Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Davenport, Smith and Kilby-Shaw.

(Copy herewith)

The minutes of the meeting held on 26^th September 2017 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

RESOLVED:

That under the following items, the members of the public and Ward Councillors were granted leave to address the Committee:

N/2017/0994

Richard Boyes

Pat Dooley

N/2017/1019

Pat Dooley

N/2017/1026

Navin Patel

Phil Rodgers

Councillor Beardsworth

Gary Witts

N/2017/1032

John Bright

David Hood

N/2017/1055

Councillor Nunn

Adam Smith

N/2017/1167

Chris Parr

N/2017/1168

Chris Parr

N/2017/1169

Chris Parr

Councillor Kilbride declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in items 10h, 10i and 10j as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes.

Councillor M Markham declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in items 10h, 10i and 10j as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes.

Councillor Birch declared a predetermination in item 10c and advised that she would leave the room whilst the item was under discussion.

Councillor Lane declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in item 10g as the Ward Councillor and advised that he would leave the room whilst the item was under discussion.

There were none.

The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon. It was noted that there were no updates; all decisions listed in the report were still awaited.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

There were none.

There were none.

The Development Manager submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. It was noted that there were 2 applications to consider in respect of the item; listed building consent and planning permission. The Committee heard that the application sought the approval of 2 ventilation grilles into the external wall of the central stable block, to allow for ventilation of carbon monoxide from the gas cupboard on the opposite side of the wall. The alterations were considered minor but necessary and as such, no objections had been received.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Manager submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum in which the Crime Prevention Officer declared no objection to the proposal. The Committee heard that the application sought approval in principle with delegated authority given to the Head of Planning to grant planning permission, following the consultation period on 19^th October 2017. The proposal would see the installation of 2 metre gates at either end of Marble Arch. It was noted that access would not be prevented completely but would help with crime prevention.

In response to questions, Members heard that the gates would be tall enough to prevent people climbing over them. The alley would remain visible so any litter could be seen and cleared away before any build-up were to happen.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

(Addendum attached)

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further objections from the Ward Councillor. The Committee heard that the property was wider than most terraced properties and this particular property benefitted from a storage area. It was noted that the area was well served by public transport and there was a good level of services nearby. Should the application be successful, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 5%. The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that in previous appeals, Inspectors had concluded that a property in a sustainable location outweighed any lack of on-street parking.

Richard Boyes, the son of a local resident, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application, commenting that parking in the evening was a problem; only 3 properties on Moore Street had garages. He stated that the closeness of shops, restaurants and the Working Mens Club exacerbated the problem. Mr Boyes further stated that the current owner had let the property fall into a state of disrepair; the front boundary wall had, until recently, been close to falling down and the back garden was very overgrown. He also questioned what kind of checks were carried out to ensure maximum occupancy was not breached.

In response to questions, Mr Boyes informed the Committee that the property was currently rented out.

Pat Dooley, representing the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application, stating that the garage was ideal for cycle storage. He commented that due to the size of the property, it could be comfortably divided. He noted that at 5%, the concentration of HIMOs in the area was well below the threshold and that the application met all policy and regulation requirements. Mr Dooley added that a well-established letting agent would be hired to manage the property for the owner.

In response to questions to Mr Dooley, the Committee heard that a parking survey was not carried out as the applicant had interpreted the Interim Planning Policy Statement (IPPS) as this not being a requirement, should a property sit in a sustainable location.

Officers informed, the Committee that the past condition of the property for previous uses was not a material consideration.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

At this point, Councillor Choudary joined the meeting.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further objections from neighbours. The application, which was a resubmission of a previously approved application, sought to increase the height of the garage to provide an en-suite bathroom and increase the size of the master bedroom. It was noted that the garage would be retained and that although the development would result in the loss of a bungalow, the principle of altering the property to two storey had previously been established.

Pat Dooley, representing the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. He noted that a first floor extension had been approved in the previous application. Rendering had been removed from the latest plans following objections and the materials would fit in with the existing property. Mr Dooley commented that although the roof above the garage was being raised, the overall height was comparable to the property next-door.

In response to questions, The Committee heard that the development would be liable for a CIL payment.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

At this juncture of the meeting Councillor Birch left the room, having declared a predetermination.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum, which noted no objections to the application from the NBC Tree Officer. The Committee heard that the application was a revision following on from the discovery that a gas main lay underneath the originally proposed site for the garage; the amended garage position would be approximately 5m further north and rotated 90 degrees to allow for easier entry. It was noted that there were right of access concerns to the neighbouring property at No. 33, but this was a civil matter.

Navin Patel, of a neighbouring property addressed the Committee and spoke against the application, commenting that the proposed development would encroach on his right of way. He voiced concerns regarding loss of light and stated that the location of the gas mains should have been taken into consideration in the first instance. He also commented that the pitch of the roof was unnecessarily high and that as the owner of the property had not driven in many years and did not own a car, she did not need a double garage.

