Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Lane, Palethorpe and Flavell.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16^th December 2014 were agreed and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments:

That Councillor Ford had cited ventilation issues and loss of seating as being his reasons for speaking against the application no: N/2014/1131. It was further noted that since he had declared a personal and pecuniary interest in the item, that he had left the meeting for the duration of the debate and returned once voting had been concluded.

RESOLVED: That under the following items, the members of the public listed be granted leave to address the Committee:

N/2013/0338

Mr Bell

Mr Peas

Councillor Hill

N/2013/1035 & N/2013/1063

Mr Crean QC

Councillor Larratt

Councillor Nunn

Dr Leads

Mr Boulter

Mr Brice

Councillor Eldred

Councillor Hill

N/2014/1207

Mr Ansell

Mrs Stone

Mr Seamark

N/2014/1290

Mr Kilsby

Councillor Meredith

N/2014/1291

County Councillor Hallam

Mr Moore

Mr Walston

N/2014/1293

Mr Kilsby

Councillor Meredith

N/2014/1309

Mrs Slinn

Miss Redley

Councillor Hadland

Mrs Wootton

N/2014/1354

Councillor Nunn

Councillor Oldham declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in Item 10a N/2013/1035 & N/2013/1063 as a substitute member of the West Northants Joint Strategic Planning Committee.

Councillor Golby declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in Item 10a N/2013/1035 & N/2013/1063 as a member of the West Northants Joint Strategic Planning Committee.

Councillor Ford declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in Item 9c N/2014/1338 as Ward Member.

Councillor Larratt declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in Item 10a N/2013/1035 & N/2013/1063 as a member of the West Northants Joint Strategic Planning Committee

None.

The Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries. The Development Manager introduced the written report and elaborated thereon. She noted that there were no updates other than the Hearing date for the appeal of application N/2013/1263 had been set for the 28^th April 2015.

The Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning submitted a report which sought the Planning Committee’s ratification of the refusal reasons, detailed in the report, following a Committee resolution to refuse the development proposals on 6th May 2014. It was noted that the application was currently subject of an appeal to be dealt with by Public Inquiry and Queens’ Counsel, acting on behalf of the Council had advised that the refusal should be confirmed by the Planning Committee.

The Chair commented that he had exercised his discretion to allow Councillor Hill to address the Committee as he was Ward Councillor for the neighbouring Ward. He further noted that only Members who had considered  the application on 6 May 2014 should take part in the ratification of the reasons for refusal and by reason of which Councillor Ford was excluded.

Mr Bell addressed the Committee and commented that he was in support of the recommendation to ratify the refusal.

Mr Peas commented that there was a need for developments in sustainable areas and asked the Committee to ratify the refusal of the SUE.

Councillor Hill stated that he hoped the Committee would ratify the refusal and that it be dealt with expediently.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the following reasons for refusal be ratified by Members:

1)  The highway mitigation measures proposed fail to sufficiently demonstrate that this major development would not have a residual cumulative impact on the A45 trunk road and associated junctions such that the cumulative impacts of the development would not be severe.  These adverse highway impacts in turn will lead to a detrimental impact on the highway network adversely affecting all users including occupiers of business premises located in Brackmills Industrial Estate thus acting as an impediment to the operation of the business park and its future sustainable economic growth. 

The development would therefore be contrary to the overarching intentions of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

2)  The site is identified in the Northampton Landscape and Green Infrastructure Study 2009 as being of high-medium landscape and visual sensitivity comprising of a rural landscape which has a stronger visual connection with the surrounding countryside than with Northampton.  Furthermore, Policy E7 of the Northampton Local Plan identifies part of the site as an important skyline between Great Houghton and Hardingstone as seen from the Nene Valley.  Public Footpath KN6 runs across the site in a south-easterly direction providing amenity access through the rural landscape.  The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that any detrimental effects on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities arising from major developments are moderated.  The proposed development would have an urbanising effect and be of a scale and density detrimental to the existing rural character of the surrounding area and would result in the loss of land of significant amenity value.  In the absence of sufficient information to demonstrate appropriate mitigation for the impact of the development on the landscape, skyline and rural character of the area the proposal is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7a

None.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. The recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions set out in the report.

