Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M Markham and Choudary.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21^st November 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/2017/0789

Councillor Stone

N/2017/1046

Councillor Birch

Brian Burnett

Simon Stringer

Greg Pearce

N/2017/1270

David Suter

N/2017/1374

Councillor Smith

N/2017/1402

Councillor Hibbert

Darmesh Patel

N/2017/1501

Councillor Meredith

Helen Town

Councillor Kilbride declared a disclosable, pecuniary interest in items 10g, 10k, 10l and 10m as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes.

Councillor Birch declared a predetermination in item 10b and advised that she would leave the room after addressing the Committee.

Councillor Smith declared a predetermination in item 10i and advised that she would leave the room after addressing the Committee. Councillor Smith further declared an interest in items 10c and 10f as the Ward Councillor but stated that she had no predetermination.

There were none.

The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that an appeal relating to a childminding business had been allowed. Complaints had been received from neighbours relating to noise and disturbance, however, conditions had been included to limit the number of children allowed outside at any one time and a maximum of 2 hours outdoor play per day in total.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that following difficulties identifying a Registered Provider to manage the affordable dwellings in their original form, Council had agreed to a variation. This application for a further variation sought to alter the composition of the affordable housing provision in the Section 106 Agreement closer to that originally agreed.

In response to questions, the Committee were informed that under the Rentplus model, tenants of these properties would have the option to buy their homes after 5 years of occupancy. It was noted that the level of affordable housing would remain at 35% but that the tenures would change.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be AGREED subject to the reasons as set out in the report.

There were none.

There were none.

Councillor Kilbride left the room, having declared an interest as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the method of demolition, and not the principle, was to be considered by Members. It was noted that a future application would be received for the provision of housing on the site.

Councillor Meredith, as the Ward Councillor, spoke in favour of the application and commented that anti-social behaviour around the site had increased in recent weeks and that rough sleepers were living inside the pub. He stated that housing would be a much better use for the site and thanked officers for their work.

Helen Town, Head of Asset Management for Northampton Partnership Homes, spoke in favour of the application and commented that an application for developing the site had already been submitted and it was intended that should the application be approved, the pub would be demolished early in 2018.

In response to questions, Ms Town explained that NPH were working closely with the Police to ensure that the site was kept secure.

Members discussed the report.

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. The Committee heard that windows on 6 flats would be replaced with patio doors and Juliet balconies, as part of a wider project to refurbish Northampton’s housing stock.

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. The Committee heard that the method of demolition, and not the principle, was to be considered. It was explained that by removing the concrete overhangs, unauthorised access to the upper stories would be prevented.

Members discussed the report.

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 heard that they approved the construction of the retail unit in 2016 and that this application sought to vary a condition to extend the shop’s opening hours. No objections had been received from the Environmental Health or residents, and the shop’s delivery times would remain the same.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Kilbride 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 the property was situated close to local amenities and bus routes. It was noted that a condition had been added to prevent the basement from being used as a bedroom and that all of the bedrooms complied with Private Sector Housing standards. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 6.32%.

Councillor Stone, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that of her entire Ward, she received the highest number of complaints from Hood Street. She stated that there were 10 existing HIMOs on Hood Street and considered it an overdevelopment. Councillor Stone noted that double parking was a regular occurrence and fly-tipping was a problem in the area.

In response to questions, the Committee were informed that the garden of the property was currently being used to store waste; a condition was included to ensure that full details of proper waste storage were submitted and implemented following the application’s approval. It was noted that the Highway Authority had concluded that the parking situation was considered “severe” in the area.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED against the officer recommendation on parking and highway grounds, the final wording of which to be agreed with the Chair.

The Development Manager submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further representations from Queens Park Residents Association (QPRA) and a revised Condition 14. The Committee heard that the applicant sought to increase the opening and delivery hours of the shop by varying Conditions 13 and 14 of the previous planning consent. It was noted that an additional delivery time of 6:00-7:00 was requested for the delivery of newspapers by means of a small van.

Councillor Birch, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that the original application had not been supported by locals. She stated that the extended opening times would result in additional disturbance and inconvenience to residents and that the narrow roads in the area were often blocked by double parked vehicles. Councillor Birch further stated that the extended opening times would lead to street-drinking and anti-social behaviour.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that there were no junctions on Stanhope Road and any delivery would block the street.

Councillor Birch then left the meeting whilst the item was discussed.

Brian Burnett, Chairman of QPRA, spoke against the application and commented that the residents had previously objected to the retail unit and that their position had not changed. He questioned whether delivery drivers would use the car park to the rear of the unit as there was no parking enforcement late at night. He stated that there was no support for the extended opening hours and asked the Committee to consider the views of residents.

Simon Stringer, on behalf of the owner, spoke in favour of the application and commented that work would commence early in the New Year, should the application be approved. Mr Stringer stated that his client was keen to supply a good service as well as housing and commented that help had been sought to address the noise concerns, which was the main concern for objectors.