Councillor Beardsworth, as the Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. She commented that the builders should have known where the gas mains were. She stated that the bungalow was known locally as “The Pyramid”; it was completely out of character compared to nearby properties, and that it had been a source of upset for neighbours. Councillor Beardsworth raised concerns regarding light obstruction and right of way to neighbouring properties.

Phil Rodgers, of a neighbouring property, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He commented that the pitched roof on the garage would be very obtrusive and that he saw the application as “garden grabbing”. He also suggested that the garage would be extended at a later date and sold off as a house.

Gary Witts, the property owner’s son, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. He commented that the driveway would be widened, aiding access to the neighbouring property.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that the owner had a lot of gardening equipment which would be stored in the garage and parking would be required for visitors.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Birch returned to the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that this retrospective application sought to change the use of the property from dwellinghouse to HIMO for 4 occupants. It was noted that notwithstanding objections from the Highway Authority, the location was considered sustainable, being close to public transport links, St Leonards Road and the town centre. It was further noted that substantial investigations had taken place in the area to ensure that information on HIMO properties in the area was up to date; and should this application be approved, the concentration of HIMOs in a 50m radius would be 13.09%. Refuse and cycle storage could be provided to the rear.

John Bright, a local resident, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He commented that the alley to the rear of the property was always blocked with fly tipping, rendering the cycle storage useless. He also stated that the parking surveys taken at 3pm and 3am were disingenuous as school runs and labourers working night shifts were away from home at those times. He also stated that the adjacent property had complained of noise problems since the house had changed in use. Mr Bright commented that an application could not be allowed based on the assumption that it would be overturned at appeal, since recent appeal decisions in the area were still awaited.

David Hood, the owner, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the property was in full compliance with current regulations and policies. He further stated that to his knowledge, none of the current tenants drove cars, whereas the previous owners had 3. He commented that he was not aware of the Article 4 Direction when he purchased the property which was why his application was retrospective.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that he had registered his property with university authorities, and that immediate neighbours had Mr Hood’s contact details so they could reach him, should any problems arise.

Officers confirmed that they had discussed the matter of noise complaints with the Council’s Environmental Health section that afternoon and that no complaints had been made regarding noise levels.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum, which contained a revised condition. The Committee heard that whilst the proposed dwelling was situated close to the M1 motorway, there were several properties closer still. It was noted that the application complied with the standards of the Highway Authority and further conditions were recommended. There were no objections from Environmental Health as noise mitigation was conditioned.

Councillor Nunn, as the Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He commented on Highways matters but recognised that not all were planning concerns; he stated that he was keen to work with the applicant and the County Council to secure traffic calming in the area.

Adam Smith, the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. He stated the proposed dwelling would be for himself to live in; his parents would be living in the bungalow. He commented that the design was in keeping with other rural properties in the area and that the building had been designed with environmental sustainability in mind.

In response to questions to Mr Smith, the Committee heard that noise mitigation would be the same as it was for the other nearby properties, and that following air quality assessments carried out in 2010 and 2014, changes were so insignificant that there was no concern from Environmental Health.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and the addendum.

At this juncture of the meeting, Councillor Hill left the room.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought to remove Condition 7 of planning application N/2014/1387. It was noted that the Town Centre Conservation Area Advisory Committee had objected to the application and 2 further objections had also been received.

In response to questions to officers, the Committee heard that if the condition was not removed, a link of some kind would have to be engineered from the existing rear flat, through a neighbouring flat. It was considered that this was not a reasonable requirement.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

At this juncture of the meeting Councillors Lane and Birch left the meeting, having declared an interest as the Ward Councillor. Councillor Hill re-joined the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the extensions would have no undue adverse impacts and would help sustain the use of a well-established community building and sports facility.

In response to questions, it was noted that there were no changes to floodlighting arising from the application.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

At this juncture of the meeting Councillors Kilbride and M Markham left the room, having declared interests in the item as Board Members of Northampton Partnership Homes.

Councillor Lane re-joined the meeting.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum, which contained an amendment to Condition 2 and an additional Condition 6. The Committee heard that the application sought to extend the existing car park, increasing the number of spaces by 15. Waste and cycle storage would also be included in the development as well as the provision of an outdoor gym area. 3 trees would be removed to facilitate the development.

In response to questions, Members heard that the arches within the site would be retained.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an amendment to Condition 2 and an additional Condition 4. The Committee heard that the application sought to provide 6 new parking spaces, waste and cycle/buggy storage and areas of hardstanding.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that there had been wide consultation with local residents; these renovations were small parts of a much wider scheme.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an amendment to Condition 2 and an additional Condition 4. The Committee heard that the application sought to provide 2 additional parking spaces and cycle/buggy storage. It was noted that 1 tree would be removed to facilitate the renovations.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and the addendum.

There were none.

There were none.