Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Kilby-Shaw. It was explained that Councillors Lane, Golby and McCutcheon would be arriving late.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16^th January 2018 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/2017/1045

Councillor B Markham

Doug Peacock

Nigel Ozier

N/2017/1097

Nigel Hardwick

N/2017/1144

Amy Hartley

Christopher Adams

N/2017/1520

Councillor Stone

N/2017/1566

Andrew Wintersgill

N/2017/1567

Nick Barron

Sue Wood

Councillor Stone

Pat Dooley

N/2017/1574

Councillor Stone

Pat Dooley

N/2017/1591

Anne Thorley

Councillor Birch

N/2017/1602

Michael Wall

Councillor Hadland

N/2017/1604

Janice Grover

Councillor Stone

Volo Dymya

N/2017/1645

Councillor Smith

N/2017/1659

Councillor Hallam

Paul Toone

David Jones

James Bancroft

N/2017/1699

Councillor Stone

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

Councillor B Markham declared a predetermination in item 10a and advised that he would leave the room after addressing the Committee.

Councillor Lane declared a personal and non-pecuniary interest in item 10p as the Ward Councillor.

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

Councillor Davenport declared a personal and non-pecuniary interest in item 10e as the Ward Councillor.

Councillor M Markham declared a personal and disclosable pecuniary interest in item 10s as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes.

Councillor Kilbride declared a personal and disclosable pecuniary interest in item 10s as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes.

Councillor McCutcheon joined the meeting at this point.

There were none.

The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. It was reported that an appeal in relation to 75 Abington Avenue, which the Planning Committee had refused on highway safety grounds, had been allowed. The Inspector did not find any robust evidence of increased parking demand in the area and determined that the development sat within a sustainable area. It was explained that a further decision had been made in relation to 47 Southampton Road which had been refused under delegated powers, had been dismissed at appeal with the Inspector agreeing with officers that the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius exceeded the 15% limit. An appeal against a condition imposed on an application relating to 105 Abington Avenue had been allowed. The condition to limit the number of occupants to 4 had been removed by the Inspector meaning that the maximum number of occupants in the property could be 6.

In response to a question, the Committee were informed that no costs claim had been made as a result of the 105 Abington Avenue decision.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the BREEAM requirements on the site were currently “excellent” however there had been difficulty in finding a business to take on a lease due to concerns around not being able to meet this standard.

In response to questions, the Committee were informed that a number of units had completed construction and had been fitted out. It was noted that safeguards were in place to ensure that other units would achieve at least a “very good” BREEAM rating.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee AGREED officer recommendation and that the S106 Agreement would be amended accordingly.

There were none.

There were none.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the outline application would see the construction of 3 2-storey dwellings on an L-shaped plot with access to the side of the existing property.

Councillor B Markham, in his capacity as Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that since this was an outline application, there was no way to ensure that the number of properties would not increase when a more detailed application was submitted.  He also expressed concerns that three properties would be too many to be accommodated on the site.  

After addressing the Committee, Councillor B Markham left the room.

Doug Peacock, a local resident, spoke against the application and stated that the development was contrary to the Council’s guidance on backland development, would impact on the amenity of neighbours to the side and rear, the shared access would be substandard as compared with current  regulations, and noted that a tree survey had not been carried out.

In response to a question, Mr Peacock explained that the site sat on an incline and that the proposed dwellings would overlook the current property.

Nigel Ozier, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the proposed development would contribute to the Council’s 5 year housing supply and that the distance between properties and proposed access met required standards. Mr Ozier stated that he would not be opposed to a condition relating to the base height of the dwellings, to appease concerns regarding overlooking.

In response to a question, the Committee were informed that there was more than 40m between Coaching Walk and the closest proposed dwelling.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the conservatory on the existing property at Coaching Walk sat 27m from the rear boundary of the site. He also explained that whilst there was a recommended distance of 21m between new dwellings, the distance increased when the base height changed.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report with additional Condition 8 to restrict building height to 8m.

At this juncture, Councillors Golby and Choudary joined the meeting.

Councillor B Markham re-joined the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an amended Condition 10 and comments from the NCC Ecology Advisor. The Committee were informed that the outline application consisted of 4 dwellings with shared access between 2 existing properties. It was noted that a previous application, with a proposed 30 dwellings, had been refused by the Planning Committee and dismissed on appeal. The current application had not been objected to by the Highway Authority and would contribute to the Council’s 5 year housing supply.

