Town Centre is a sequentially preferable site that is supported in planning policy.  The application should therefore be refused in line with the NPPF (para. 27).

·           The assessment of the retail impact provided by the applicant is based on unrealistic assumptions regarding the trading patterns and catchment of the proposed development.  NBC consider that the sub-regional scale of the development, and its location on the principal highway network, are such that the retail catchment would be significantly wider than suggested by the applicants and would directly compete with Northampton Town Centre.  Northampton Town Centre is identified as the Principal Urban Area within RSS8 and the development of an out of centre retail scheme of this magnitude within easy reach of its catchment is contrary to the aims of Policies MKSM SRS Northamptonshire 1, MKSM SRS Northamptonshire 2, MKSM SRS Northamptonshire 3 and MKSM SRS Northamptonshire 4 which set the spatial framework for the sub-region.

·           The independent retail assessment of the impact of the Rushden Lakes proposal, conducted on behalf of the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (NNJPU) by GVA Grimley Ltd is considered to be a more realistic assessment of the likely impact of the scheme.  This identifies that the proposal will have a significant negative impact upon Northampton Town Centre resulting in a cumulative trade diversion of between 9 and 15% of turnover at 2016.  Therefore, it is considered that the proposal will have a significant detrimental  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12a