Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Davies, Hibbert and Meredith.

Subject to minute 10 (C) being amended by amending the last sentence of the second paragraph to read “….although he had a rear access the applicant had withdrawn his permission for Mr Lewis to use it.” and amending the third paragraph by the addition of the word “not” between the words “had” and “tried” in the penultimate sentence, the minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2012 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Golby declared a personal interest in Item 5 Matter of Urgency- N/2011/0241 as a County Councillor.

Councillor Hallam declared a personal interest in Item 5 Matter of Urgency- N/2011/0241 as a County Councillor.

Councillor Lynch declared a personal interest in Item 5 Matter of Urgency- N/2011/0241 as a County Councillor.

Councillor Golby declared a personal interest in Item 7B- N/2011/1262, N/2011/1263, N/2011/1264, N/2011/1265, N/2011/1266, N/2011/1267 & N/2011/1268 as a County Councillor.

Councillor Hallam declared a personal interest in Item 7B- N/2011/1262, N/2011/1263, N/2011/1264, N/2011/1265, N/2011/1266, N/2011/1267 & N/2011/1268 as a County Councillor.

Councillor Lynch declared a personal interest in Item 7B- N/2011/1262, N/2011/1263, N/2011/1264, N/2011/1265, N/2011/1266, N/2011/1267 & N/2011/1268 as a County Councillor.

Councillor Mason declared a personal interest in Item 10D-  N/2012/0690 as a Ward Councillor.

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

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Nene Valley

The Head of Planning submitted a report that sought delegated authority for the Head of Planning to finalise the wording of appropriate planning conditions in respect of application no N/2011/1160. He referred to the Addendum that set out correspondence from the applicant and Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council and the responses thereto.

Mr Harrison, Waitrose’s Development Surveyor, commented that they were delighted that the Committee had granted them planning permission at the July meeting and noted that their representative at that meeting, Mr Wright, had indicated that they had not had an opportunity to review the conditions attached to the consent hence the report before the Committee this evening. He hoped that the Committee would approve the recommendation. As regards the issue of the opening hours as referred to in the Addendum he was happy that this be dealt with via a separate planning application.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED:  That notwithstanding the decision of the Committee at its meeting on 24 July 2012 in respect of planning application N/2011/1160, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to finalise the wording of appropriate planning conditions.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Wards:   Park, Brookside, Rectory Farm, Billing, Eastfield, Talavera & Old Duston.

The Head of Planning submitted a report that sought authority for the Head of Planning to extend the periods of time as determined by them for prior completion of planning obligations, in order to complete negotiations and secure the necessary mitigation measures, to make the proposed developments acceptable in respect of applications N/2011/1262, N/2011/1263, N/2011/1264, N/2011/1265, N/2011/1266, N/2011/1267 and N/2011/1268 considered by the Committee on 26 June 2012.

RESOLVED:   That in addition to the resolutions of 26 June 2012, the Head of Planning be authorised to extend the periods of time for prior completion of planning obligations, for additional periods as may be determined by them, in order to complete negotiations and to secure the necessary mitigation measures, to make the proposed developments acceptable in respect of application nos. N/2011/1262, N/2011/1263, N/2011/1264, N/2011/1265, N/2011/1266, N/2011/1267 and N/2011/1268.

None.

None.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Delapre & Briar Hill

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2012/0623 and elaborated thereon.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:     That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as on a temporary basis the proposal would have no adverse impact on the character and setting of the listed building and any impact on adjoining occupiers can be satisfactorily controlled under the premises licence. The proposal will assist in ensuring the viability of the listed building in the long term.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Billing

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2012/0606, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out a petition objecting to the application..

Mr Phillips, a resident and on behalf of other residents, stated that they were objecting to the application as they believed that it was not a suitable location for a dentist’s surgery; the property was not part of other local shopping. He commented that Billing was a residential village that had retained its quiet village nature. Residents believed that there would be highways issues as Station Road was narrow, and was a private road with a gravelled surface. As there was limited space within the site there would be parking problems in the surrounding streets likely to cause danger and nuisance to other residents. There was also the issue of noise disturbance caused by patients’ vehicles and from the dentist’s drill. Mr Phillips commented that residents also had concerns about the disposal of clinical waste. He asked the Committee to consider the issues that he had raised. In answer to a question Mr Phillips conceded that the Highway Authority had not raised any objection to the application.

Councillor Palethorpe, as Ward Councillor and on behalf of local residents, commented that the site visit the previous day had been welcomed. Residents were seeking reassurance that any planning permission would be personal to the applicant and that when the applicant either ceased the dentist’s practice or moved from the property that it would revert to being a single dwelling.

The Head of Planning commented that vehicle movements were likely to be limited given that there would be only a single dentist operating from the property. He confirmed that the Highway Authority had not objected to the application and that proposed condition 3 set out in the report dealt with the reversion of the property to a single dwelling. In answer to questions the Head of Planning commented that the applicant would be the practising dentist, that when the dentists use ceased the property would revert to being a single dwelling and that proposed condition 3 limited the dentists use to a single dentist, that being the applicant.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:     That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the development, by reason of its nature and limited scale, was considered unlikely to either have any adverse impact on the character of the area, highway congestion or the amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with saved policies E19 and B20 of the Northampton Local Plan.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: St James

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0608, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out further objections from residents in The Approach and Nearside.