Councillor Hallam, in his capacity as the County Councillor for Boothville and Parklands, spoke against the application and voiced concerns regarding traffic and stated that it was unfortunate the applicants had not consulted with the public before the application was submitted and asked that the application be deferred until consultation had taken place.

Paul Toone, a local resident, spoke against the application and raised highway concerns, stating that refuse and emergency vehicles would struggle to use the access road. He voiced further concerns regarding visibility, noise and overshadowing.

David Jones, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and stated that all concerns had been responded to as part of the previous application, noting that the new proposal comprised of 30% of the original application site.

James Bancroft, agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the design of the access road was fully supported by the Highway Authority. He further commented that there would be no adverse impacts in terms of capacity or noise.

In response to questions, the Committee were informed that pre-application consultation was not required for a scheme of this size and should the item be deferred, the applicant could appeal non-determination.

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.

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that following neighbour objections, the scale of the proposed development had been reduced. It was noted that a side window would be glazed to ensure no overlooking of a neighbouring property occurred.

Michael Wall, of a neighbouring property, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the ground levels between the property and his bungalow, stating that the proposal would exacerbate the difference. He raised further concerns regarding loss of light to his property.

Councillor Hadland, in his capacity as Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding loss of light and overbearing of neighbouring properties and asked that the Committee refuse the application.

In response to a question, the Committee were informed that there were no restrictions as to how close the development could be to the adjacent property and the extension would be building within the boundary of the application site.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report with an amendment to Condition 2 to remove reference to drawing 17-032-05A.

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained amended Conditions 3 and 14. The Committee heard that the site, formerly a middle school, was granted planning permission for 109 dwellings in 2014 but this had expired. It was explained that access to the site would be from Billing Brook Road with further pedestrian access to Billing Brook Road. It was noted that the development would include 2 parking spaces per dwelling and 1 parking space per flat and that as part of the S106 Agreement, 35% affordable housing would be provided as well as a payment towards Primary Education.

Alan Hardwick, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that changes had been made to the application in response to concerns raised by the Northamptonshire Police Crime Prevention Design Officer. He noted that the development would contribute to the Council’s 5 year housing supply.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that a management company would be responsible for maintaining the green spaces on the site, or that the Council could adopt the land. It was explained that the 35% affordable housing would comprise of 70% affordable rent and 30% shared ownership and that on-street parking may be possible around the site.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to a Section 106 agreement to secure planning obligations; delegated authority to the Head of Planning to amend Planning Conditions as appropriate.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained additional comments from the NCC Ecologist and neighbours and an amended officer recommendation. The Committee heard that the application comprised of 349 dwellings with access from Windingbrook Lane. It was noted that there was a tree with a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to the southeast of the site. Members were informed that the golf course would be reconfigured and that drainage ponds would be added to the east and west of the development. Affordable homes would be clustered throughout the site as well as a number of “green corridors” and a minimum of 2 parking spaces would be provided per property, plus additional spaces for visitor parking.

Andrew Wintersgill, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that extensive collaboration had taken place between the applicant, officers and other parties to reach this important milestone.

In response to a question, the Committee were informed that a viability assessment had been carried out at the outline application stage and the details were agreed by the Planning Inspectorate and that 15% affordable housing was deemed appropriate.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE with delegated authority to the Head of Planning to agree minor technical changes and amend planning conditions as necessary before issuing formal decision notice.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an amended Condition 6. The Committee were informed that the site was located close Kingsthorpe centre, the town centre and Harborough Road. , The application had been revised following refusal of a larger scheme and the Highway Authority had raised no objections.

Councillor Birch, in her capacity as Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding parking, refuse, fly-tipping and asked that a number of additional conditions be added should the application be approved, including hard standing to the rear of the property to allow for 2 extra parking spaces, a set of bins per dwelling and a barrier between the front doors of the property and its neighbour.

Having addressed the Committee, Councillor Birch left the room.

Anne Thorley, of a neighbouring property, spoke against the application and voiced safety and parking concerns. She further stated that the room sizes were small.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that consideration had to take place on the basis of the information submitted and in any event, the Highway Authority had not objected to the application as it was deemed that there would be no increase in the impact of parking after the change.  For similar reasons, a screen between the development and the adjoining property could not be secured. It was noted that details of refuse storage were a condition of the application, however, the wording could be refined in order to make it clear that separate storage should be provided for each dwelling.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report with amended Conditions 6 and 7.

Councillor Birch left the Committee meeting at this point.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an amended Condition 2. The Committee were informed that several lower levels of the building were not suitable for habitation so would be used for storage and that an additional condition had been added in order to secure a management strategy, which also responded to the comments from the Police.

