Agenda and minutes

There were none.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13^th March 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 to leave to address the Committee:

N/2018/0264

Leonard Lean

N/2017/1454

Rob Palmer

Jane Lassitter

Councillor Stone

Paul Lever

N/2017/1538

Councillor Smith

N/2018/0027

Councillor Meredith

N/2018/0081

Colin Clayson

Mr Tim Hadland

Councillor Flavell

N/2018/0093

Councillor Russell

N/2018/0238

Virginia Wilson

N/2018/0375

Geoffery Pollard

Councillor Larratt

Mr Panter

Councillor Smith declared a personal and predetermined interest in Item 10b – N/2017/1538 and would be speaking against the application. She notified the Chair that once she had made her address, she would leave the room and take no part in the discussion.

There were none.

The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon. It was noted that the planning inspectorate had not supported the decisions of the Committee and appeals in relation to applications N/2017/0702 and N/2017/1192 had been allowed.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. It was noted that an amended resolution had been tabled to amend paragraph 1.2 and add additional representation received in relation to concerns raised regarding projected employment figures and the amount of freight carried by rail in comparison to road. It was explained that Northampton Borough Council were not the determining authority and noted that there would be further opportunities to feed into the consultation process.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

1.1         That it be AGREED that the proposed comments, as set out in Section 10 of this report, be submitted as the Council’s response to the consultation of the proposed Strategic Rail Freight Interchange development and the proposed works at Junction 15a of the M1 motorway and as amended:

10.1 The Government sets out objectives and a long term vision for a low carbon sustainable transport system for economic growth and the promotion of a transfer of freight from road to rail.  Notwithstanding this, a development of the nature proposed and of such magnitude will inevitably have impacts and appropriate and proportionate mitigation should be sought. 

10.10 Request further evidence and substantiation of proposed employment generation arising from the development, particularly in light of changes in technology in relation to warehouse operation and the potential reduction in the number of employees required.

10.11   Concern is raised regarding the amount of freight handled by rail in comparison to road.  It is indicated that 90% of the containers to be handled by Rail Central will be transported by road, with just 10% forecast to be transported by rail.

1.2       That it be NOTED that delegated authority will be given to the Head of Planning to agree a statement of Common Ground with the Applicant and to produce a Local Impact Report for submission to the Planning Inspectorate, by the Borough Secretary in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in accordance with Part 8, Part B, Para 2.1.4 of the Council’s Constitution.”

There were none.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members were asked to give consideration to the additional information that had been provided in the addendum. The Committee were informed that the proposed link road would deliver a key strategic link corridor through the Northampton Enterprise Zone.

Mr Leonard Lean addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He noted that it appeared to be highly desirable but stated there was a need to look at the impact on the urban community and the impact from the loss of the rail line.

Members discussed the report:

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to delegated authority to be given to the Head of Planning to consider any further representations received from the County Ecologist and to condition as appropriate, and subject to seeking a financial contribution towards the provision of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) along the proposed route, and subject to the conditionscontained within the report and with additional conditions 9 to 14 and amended condition 4 as per the addendum.

(addendum attached)

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon and noted that the officer recommendations were for approval of the application subject to conditions set out within the report.

Mr Palmer, a local homeowner spoke against the application and commented that there was already a lack of parking in the area and a high level of fly-tipping. In response to questions asked, Mr Palmer commented that there had been a number of illegal HIMOs that had been dealt with but questioned the number remaining.

Ms Jane Lassitter, local resident, spoke against the application and reported that Victoria Road was already beyond capacity. She spoke of instances of anti-social behaviour that she attributed to the increase in HIMOs.

Councillor Stone, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and cited her concerns about the lack of family homes and environmental degradation.

Mr Paul Lever, owner and applicant, spoke in favour and stated he had been a landlord for 15 years and was a responsible landlord having made adjustments to the application in respect of his original submission.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the density of HIMOs was calculated on the basis of residential properties only within the 50m radius.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

At this point, Cllr Choudary joined the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the Highway Authority had objected to the application on the grounds that there was no residual parking capacity on street.