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

The Development Management Team Leader presented the report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the circulated addendum. The recommendation was for the approval, in principle, of the application subject to conditions set out in the report and the addendum.

It was explained that whilst it was listed as one agenda item, there were two separate applications which should be considered in tandem due to the significant linkages between them; however, two separate decisions would need to be made.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED: That application N/2014/1328 be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to:

a) the application being referred to the Secretary of State;

b) delegated authority be granted to the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning to satisfactorily resolve those matters and objections currently outstanding; and

c) delegated authority be granted to the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning to satisfactorily formulate a list of appropriate planning conditions

RESOLVED: That application N/2014/1329 be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to:

a) the application being referred to the Secretary of State;

b) delegated authority be granted to the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning to satisfactorily resolve those matters and objections currently outstanding; and

c) delegated authority be granted to the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning to satisfactorily formulate a list of appropriate planning conditions

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. The recommendation was for the approval of the application subject to 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 presented the report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. The recommendation was for the approval of the application subject to 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 Development Management Team Leader presented the report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED: That the Authority’s Prior Approval was not required for the method of demolition and proposed restoration of the site for the following reason: 

The demolition and the proposed restoration of the site were considered to be acceptable and would be consistent with the aims and objectives of policies of the Northampton Central Area Action Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Development Manager outlined the report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning, as set out in the agenda. The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the circulated addendum. The recommendation was for the approval in principle, of the applications subject to the conditions set out in the reports and addendum.

Councillor Larratt declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in Item 10a N/2013/1035 & N/2013/1063 as a substitute member of the West Northants Joint Strategic Planning Committee.

Councillor Larratt, as the Ward Member addressed the Committee and spoke against the application citing highway issues as a major concern and flooding was also a concern, commenting that the development would serve Milton Keynes and commuters more than Northampton residents.

Councillor Nunn declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest as a member of the West Northants Joint Strategic Planning Committee, Director of Brackmills BID and the Assistant Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. He addressed the Committee as a Parish Councillor for East Hunsbury, and spoke against the application citing the impact the development would have on local amenities and risk of flooding and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Dr Leads, as a member of Wootton Brook Action Group, spoke against the application and stated that it would be unethical to develop on land in an area where pollution levels were so high and the lack of 5 years housing land supply not a reason for approving the applications.

Mr Boulter, as a member of the Hunsbury and Collingtree Residents Alliance, spoke against the application stating that the impact on health should be considered and questioned whether a school should be built in an area with such high pollution.

Mr Brice, Chairman of Collingtree Parish Council, spoke against the application and asked for the Committee to refuse it on health grounds, partly due to the noise and air pollution levels already being above the legal levels. Flood was a concern and mitigation not sufficient. Traffic modal shift not enough.

Councillor Eldred, as the Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application and stated that the local amenities would not cope with the influx of people with local service such as doctor’s surgeries and schools being unable to keep up with demands. The golf course would be affected with no driving range and shortening of course.

Councillor Hill, as the Ward Councillor for Nene Valley, spoke against the applications and stated that the Phase 1 development with 378 dwellings would be bigger than Collingtree Village and concerned about school provision, also commented that due weight had to be given to the Council resolution passed on the 19^th January 2015 and the least amount of weight on West Northants Joint Strategic Planning Committee who put the interests on Northampton last.

Mr Crean QC addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the concerns expressed prior to his address were subjective and that all issues raised had been considered objectively by statutory bodies.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

The Development Management Team Leader outlined the report that had been submitted by the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning.  It was noted that this was an item that had been deferred from the Planning meeting on the 16^th December 2014 to allow for a further site visit. The applicant had since submitted a further application which is currently under consideration.

The Committee discussed the report.

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

The Development Management Team Leader elaborated on the report submitted by the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. The members were informed that further information was included in the addendum. It was noted that the recommendations was for approval subject to the conditions set out in the agenda.

