Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mary Markham and Councillor Elizabeth Gowen.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2016 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

RESOLVED: That under the following items, the members of the public and ward councillors listed below were granted leave to address the Committee:

N/2016/1007

Matthew Moore

N/2016/1073

Mike Hallam

Paul Toone

Geoff Armstrong

N/2016/1091

Daniel Keane

N/2016/1111

Anita Harvey

Sophie Griffiths

Cllr Anna King

Peter Kaye

Tad Dobraszczyk

N/2016/1136

Geoff Pollard

Cllr Ian Simons

Cllr Phil Larratt

N/2016/1292

Cllr Zoe Smith

N/2016/1348

Cllr Zoe Smith

Councillor Kilbride declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in item 10i by virtue of being a Ward Councillor and having been asked to sit as a Governor of the school.

Councillor Birch declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in item 9a by virtue of being a trustee of Community Spaces in Northampton. In addition she declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in item 10e by virtue of being a Ward Councillor.

Councillor Lane declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in item 10d by virtue of being a Ward Councillor.

There were none.

The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon. The applications at 1 Thornton Road and 754 Obelisk Rise had both been dismissed, the Inspector had agreed with Council’s decisions in both instances.

The outcome from the Milton Ham Public Inquiry was still pending.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

There were none.

There were none.

(Copy Herewith)

The Development Manager submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee were advised that planning permission for a ‘New Community Centre, incorporating changing room facilities and Nursery School’, had been approved in March 2016. Members of the Committee were informed that building works were now under way and that the building was to be ready in the New Year.

This proposal sought to issue a certificate of lawfulness to change the description from a Nursery School to general education purposes, confirming that this change did not need planning permission. Members were informed that this only came in front of the Committee as it related to land owned by the Council.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED for the following reason:

The Council is satisfied that the proposed use of part of the building for general educational purposes would not be materially different from the previously approved use of this part of the building as a nursery, as both uses fall within the same Use Class D1 in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).  Planning permission is therefore not required for the proposed use.

(ADDENDUM ATTACHED)

(Copy Herewith)

The Development Manager submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The proposal being sought was for the erection of an infill dwelling, providing a four bedroom house over three storeys. Part of the proposal included a rear detached garage and two off road parking spaces on site. Access to the off-street parking was to be via a service road to the rear of the property. The exterior to the property was to be in keeping with the local houses, including similar pebble dash rendering on the ground floor level. In addition the development was to be staggered back slightly from 43 Park Avenue North and slightly in front of 41 Park Avenue North. In terms of the impact on the property across the road, this development was 25m away. Members were directed to photos provided by local residents outlining the space for the development and the properties in close proximity.

Anita Harvey, resident at 43 Park North Avenue, addressed the Committee and stated that the report provided was inconsistent with proposals and conflicted with JSC policy section H1, whereby the development was going to impede on the enjoyment and use of her property. This development was to protrude 3m from the back of her property, causing overshadowing. In addition the property would make the kitchen area even darker than it currently was and make rooms on that side of the house uninhabitable. Furthermore the development would not meet policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan, as it would not reflect the character and design work of the surrounding houses.

In response to questions from Members, Anita Harvey commented that the development would overshadow her property. .

Sophie Griffiths, resident at 60 Park Avenue North, addressed the Committee and stated that there would be extra pressure created on parking and road safety with this development. Residents were already vying for car parking spaces, furthermore, almost none of the residents used their garages located on the service road. The Police were already being called on a regular basis to come and move illegally parked cars. In terms of the service road, there was already high levels of crime and anti-social behaviour and went against West Northamptonshire’s policy to reduce crime and would contravene paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In response to questions, the Committee were informed that the new build would not be in keeping with the character of the buildings on Park North Avenue.

Councillor Anna King, as Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and commented that the impact on 43 Park Avenue North would be extremely detrimental to their everyday use of the property. In addition there were major issues with crime in the area, furthermore residents had been unsuccessful in getting a gate installed on the service road entrances, to try and prevent crime.