Councillor Smith, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and reported that it was not a sustainable area and parking issues would further exacerbate existing problems.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that whilst the stair case to the attic room was relatively narrow and steep, such matters were not material to the consideration of the application given that the building was already in use as a domestic dwelling and that the attic space had previously been converted to a bedroom.

Having declared a predetermination, at this juncture of the meeting, Councillor Smith left the room.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED against officer recommendation on highway safety ground. That the formal decision notice will be issued following agreement with the Chair on the final wording of the reason for refusal.

Councillor Smith re-joined the meeting.

The item was withdrawn from the Agenda.

The item was withdrawn from the Agenda.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. He referred to the addendum and noted that NCC Highway Authority had no objections to the proposal.

Councillor Meredith, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and stated that there was evidence of parking problems in the nearby vicinity and criminal activity.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that, at the request of the Highway Authority, a parking beat survey had been carried out, which demonstrated that there was sufficient parking capacity to meet the needs of the development. The methodology used in the survey was to establish the number of spaces available over a varied period of time.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon noting that the officer recommendation was for refusal. It was further noted that a previous submitted application had been refused and the subsequent appeal dismissed.

Mr Clayson, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and stated that he wanted to make improvements to the unsightly building and make it more attractive.

Mr Hadland spoke in favour of the application and commented that it would bring the building into keeping with the rest of the neighbourhood. He stated that it would improve the appearance of the building but would also increase the housing stock.

Councillor Flavell, Ward Councillor, spoke in favour of the application and noted that the current building was unattractive. She commented that she had received no negative comments about the proposed plan from her residents and stated it would bring much needed accommodation to the Town.

Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED against officer recommendation for the reason below and delegated authority to the Head of Planning to draft conditions to be agreed with chair.

By reason of the design, scale and massing of the proposed development, the proposal would not result in significant harm to visual amenity and the historic environment, whilst also contributing to addressing the shortage of housing within Northampton. As there would not be any significant undue adverse impact upon the highway system and neighbour amenity, the proposal would be in conformity with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework; Policy BN5 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy; and Policy 1 of the Northampton Central Area Action Plan.

The Development Manager submitted a report and explained that the officer recommendations were for the approval of the application subject to the conditions contained within the report.

Councillor Russell, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and stated that there were issues with parking and additional density would further impact upon this.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED against officer recommendation on highway safety grounds.  That the formal decision notice will be issued following agreement with the Chair on the final wording of the reason for refusal.

The applications were withdrawn from the agenda.

Councillor Birch left the committee at this juncture.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the additional information contained with the addendum. It was noted that Private Sector Housing had no objections to the room sizes.

Ms Virginia Wilson, local resident, spoke against the application and cited parking issues as a major concern and commented that the only person who would benefit from the application was the landlord.

Members discussed the report

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. It was noted that the officer recommendation was for approval subject to condition set out in the report. Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the addendum.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and referred to the additional information contained within the addendum. She commented that Officer opinion was that the revised scheme and submitted plan were acceptable and the recommendation was for approval.

Mr Geoffrey Pollard, local resident, spoke against the application and stated that this was the third application that had been submitted and considered it necessary to re build.

Councillor Larratt, as Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and reported that the application was trying to get planning permission by constant revisions; plans had not been followed and there had been a disregard of the planning process.

Mr Panter, the applicant and property owner, commented that it was not an attempt at stealth planning. He apologised for the oversights and commented that he was trying to improve the area as the property was previously run down.

In response to comment made by the Committee, the Head of Planning informed the Committee that whilst there had been previous applications, they were only able to consider the item on the report presented and not have regard for previous applications.

The Chair commented that the original application should have been adhered to.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions set out in the reports and with amended Condition 2 and additional Condition 5 contained within the addendum.

None

None