Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Aziz.

(Copy herewith)

The Chair noted that the minutes attached to the agenda were from the 2^nd November 2015 and should have been from the 29^th September 2015, which had been circulated to member. The minutes of the meeting held on 29^th September 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/2015/0987

Ms Heather Green

Mr Kelvin Acford

Councillor Alan Bottwood

Mr Mark Croxon

Mr Keith Mitchell

N/2015/0421

Mr Tony Ansell

Mr Jamie Seamark

Mr Alex Stevenson

N/2015/0756

Mr Gallop

Councillor Smith

Councillor Stone

Mr Tristan Hay

N/2015/0757

Mr Gallop

Councillor Smith

Councillor Stone

Mr Tristan Hay

N/2015/0791

Ms Mavis Wilmhurst

Mr Colin Ingle

N/2015/0991

Mr David Croissant

Councillor Marriott

Councillor Oldham declared a personal non pecuniary interest in Item 10e as the Ward Councillor.

Councillor Birch declared a personal non pecuniary interest in Item 9a, as a Trustee of Community Spaces Northampton.

Members were reminded that the planning applications to the proposed Northampton South SUE development in Collingtree (outline 1,000 dwellings and a full application for 378 dwellings) were refused by the Planning Committee in January 2015. Following the refusal, the applicant Bovis Homes submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and a public inquiry is due to be heard from 1^st of December 2015.

The Council has appointed a consultant team to deal with the appeal which includes a leading barrister and consultants to deal with traffic, air quality, planning, heritage and noise matters.

Both of the applications were originally refused on the same reasons including the principle in relation to the JCS, impact on the highway network due to increased traffic, impact on existing residents from increased traffic, noise and air quality, and heritage.

Following advice from the appeal team – The reason for refusal on the principle of the development was withdrawn, and the reference to air quality was removed from the noise and air quality reason.

The appeal team have since then been working on the Council’s case and received a significant amount of technical information from the appellant’s appeal team. Following the process of scrutinising all the technical information, the Council had been informed very recently from the highway consultant that the proposed development would have impact but the impact is less than substantial and with the proposed mitigations, the development was considered to be acceptable in highway terms. The noise consultant also advised that he would not be able to defend the reason for refusal on noise impact due to increased traffic.

Following advice from the barrister, the Council had no choice but to withdraw the two traffic reasons for refusal. The appeal team would continue with the two other reasons for refusal in relation to noise and heritage matters and will present the Council’s case in December 2015.

It was noted that the Council had to adhere to a very strict time table set down in the appeal process.  As the matter had only just come to ahead there was a need to confirm to the Planning Inspectorate and revise the Council’s Statement of Case last week.  Any delay would result in cost awarded against the Council for unreasonable delay.

The Committee noted the matter of urgency.

The Chair proposed that a special Planning Committee meeting be held to discuss the Collingtree application.

RESOLVED: That a special Planning Committee meeting be held on the 10^th November 2015.

(Copy herewith)

The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon.

(Copy herewith)

The Planning Policy & Heritage Manager elaborated on a report submitted by the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and asked members to note the contents of the 2015 Five Year Housing land Supply report, and the implications that this would have on determining planning applications for housing.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

None.

There were none.

(Copy herewith)

Having declared an interest Councillor Birch left the room.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the additional information contained within the addendum. It was explained that the recommendation in the report was for approval, in principle.

Ms Heather Green spoke against the application as a local resident.

Mr Kelvin Acford addressed the Committee on behalf of St Crispin & Ryelands Cricket Club (SCRCC) and spoke against the application.

Councillor Bottwood spoke as the Ward Councillor and stated he was not representing the views of the Parish Council; He spoke in favour of the application.

Mr Mark Croxon, the architect, spoke in favour of the application

Mr Keith Mitchell, the project manager at NBC, spoke in favour of the application.

Members discussed the report and expressed concerns that there was a need for extra fencing to be placed around the play area to ensure the safety of children using the play area.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the conditions set out in the report and the addendum and matters in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of the report with delegated authority being given to the Interim Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee to resolve any additional issues raised not dealt with in the report and issue planning permission after the consultation period has expired including an additional condition requiring fencing around the relocated play area.

(Copy herewith)

The Planning Officer elaborated on a report submitted by the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. It was noted that it was for approval subject to the conditions within the set out in the report.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions in the report.  

(Addendum attached)

(Copy herewith)

The Development Manager submitted a report on behalf of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. It was explained that the report was for the refusal of the application. It was noted that the application was substantially a resubmission of a previously approved scheme but on a larger scale.

Mr Tony Ansell addressed the Committee and stated he was doing so as the applicant and not in his capacity of a Councillor. He stated that he had a disclosable pecuniary interest in the item as he had a financial interest in the leasehold property. He spoke in favour of the application.

Mr Ansell left the room after having addressed the Committee.

Mr Jamie Seamark addressed the Committee and spoke against the application.

Mr Alex Stevenson spoke in favour of the application.

Members discussed the report.

That the application be APPROVED as the proposal was essential to secure the substantial public benefit of the improvements to an existing café which serves people visiting Abington Park. The benefit of this would outweigh any adverse impact on the conservation area and the substantial harm to the setting of the Grade 1 listed building, thereby complying with paragraphs 131, 133 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy BN5 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and Policy E26 of the Northampton Local Plan 1997 (saved policies).

(Copy herewith)

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. It was noted that the recommendation was for the approval of the application.

Mr Gallop, a local resident addressed the Committee and spoke against the application.

Councillor Smith, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application.

Councillor Stone, also the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application.

Mr Tristan Hay, the property owner addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED to allow for further investigation be carried out to clarify the number of existing HIMOs in the area.

(Copy herewith)

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. It was noted that the recommendation was for the approval of the application.

Mr Gallop, a local resident addressed the Committee and spoke against the application.

Councillor Smith, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application.

Councillor Stone, also the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application.

Mr Tristan Hay, the property owner addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED to allow for further investigation be carried out to clarify the number of existing HIMOs in the area.

(Copy herewith)

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. It was noted that the recommendation was for approval in principle.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the conditions set out in the report. It was also noted that delegated authority be given to the Interim Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee to resolve any additional issues raised in comments received not dealt with

(Copy herewith)

The Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning. It was noted that the recommendation was for refusal.

Ms Mavis Wilmhurst addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application.

Mr Colin Ingle, the applicant addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the item be deferred for negotiations to take place between officers and the applicant regarding design and materials.

(Copy herewith)

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. It was noted that the recommendation was for approval.

RESOLVED:

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

(Copy herewith)

The Senior Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Director of Regeneration Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. It was noted that the application was retrospective and the recommendation was for approval.

Councillor Marriot, as Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application.

Mr David Croissant, the owner and landlord spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out in the report and for the following reason:

The development proposed would not lead to an unacceptable concentration of HIMOs within the locality and would not adversely impact upon the character and appearance of the property, the street scene, nor would it have any significant impacts on neighbouring amenity or parking provision. The property is of sufficient size to accommodate the level of accommodation as proposed and is in accordance with the requirements of Policies H1, H5, and S10 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, Policies E20 and H30 of the Northampton Local Plan, the Council’s Houses in Multiple Occupation Interim Planning Policy Statement and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

None

None

None

None