Peter Kaye, owner of the site, addressed the Committee and informed Members that they had moved into the neighbouring property 30 years ago and were now in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10f

(Copy Herewith)

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. She reported that additional comments received from the resident of no. 11 Swallow Close. The Committee were informed that the property was a four bedroom bungalow at the end of a close. The properties in the cul-de-sac were primarily bungalows, however there were a number of two storey dwellings in Swallow Close and in the immediate vicinity of the site. The application sought to extend the existing bungalow into a two storey dwelling with three bedrooms. To the side of the property the bathroom window would be glazed to ensure privacy to the neighbouring property. In view of the site’s location in a corner plot and the varied surrounding character, it was not considered that the design would be unacceptable.

Geoff Pollard, resident at 15 Swallow Close, addressed the Committee and stated that the new dwelling would overlook his garden. The report failed to take into account the Government’s policy on trying to keep and maintain bungalow properties for the elderly population. He commented that if this application was granted, then it might set a precedent for other bungalow owners to follow suit. The population of those over 65 was due to increase by 12% in the period 2015-2020, these people would need accommodation that could meet their needs.

Councillor Ian Simons, Parish Councillor, addressed the Committee and commented that this development would be out of character with Swallow Close, primarily because this bungalow was at the hammerhead of a set of bungalows. In addition there was an issue of a shared driveway that would need to be used during construction. It was felt that due to the interference of this construction the Police would need to be called to remove vehicles potentially blocking the driveway.

Councillor Phil Larratt, as Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and agreed that the area had a vast range of different sized properties, however, there was a short supply of bungalows in the vicinity and there was an increase in the ageing population. Furthermore, this property would be out of character for the area.

The Development Management Team Leader informed Members that the first floor would be set away from the neighbouring boundary with No. 15 and, therefore, would not cause any unacceptable issues with overlooking of neighbouring properties. In addition Condition 6 of the report clearly stated that no additional windows were to be installed in the north-east elevation of the extension, safeguarding the privacy of adjoining properties. With regards to concerns regarding impacts during construction on the shared driveway, this was not a planning matter, and if there was any damage this would be a civil matter.

Members of the Committee welcomed the comments made and agreed that it was a shame to lose bungalows in the area, however this development seemed to be in keeping with the character of the local area and would not impact neighbours to a detrimental point.

RESOLVED:

That the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10g

(Copy Herewith)

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the application sought outline consent for up to 30 dwellings, with access for approval, which would be fixed. The access point would be created with the demolition of 58 Booth Rise and would run to the side of 60 Booth Rise. The layout of dwellings as part of the development at this stage was indicative only.

The Highway Authority had not raised any objections to this development. In addition the development featured some in variations in terms of level, ranging from a high point adjacent to Booth Rise to a lower point next to Lumbertubs way. The indicative parameters stated that the development would comprise a combination of bungalows, two storey houses and two and half storey houses. A condition could be imposed to limit building heights of the final development. As per the report this application was subject to S106 agreements. Furthermore, the Principal Planning Officer made reference to additional comments received and attached as part of the Addendum to the meeting.

Mike Hallam, in his capacity as County Councillor for the area, addressed the Committee. He stated that three other applications in this area had been previously refused, including Booth Park, which had only been overturned on appeal. It was his opinion that this was a case of garden grabbing, irrespective of the size of gardens available to 58 and 62 Booth Rise. The owner of 60 Booth Rise refused to sell his property to the developer and was not in support of this application. The area was notoriously busy with traffic and had registered high levels of air pollution, especially around peak time traffic. In addition traffic regularly exceeded the speed limits in place.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Mike Hallam commented on a number of issues including:

·         Air emissions were high in this area due large numbers of stationary vehicles. In addition this area suffered from high levels of air pollution irrespective of it being an area of congestion.

·         The high gradient levels adjacent to the development would make this development stick out.