Amy Hartley and Christopher Adams, agents on behalf of the applicant, stated that they were happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

In response to questions, the Committee were informed that it would be up to providers to find students to occupy the site but it was primarily for University of Northampton students.

In response to further questions in respect of the site management, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the condition specified the matters that would need to be included in the management strategy, this would need to be agreed by the Council prior to the use commencing and that the operator would need to adhere to this strategy over the life of the development.

RESOLVED:

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

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that as part of the application, a new lift shaft would be added to aid access in and out from the building and cladding introduced to improve its appearance.

Amy Hartley and Christopher Adams, agents on behalf of the applicant, stated that they were happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

In response to questions, the Committee were assured that ACM cladding would not be used.

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 and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the property was located close to shops and well served by public transport links. It was noted that room sizes complied with Private Sector Housing standards and that should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 5.7%.

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 and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be less than 5%. It was noted that a condition was included to ensure that the basement would not be used as a bedroom at any time.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and stated that the application represented an overdevelopment, resulting in an unbalanced community.

In response to a question, Councillor Stone confirmed that the area was not served by a parking permit scheme.

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 and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that due to parking restrictions in place in the area, the Highway Authority raised no objections to the application. It was noted that should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 12.5%.

Nick Barron, a local resident, spoke against the application and stated that he was speaking on behalf of 18 further residents who also objected to the application. He raised concerns regarding parking, security, refuse and fly-tipping and the impact on neighbouring residential and commercial properties.

Sue Wood, a local resident, spoke against the application and voiced highway and refuse concerns. She also stated her disagreement with the officers’ assertion of HIMO concentration.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and asked that the item be deferred until an investigation to ascertain the proper concentration of HIMO properties could be completed.

Pat Dooley, agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and stated that interest in the property as offices had been limited and that as a HIMO, the property would be closer to its original use as a dwellinghouse.

In response to a question, it was explained that a management company would be employed to maintain the property.

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, Councillor Choudary left the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the property was previously used as a care home and that an application to change the use to a HIMO property for 7 occupants had been refused, with a subsequent appeal dismissed on the basis of HIMO concentration only. Some internal changes were proposed as part of the application.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and stated that the property would be more densely populated than it would as a 7 person HIMO, should the application be approved.

Pat Dooley, agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and noted that the HIMO application had been refused on the grounds of HIMO density, not parking. He stated that this was the most appropriate use of the property.

Members discussed the report.

REOLVED:

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

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an amendment to Condition 2 and a correction to the report.

Janice Grover, the chairperson of a local residents association, spoke against the application and voiced concerns regarding parking, refuse and fly-tipping. She stated that whilst the residents welcomed varied occupants and tried to help them to integrate, problems persisted.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that the parking situation in the area had become dangerous. She voiced further concerns around antisocial behaviour and stated that not all HIMO properties in the area were registered as such.

Volo Dymya, agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED due to there being no residual parking capacity for vehicles in the area, and the fact that the proposed change of use would generate a greater parking demand than existing, the proposed development would have a detrimental impact upon parking provision, highway safety and surrounding amenity contrary to Policy H5 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, saved Policy H30 of the Northampton Local Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

At this juncture, Councillors Davenport and Lane left the meeting and Councillor Smith moved to the public gallery.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the property was located close to local amenities and was well served by public transport links. It was noted that the report contained a condition to ensure that the basement would not be used as a bedroom at any time and that the room sizes all met PSH standards. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 1.1%. It was further noted that the Highway Authority had objected to the application based on the cumulative impact of HIMOs in the vicinity.

Councillor Smith, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and voiced concerns regarding parking. She commented that living close to the town centre did not necessarily equate to not owning a vehicle.

Having addressed the Committee, Councillor Smith left the room.

Members discussed the report.

REOLVED:

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

At this juncture, Councillors Davenport and Smith re-joined the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and belaboured thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an update with regards to the HIMO concentration in the immediate area. The Committee were informed that should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 9.6% and that due to parking restrictions in place, the Highway Authority had raised no objections. It was noted that during the site visit, an occupant had been discovered in the basement and that enforcement action was underway to remove them.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding overdevelopment, refuse and fly-tipping and questioned how the Council would ensure that the basement was not used as a bedroom.

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 and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the proposed development would increase facilities in the nearby area.

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, Councillors Kilbride and M Markham left the room.

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that there were similar developments in the nearby area.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The application was withdrawn from the agenda.

The application was withdrawn from the agenda.

There were none.

There were none.