Mr Letty, a local resident, circulated photographs from two abseiling events that he believed showed problems with spectators, car parking and marshalling which had been viewed and verified by Planning Officers prior to the meeting. He commented 138 residents had objected to the existing plans and the frequency of events. The events attracted a large number of people trying to park; residents only had one space per property so this meant parking in undesignated areas. The roads in the development were not adopted. Mr Letty noted that the Applicant claimed that it cost £120,000 a year to maintain the lift tower and that they had to raise the money to do this. He believed that abseiling could not take place in bad weather so events would be more likely to take place in summer and therefore be more frequent during these months. He stated that he would be happy to work with the applicant if the application were to be approved for a temporary period as suggested in the report. In answer to questions Mr Letty stated that his experience of the abseiling events to date was that they caused quite a nuisance and that he had not been aware of any catering vans that might have been present.

Mr Almaond, a local resident, commented that he had purchased his property in the full knowledge that the lift tower was there and that it was a listed building. He had not objected to a previous application for a conference centre that had been ultimately refused however, he did object where what the owners wanted to do directly impacted on him. He believed that the marshalling of events to date had been inadequate; spectators had leaned up against his house and window sill and shouted to their friends who were abseiling; the marshals had done nothing. Spectators have stood in the road and would not move for traffic and marshals had stopped traffic to allow spectators to take photographs of the abseilers from the road. In answer to  a question Mr Almaond commented that many of the surrounding properties were occupied by families, their gardens were at the back of the properties and children often played at the front of the properties.

Mr Perryman, stated that his role was to manage the abseiling events on the day. The events had to be safe for those participating and he used only qualified instructors. The Lift Tower had to make money so that it could be maintained. He was not aware of any particular car parking problems; marshals dealt parking and spectators; they had access to 22 parking spaces. He stated that there had been problems with local residents driving around the roundabout. There was limited access to the site and they had off site provision if needed. Mr Perryman  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: East Hunsbury

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0637 and elaborated thereon.

Mr Farrar, a resident, commented that he objected to the application as not being in keeping with the street scene due to its massing and bulk. He noted that all of the properties in the cul-de-sac were of a similar size and design. The proposed extension would create floor space the equivalent of a one bedroomed dwelling. Mr Farrar noted that a previous similar application had been refused on grounds of its size, massing and effect on visual amenity. This application represented a reduction in surface area of 2.36% in comparison with the previous application; its fundamental size and scale remained. Neighbours were fearful that if approved this application would set a precedent; they also had concerns concerning car parking. In answer to a question Mr Farrar commented that the owner of 32 Rosemoor Drive did not live in the property and that it had been rented but was currently empty.   

Councillor Larratt, as Ward Councillor, queried why the report or Addendum made no reference to an objection from Mr Richard Smart. He stated that he supported Mr Farrar’s comments; he believed that the extension would create an extra 110sq metres of space and was similar to the previous application that had been refused being only 3sq metres smaller. He was not aware of any other extension on the same scale. He stated that the previous planning application had been rightly refused. Councillor Larratt stated that he believed that in the case of the previous application the applicant had sought pre-application advice that had been given by one planning officer but the resulting planning application had been refused under delegated authority by a different planning officer. He believed that in this instance the Planning Officers were trying to redress the situation of the previous application. He was surprised that there had not been a site visit and asked that the Committee either defer consideration for a site visit or that determination be passed to an independent Planning Authority.  

Mr Morton, the Agent, commented that the net additional space created by the extension would be 78sq metres; he believed that neighbours had not taken off the existing space within the garage in coming to their conclusions. He noted that a previous application (in 2005) in addition to that referred to by the previous speakers for a similar proposal had been approved but had lapsed. Mr Morton commented that the bulk of the extension would now be behind the gable and that it would fit in with other buildings in the vicinity. The garage would now be able to be used as a garage rather than as a storage space. He believed that there were no grounds for refusal of the application.

The Head of Planning commented that there was nothing untoward in respect of the previous application that had been refused or this one, each being treated on its merits. The schemes were similar but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10c

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Brookside

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2012/0690, advised that since the report had been published further minor amendments had been submitted as part of the application in respect of levels and elaborated thereon.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:   That the application be approved as the proposed amendments would not materially affect the previously approved scheme or its environs and therefore the proposal was acceptable.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: St James

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0752 and requested that the Head of Planning be authorised to finalise the wording of proposed condition 2 in respect of opening hours. .

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:     That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and that the Head of Planning be authorised to finalise the wording of condition 2 as the proposed development was considered to be acceptable in principle for a local centre and would be located in a sustainable location causing no significant undue harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties to accord with the intentions and aims of the NPPF.

None.

None.

None.

None.