·         The Council originally raised objections to the Booth Park application due to traffic concerns and overdevelopment of the site, but the application was approved by WNDC

Paul Toone, resident at 50 Booth Rise, addressed the Committee and stated that a recent Police survey showed 75% of all vehicles passing the site were going in excess of the 30 mph speed limit. The pavements by the site were far too narrow to accommodate people walking past the development and were also used by cyclists. The access points were in a dangerous position and would cause a number of traffic accidents. The development did not make provision for enough car parking spaces and was short of the requirement as laid out in the 2016 Northamptonshire Policy. Furthermore this was an example of garden grabbing to try and create more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10d

(Copy Herewith)

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. She also clarified that the height of the existing rear structure should be 2.8m as stated in paragraph 2.1 of the report. The Committee were informed that this application had been deferred from the previous meeting on 22 November 2016. The report had been updated to make reference to the National Planning Policy and space standards following concerns raised by Members regarding the internal sizes of the flats.

With regards to the National Space Standards, Members were advised that these standards had not been adopted by the Council as Planning Policy and, therefore, the application could not be considered against these standards.  Members were advised that whilst the floor area of the flats fell below the requirement of Policy H23 of the Local Plan, the policy is dated and more recent changes in planning regulations could effectively allow smaller dwellings and levels of accommodation. The application still sought the demolition of the out-building and re-building to provide an ancillary store. Furthermore, the Committee were advised that there were additional comments attached to the addendum.

Councillor Zoe Smith, as Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and commented that as an authority more need to be done to protect people who lived in Northampton. It was unacceptable to have such a development passed and allow people to live there. In addition, it was unacceptable to still have the outbuilding in place and for it to even be considered to be re-built. This was an example of losing a family home.

The Development Manager clarified that the National Space Standards only applied to new build properties and were not planning policy.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Management Team Leader stated that in respect of the outbuilding, a condition was proposed to agree details of materials to be used prior to re-building,  . In addition Members were informed that the outbuilding height would be reduced by 50cm and not 10cm as stated in the report.

RESOLVED:

A proposal was made to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation. Upon taking a vote, this motion failed.

A further proposal was made to refuse the application, under policy H23 as the first and second floor flats failed to meet the minimum floor space requirement.

On a vote the application was REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposed combined floor space of the ground and first floor flat measured internally would be considerably less than 100 square metres, which combined with the limited size of the third floor flat  would fail to provide a sufficient level and quality of accommodation and residential amenity for the occupiers contrary to Policy H23 of the Northampton Local Plan, Policy H1(f) of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

8.45pm Councillor Davenport returned to the meeting.

(Copy Herewith)

This item was withdrawn from the Agenda.

(Copy Herewith)

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that outline planning permission had been granted for the erection of up to 170 dwellings. Subsequent to granting planning permission, a new application was submitted to develop a new school on the north eastern portion of the site. This was approved in principle by the Committee in September 2016, subject to the completion of the S106 Legal Agreement.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that this application was seeking full planning permission for the erection of 82 dwellings, comprising 4 two bedroom flats, 47 two bedroom houses and 31 three bedroom houses. In addition the proposal made provision for 146 parking spaces and a central open space area. As per the report this application was subject to the completion of a S106 agreement.

Matthew Moore, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application. He stated that extensive consultation had taken place with local residents and other consultees. Planning application had already been approved in 2014 for 170 dwellings, which was far more than the current application. This development was aimed at local residents and a number of houses were to be a part of the Government’s Help To Buy scheme for first time buyers. In addition the proposal contained lots of open spaces and took account of national and local planning policies.

In response to questions from Members Matthew Moore made a number of comments including:

·         All properties were to be built from timber frame, making them more energy efficient. At the current time there were no plans to look at solar panels.

·         There were no plans to include electric car charging points within the development.

·         In addition to aiming the development at first time buyers, 35% of the properties would be affordable housing.

·         With regards to the access roads to the site, as this was to come off a residential road, there was not much the developers could do to widen the road.

Members of the Committee welcomed the application and commented that it was good to see affordable housing being provided and that there was a lot of open space.

