Agenda and minutes

There were none.  

The minutes of the meeting held on 30th June 2015 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

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

N/2014/1291

John Roberts

N/2015/0335

George Hook

Mavis Wilmhurst

Brian Hoare

Graham Lund

Jonathan Best

N/2015/0419

Mr Hunt

Patricia Masters

Councillor Parekh

Nick Stafford

N/2015/0438

Graham Lund

Johnathan Best

N/2015/ 0478

Robert Whittle

James Duggan

N/2015/0554

Richard Jackson

N/2015/0625

Liang Zong

N/2015/0630

David Croissant

Councillor Oldham declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in Item 10b, as the Ward Councillor.

Councillor Aziz declared a pecuniary interest in Items 10e and 10f as the property owner of 74 Military Road, Northampton.

Councillor Lane declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in Item 10a, as the Ward Councillor.

Councillor Larratt declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in Item 7b as the Ward Councillor for East Hunsbury and a County Councillor for the Nene Valley Ward.

There were none.

The Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon. The Development Manager introduced the written report and elaborated thereon. She added that there was one update – in that the public inquiry into application N/2013/0338 would resume on the 29^th July and end on the 30^th July 2015.

The Development Manager elaborated on a report submitted by the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. It was explained that approval was being sought for authority to be delegated to the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning to vary the S106 agreement as set out in the report.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED: That the authority be delegated to the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning to vary the Section 106 agreement to accept off-site contribution towards provision of affordable housing.

The Development Manager elaborated on a report submitted by the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. It was explained that approval  was being sought to agree the amendments to the reasons for refusal for both applications N/2013/1035 and N/2013/1063 following the refusals at the Committee meeting held on the 28^th January 2015.

The Development Manager also reported comments from Historic England that they considered the significance of Collingtree Conservation Area and the Grade II* listed Church of St Columba would be affected by the appeal proposals through development within their setting.  The harm which the proposals would cause to the significance of these designated heritage assets should be taken into account in determining the proposals.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED:  That the amendments to the reasons for refusal for both applications N/2013/1035 and N/2013/1063 be agreed.

At this point, the Committee agreed that Item 12A of the agenda be considered.

The Development Manager elaborated on a report for an application for Consultation by East Northamptonshire Council. It was noted that NBC had no objection to the increased floor space.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That Northampton Borough Council had NO OBJECTION to this application but previous objections to the principle of the development were maintained and East Northamptonshire Council was to be informed of that.

None.

None.

None.

ADDENDUM

The Senior Planning Officer submitted a report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. He referred Members to the additional information contained within the addendum.

Mr John Roberts, the agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. It was explained that the intention was to get amendments permitted sooner to enable the development to proceed. In response to questions asked, Mr Roberts confirmed that density of dwellings had not increased and the same number of car parking spaces had been retained. He also explained that there was a pocket park close to the development area and that the Section 106 agreement would provide money for the local Community Centre.

In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the Highway Authority had not requested the installation of a pedestrian crossing within Booth Rise; however, the proposed highway works planning obligation could be amended to include works to improve highway safety,

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to conditions and the matters in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of the report with point (iii) of paragraph 1.2 amended to read:

A financial payment to fund highway improvements on Booth Rise between Round Spinney roundabout and the junction of Booth Rise / Kettering Road North and can include improvements to the Booth Rise/ Round Spinney junction and/or improvements to highway safety within Booth Rise.

The Senior Planning Officer submitted a report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. He referred Members to the additional information contained within the addendum. It was explained that there had been a long history of applications for commercial use on the site and the reasons for the appeal against the proposal for two warehouses on the site, heard in 2002 were outlined in the report.

Mr Hook, as a resident of West Hunsbury, spoke against the application stating that by approving the development, the Council would be endorsing a departure from their own Planning Policy as some of the land would be built on is allocated as Green Space. Responding to questions asked, Mr Hook stated that he had concerns about the height of the development, the amount of time bund would take to grow and the proximity of the building to houses. He also stated that Travis Perkins had previously communicated with the Parish Council, but that more recently there had been very little dialogue. 

Mrs Wilmhurst, on behalf of the Friends of West Hunsbury Parks, spoke against the application and commented that there would be an increase in noise, traffic and air pollution and that the application encroached onto Green Space.

Mr Hoare, as a Parish Councillor, spoke against the application and stated that the development would be far too big and not designed to fit into the local landscape as the size of it would be equivalent to 7 football pitches and suggested that a preferable site would be at Junction 16 of the M1. In response to questions asked, Mr Hoare stated that he was not against the creation of jobs, but suggested that they were not, as reported, necessarily new jobs.

Mr Lund, as a representative of Travis Perkins spoke in favour of the application and stated that the site would be central to England and close to the M1 facilities which would avoid surplus traffic impacting on the Town Centre. It was further reported that it was expected that there would be in the region of 500 jobs created. In response to questions asked, Mr Lund confirmed that white noise warnings would be used on HGV’s and trucks which would minimise noise. Light pollution would be minimised and screened by bund.

Mr Best, the Planning advisor to Travis Perkins explained that the Northampton Planning Policy Framework encouraged development and noted the creation of 500 new jobs that the development would bring. In response to questions asked, Mr Best explained that the development would be in flood zone 1 and that there would be permeable paving, swales next to the bund and a balancing pond.

Members discussed the application.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

By reason of the design, siting, scale and massing of the proposed development, the proposal would represent an overly dominant and strident feature that would be detrimental to the character, appearance and function of the existing network of green space.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

The Senior Planning Officer submitted a report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. He referred Members to the additional information contained within the addendum.

Mr Hunt, spoke against the application as a local resident. He commented that whilst the number of rooms had decreased since the last application, the actual number of students could potentially increase and noted that noise, parking and increased anti-social behaviour were a concern.

Mrs Masters, spoke against the application and commented that Kingsthorpe front was a unique area and that the property was currently very run down and uninhabited and that housing students there would not be desirable.

Councillor Parekh, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and stated that residents considered the development to be too big and out of character for the area. It was suggested that the development would be more suitable for sheltered housing of family housing and it was a questionable why there should be a development for student accommodation when the University would be re-locating. In response to questions asked, Councillor Parekh commented that there had been no consultation with residents from the applicants.

Mr Stafford, spoke on behalf of the applicant, in favour of the application and stated that in a recent appeal, the Planning Inspector had confirmed that student accommodation was a suitable use of the site. He stated that the development had been scaled back and that the use of the roof space would reduce the impact on local residents. In response to questions asked, Mr Stafford commented that even with the relocation of the University, bus routes would provide necessary transport for students to their campuses. He noted that there was limited parking with an element for the provision of visitor parking which would be a contractual part of the tenancy.

Members discussed the application

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

By reason of the design, scale and massing of the proposed building, the development would represent an incongruous feature and would have a significant adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area and be detrimental to visual amenity. The development is contrary to the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework; Policy S10 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy; and Policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.

The Senior Planning Officer submitted a report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. He referred Members to the additional information contained within the addendum

Mr Best, as the planning advisor to Travis Perkins, spoke in favour of the application and explained that the application would be a sustainable development and would result in the creation of 100 new jobs and would replace the current unattractive building in situ.

Mr Lund, as a representative of Travis Perkins spoke in favour of the application and commented that the overall expansion plans and investment would attract people to work in the area.

Members discussed the application.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the conditions set out in the report and the addendum and the matters in paragraphs 1.2 to 1.4 of the report.

At this point, the meeting was adjourned and the Items below were considered at a reconvened meeting to be held on the 4^th August 2015.

None.