In response to questions, it was noted that unless the opening hours were extended, the shop would be more akin to a small supermarket, and not a convenience store.

Greg Pearce, the agent, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the proposed variation in Conditions 13 and 14 were minor but would make the retail unit commercially attractive. He noted that Environmental Health had not objected to the application and that the proposal would not negatively affect neighbouring residents.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the prior finalisation of an S106 Agreement, and the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and the addendum.

Councillor Birch re-joined the Committee.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the side-facing windows on the proposed development would be obscure glazed to prevent overlooking of the neighbouring property. It was noted that the tiles used would match existing materials. It was further noted that there had been no objection from the Conservation Officer.

It was explained to Members that Condition 3 could be amended to ensure that the side windows were fixed closed, to further ensure neighbours’ privacy.

In response to questions, it was explained that 4 separate objections had been received from local residents.

Members were advised that a further letter of objection had been received, which raised no new issues to those outlined in the report.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report, with an amended Condition 3 re: fixed shut windows.

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 an additional Condition to ensure that bedrooms were all located on the 1st floor. The Committee heard that the property was located close to shops and public transport links and that the bedrooms all met Private Sector Housing requirements. It was explained that should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 14.8%.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Manager submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further representations from Northamptonshire Police and Billing Parish Council. The Committee heard that part of the building would be used as a hot food takeaway, using the current kitchen with a flue installed at the rear of the building. The hours would remain the same as the existing community centre.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that as part of the development, the small rear building would be demolished to allow for a two-storey rear extension, two storey front bay, a small extension and alterations to the garage, and changes to the fenestration details to the front and rear elevations. It was explained that the plans had been amended since submission and that the NBC Conservation Officer had raised no objections to the revised plans.

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 Hill left the room.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the proposed development would sit 1 metre from the site’s rear boundary, the majority of space to the side of the proposed dwelling would be taken by 2 off-road parking spaces. It was noted that a previous application in 2014 included part of the garden of no.131 Lindsay Avenue. It was further noted that there would be a distance of 10 metres between this and the rear of nos. 133 and 131 Lindsay Avenue, which was contrary to Planning Policy.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED subject to the reasons as set out in the report.

Councillor Hill returned to his seat.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the property was situated close to local amenities, a condition had been added to ensure the basement was used for storage only, as well as the maximum number of occupants and provision for waste storage. It was explained that due to the site’s sustainable location, the applicant was under no obligation to carry out a parking beat survey. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 12.5%.

Councillor Smith, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that the applicant’s refusal to carry out a parking beat survey was unfortunate and asked that the item be deferred until one could be done. She reasoned that the “sustainable” argument fell when there was such a large parking problem in an area

Councillor Smith then left the room whilst the item was considered.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that the cost of a parking beat survey varied between £250-£500.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Smith returned to her seat.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought to install a new shop front, level access ramp and replace the roller shutters. The application proposed solid shutters, however the Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser advised that solid shutters created an undesirable streetscape and a surface on which to graffiti and recommended perforated shutters; these would let out light and help to deter anti-social behaviour. The applicant subsequently agreed to perforated shutters with details to be submitted as part of Condition 3 in the report.

Councillor Hibbert, as the Ward Councillor, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the applicant would prefer solid shutters on the grounds that they offered increased security, noting that people congregated on the square at night.

Darmesh Patel, the leaseholder, addressed the Committee and commented that the area saw various problems related to anti-social behaviour. He voiced concerns regarding the visibility of a safe to be installed with the addition of a post office on the premises. Mr Patel stated that the Police were only seen in the area if they were called out; he did not know of any patrols ever having taken place in the area

In response to questions, the Committee heard that his shop, or the neighbouring shop, had not been vandalised in the time that Mr Patel had the lease. It was noted that the perforations on the shutter recommended by the Police were very small and offered the same level of security as a solid roller shutter.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

There were none.

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

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 paragraph 8.3 of the report. The Committee heard that the report related to 4 consultations from Daventry District Council and South Northamptonshire Council on 2 planning applications submitted by both authorities. Application A comprised of the entire 83 hectare site allocated for a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE), whereas Application B encompassed a smaller, 30 hectare site. A Masterplan had been submitted for the larger site, in which vehicle access would be gained through New Sandy Lane, Port Road and Roman Road. It was noted that discussions with Stagecoach were ongoing to establish public transport links to and from the development. It was further noted that the developer would contribute to the North West Bypass, sought as Section 106 contributions. It was further noted that 35% affordable housing would be required as part of both of the applications.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that the Council would request that the developer ensure sufficient provision be made to mitigate the development’s impacts on the existing highway as early as would be feasible. It was noted that the contribution towards the North West Relief Road, along with other SUEs, would contribute significantly to the delivery of the road. It was explained that 35% affordable housing would be required throughout both sites. It was also suggested that a condition be added to prevent “ghettoization” of the developments.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the Planning Committee RAISE NO OBJECTIONS to the development as proposed subject to the recommendations set out in the report, with an additional comment regarding pepper potting of affordable housing within the development.