Agenda and minutes

None received.

The Development Management Team Leader suggested that the resolution regarding item 10A; N/2011/0997 should be amended to reflect the decision made.

The committee RESOLVED to amend paragraph 3, page 4 to read:

“APPROVAL IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the prior finalisation of a S106 agreement to secure planning obligations and conditions set out in the report and the addendum”.

With this amendment the minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2014 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

RESOLVED: That under the following items the members of the public listed

                         be granted leave to address the committee.

·         N/2013/1263 - Development land between Talavera Way and Booth Rise

Cllr Hallam and John  Roberts (RGP – Agents)

·         N/2014/0183 - Vacant Industrial Land end of St James Mill Road    

Mark Tiana (Cosworth)

·         N/2014/0188 - Unit 2, Prentice Court

Ali Ay (Agent)

Councillor Lane declared he was the ward member for the application N/2013/1263 (Item 10a)

Councillor Meredith declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in N/2014/0188 (Item 10d). Councillor Meredith explained that he had met with the applicant, who had explained his proposal, but felt he could come to the matter before the committee with an open mind.

None

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

The Development Management Team Leader introduced the written report and elaborated thereon.

None

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the report of the Head of Planning, as set out in the agenda. The committee’s attention was also drawn to the circulated addendum. The recommendation was for approval in principle with the conditions set out in the report and addendum.

Councillor Hallam addressed the committee. He explained he was the County Councillor for the area and that the arguments regarding the area as a green buffer, traffic and pollution had all been made regarding previous applications in the Booth Rise area, which the committee had previously rejected. He urged the committee to do the same on this occasion.

In response to question from the committee Councillor Hallam supplied the following information:

·         He believed that the locating of a shop and cash machine on the development would only add to the traffic in the area.

Mr Roberts, agent for the applicant, addressed the committee. He explained that this was a mixed use site, in keeping with policy. Following consultation the developer had made several changes, including the site lay out and the retention of a green buffer. He highlighted that the Highways Authority, Environmental Health and Police had not raised any objections. The developer had worked with the Environment Agency to meet their initial concerns. He believed the S106 agreement would lead to improvements in the traffic management and bus service.

In response to question from the committee Mr Roberts supplied the following information:

·         He advised that Environmental Health had raised no objections to the development location, including the air standards in the area.

·         The Police had been consulted on the design of the development; including the location of the retail site. Management of any issues that may arise regarding congregation of youngsters would be managed by the business operator.

·         He believed a wildlife survey had not been requested. This would however be addressed during through the Code for Sustainable Homes.

·         The Highways Authority had accepted the proposal subject to the S106 agreement.

·         The location of the bus stops and any pedestrian crossings would be under the Highways Authority remit.

·         An archaeological survey would normally be held before any work commenced on site.

In response to the points raised by the speakers the Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that:

·         The site may be seen as a “green buffer,” but was not – unlike the former Booth Park and Thorpeville sites which the committee had voted against - allocated as open space.

·         Regarding potential air pollution and noise levels; the site had been assessed by Environmental Health and no objection raised.

·         The Police had been consulted on the planning application and had raised no objections. This has included a consideration of any potential disorder in the shop area.

·         The lack of a formal wildlife survey would not override any statutory protection for species that may be found on the site. If members were minded to approve the application, it could be subject to a condition that would require a full survey being carried prior to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

The Chair advised that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the report of the Head of Planning, as set out in the agenda. The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the circulated addendum.  She pointed out that the objection from the Environment Agency has been removed and the recommendation is therefore altered to APPROVAL. with the conditions set out in the report and addendum.

Mr Tiana, Cosworth Engineering, addressed the committee and spoke in favour of the application. He highlighted Cosworth’s 50 years in Northampton and the desire to expand the business with a unique manufacturing facility.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED: That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the addendum

The Development Management Team Leader outlined the report of the Head of Planning, as set out in the agenda. The recommendation was for approval with the conditions set out in the report.

Mr Ay, agent for the applicant, addressed the committee in support of the application.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED: That the application be APPROVED; subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the report of the Head of Planning, as set out in the agenda. The committee’s attention was also drawn to the circulated addendum. The recommendation was for approval with the conditions set out in the report.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED: That the application be APPROVED; subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the report of the Head of Planning, as set out in the agenda. To save repetition would present items 9A, 9B and 9C, but that each application would require a separate resolution. He reminded the Committee that they were not giving the final approval. As the applications were related to Listed Building Consents  and the Council owned the properties and was the applicant,  the matter would be referred to the Secretary of State.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED: That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to prior referral to the Secretary of State and the conditions set in the report

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED: That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to prior referral to the Secretary of State and the conditions set in the report.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED: That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to prior referral to the Secretary of State and the conditions set in the report.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the report of the Head of Planning, as set out in the agenda. He explained that the committee was asked to note the means and method of demolition.

The committee discussed the report. In response to a question from the committee the Head of Planning confirmed that a fully documented record of the building had been made and would be lodged with the County Archive.

RESOLVED: The committee noted the report and AGREED the recommendation.

None

None