RESOLVED:

That the APPLICATION be approved in principle subject to the S106 Agreement to secure:

i)          35% on-site affordable housing;

ii)         Primary School Education payment;

iii)        A payment towards improvements in highway capacity;

iv)        A payment towards bus stop provision;

v)         That the on-site Public Open Space is maintained and made available for public access in perpetuity;

vi)        A payment towards health care provision;

vii)       A payment towards the provision and/or enhancement and/or maintenance of off-site open space; and

viii)      The Council’s monitoring fee, subject to the Head of Planning being satisfied the monitoring fee is necessary and of an appropriate scale.

and the conditions as set out in the report and for the following reason:

The proposed development, subject to conditions, represents an acceptable land use which would contribute towards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

(Copy Herewith)

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The proposal sought to change the use of the property from a shop to a restaurant, to operate in conjunction with the restaurant that already occupied part of the ground floor. Members were informed that Planning Officers proposed refusing this application as it would exacerbate the level of non-retail uses within the area.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there had been a previous refusal for the change of use and the applicant was aware of the issues.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposed development would exacerbate the level of non-retail uses within an allocated secondary frontage to the detriment of the viability and vitality of the town centre.  The proposal therefore fails to comply with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies 12 and 13 of the Northampton Central Area Action Plan.

(Copy Herewith)

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The surrounding land uses are varied comprising of a mixture of houses and flats, in addition to a number of contrasting commercial uses. The application sought to erect three buildings, which would form 80 units of accommodation for use as a specialist supported living. Furthermore there would now be ample parking spaces as part of the development.

Daniel Keane, on behalf of the applicant, commented that this application had been endorsed and would benefit those needing supported living accommodation.

Members welcomed the report and commented that the development was much needed.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the prior completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure:

i)          That the development be used solely for specialist supported living;

ii)         A payment towards provision and/or enhancement of open space within the vicinity of the Application Site; and

iii)        The Council’s monitoring fee, subject to the Head of Planning being satisfied the monitoring fee is necessary and of an appropriate scale.

and the conditions set out in the report and for the following reasons:

The proposed development represents an appropriate land use and would have a neutral impact upon the character and appearance of the area, neighbour amenity and the highway system. The development is therefore in conformity with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies S1, S10 and H1 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and Policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.

It is also recommended that in the event of the Section 106 Legal Agreement not being completed within three calendar months of this Committee meeting, in addition to being able to grant planning permission as recommended above, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to either refuse or finally dispose of the application (at his discretion) on account that the necessary mitigation measures have not been secured in order to make the proposal acceptable in line with the requirements of Policies INF1 and INF2 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Copy Herewith)

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members of the Committee were informed that application number N/2016/1264 had been deferred to a meeting in the New Year. With regards to application N/2016/1387, this related to minor  external alterations to the building.

RESOLVED:

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

The proposed external alterations would have a neutral impact on the appearance of the existing building and surrounding area and are in accordance with Policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan, Policy S10 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Copy Herewith)

The Development Manager submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that this was a retrospective application for a change of use from a residential dwelling to a house in multiple occupation (HIMO). The Highway Authority had raised an objection due to the lack of parking in the area.

Councillor Zoe Smith, as Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and stated that this was another example of the Highway Authority objecting to a change of use, when there was a lack of parking in the local vicinity. This would have been a perfect family home, however it was an example of the changing of homes to now accommodate single people. She commented that the Council should be looking at creating more single purpose built accommodation units to stop homes being used as HIMO’s. The current parking issues had caused members of the public to park illegally on the edge of street corners, which in turn had risked the safety of those people using the pavements.

Members of the Committee commented that this was one of the better HIMO application’s that had been presented. Although it was a shame to lose family homes there were no planning grounds to refuse the application.

RESOLVED:

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

The proposed development for a change of use from a dwelling to a house in multiple occupation (HIMO) would not lead to an unacceptable concentration of HIMOs within the locality that would adversely impact upon the character of the street scene, nor would the development have significant adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity or parking provision.  The property is of sufficient size to accommodate the level of accommodation as proposed, in accordance with the requirements of Policies H1, H5, and S10 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, saved 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.

There were none.

There were none.

None required.