Mr Ansell, declared a discloseable pecuniary interest in the item as the leasehold owner of the application site, the applicant and also a Ward Councillor for Abington. He spoke in favour of the application and noted that he had invested his own money and time into running the successful business which would be improved if planning permission be granted to erect the extension.

Mr Ansell then left the room for the duration of the debate.

Mrs Stone spoke as the County Councillor against the application and cited a number of concerns including the design of the extended building and the removal of a sound tree.

Mr Seamark spoke against the application and commented that in his opinion it is a procedural requirement to consider the setting of Abington Abbey and notify English Heritage, that this was not done, and that strict compliance of this is expected where the planning authority is granting planning permission to itself, and especially on an application made by a Councillor.

In response to questions asked by the Committee, the Development Management Team Leader stated that he could not give a definitive number of trees that would be planted as a result of the removal of one, but noted that it would be more than like for like and the applicant would be requested to submit further details.

The committee discussed the report.

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

The Senior Planning Officer elaborated on the report that had been submitted by the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. The recommendation was for the approval of the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillor Meredith, spoke against the application due his concerns that there would be a loss of a potential family home and that there would be extra rubbish as a result which would have a detrimental effect on the local area.

Mr Kilbsy, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application and noted that there it would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area and that only one other property in the area was a HIMO.

In response to questions asked, it was noted that a condition could be added that would allow a larger facility for the secure storage of refuse.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED: That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further condition being:

·         Notwithstanding the details submitted further details of a larger facility for the secure storage of refuse shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within one month from the date of this permission.  The approved details shall be implemented within two months from the date of this permission and retained thereafter.

The Senior Planning Officer elaborated on the report that had been submitted by the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. It was explained that the original application had previously been refused Planning Permission by the Committee in June 2014 and an appeal since lodged but the applicant had submitted a revised application. The recommendation was for the approval in principle, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report and the conditions set out in the report. Members were also notified of further information contained in the addendum.

Mr Hallam spoke as the County Councillor, and spoke against the application. He thanked the developers for having discussed the application with him and local residents but raised concerns about the location and the high volume of traffic on the roundabout.

Mr Moore, on behalf of the applicant spoke in favour of the application and noted that the development would be 100% affordable housing and that there would be extensive benefits to the community, from the scheme.

In response to questions asked by the Committee, Mr Moore confirmed that they had appealed against the refusal of the previous application, but this would be withdrawn should the current application be approved and would be happy to work with officers and the highways agencies.

Mr Watson, the agent, spoke in favour of the application and stated that they had worked hard to overcome the reasons for the previous refusal, with a reduction in numbers of units from 38 to 35 and a pro rata reduction in parking spaces.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED: That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the prior completion of a S106 agreement and conditions and matters in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer elaborated on the report that had been submitted by the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. The recommendation was for the approval of the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillor Meredith spoke against the application.

Mr Kilsby spoke in favour of the application.  

The Committee discussed the report.

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

The Development Management Team Leader elaborated on the report that had been submitted by the Director of regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the circulated addendum.

Councillor Hadland spoke on behalf of the Ward Councillor, and expressed concern that extended opening hours would have a detrimental effect on local residents and cited parking issues as a concern.

Mrs Wootton, a neighbour, spoke against the application and commented that parking issues had become more apparent and local amenities had suffered as a result of the original application being granted which would be further exacerbated should the application for extended hours be agreed. In response to questions asked by the Committee, she confirmed that noise was not an issue and that she was aware of customers being at the building outside of the agreed hours.

Mrs Slinn spoke as a customer who used the facilities and spoke in favour of the application. She commented that parking was not an issue and she had never overlapped with another customer. Responding to a question of the Committee it was noted that Mrs Slinn did not live in the area.

Miss Redley, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and said that she had had the kerb dropped to ensure that there were limited traffic/parking problems and an extension to her hours would allow her to increase her client base.

Members discussed the report

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

The Senior Planning Officer elaborated on the report that had been submitted by the Director of regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the circulated addendum.

Councillor Nunn, as the Ward Councillor, and expressed concern that there would be a loss of local amenities. However, he noted that it would be of a bigger concern should the unit be left vacant.

Committee discussed the report.

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

None

None