Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received. It was noted that Councillor M Markham was traveling and was expected to be arriving late.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4^th September 2018 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/2018/0710

Councillor G Eales

Raymond Dumont

Kevin Fisher

Stephen Lucas

Councillor McCutcheon declared a personal and disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of item 10c and advised that he would leave the room whilst the item was discussed.

Councillor Smith declared a predetermination in respect of item 10a and advised that she would leave the room whilst the item was discussed.

There were none.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further representations and an additional condition. The Committee heard that the majority of the site was covered by wildlife and protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs).  The presence of protected species had been noted and mitigated by conditions. It was explained that a new right-turn from the site would be created exiting the site and Members noted that the Highway Authority had not raised an objection to the application.

Councillor G Eales, in his capacity as the Ward and County Councillor for Spencer, spoke against the application and voiced concerns around the potential impact on wildlife, traffic and the lack of lighting. His primary concern was security and he stated that the area would see an increase in crime if the site was opened.

Responding to a question, Councillor Eales explained that many residents he had spoken to had seen wildlife on the site, and noted that the report referred to badgers.

Raymond Dumont, a local resident, spoke against the application and stated that there had been a lack of transparency surrounding the application as he believed there had been no feedback following the consultation and that the traffic survey had taken place whilst Harlestone Road was closed. Mr Dumont raised further concerns related to noise, security and overshadowing of existing properties.

In response to a question, Mr Dumont stated that he had previously seen the lake freeze over which concerned him if children were to have access to it.

Kevin Fisher, a local resident, spoke against the application and voiced concerns around flooding and stated that there was not enough information on the plan to make an informed decision.

Stephen Lucas, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and noted that there were no highway or ecology objections; he explained that 25% of the land would be retained, including lakeside woodland which would be fenced off. He further stated that the applicant would agree to the addition of a gate to serve the site, if the Committee requested it.

In response to questions, Mr Lucas stated that a buffer zone would be created between the developments and the lake, with fencing to be erected that was suitable for wildlife. He explained that it would be the responsibility of the developer to maintain the wildlife area and that these details would form part of a management plan; residents would pay a service charge in respect of this maintenance.

Responding to a question related to the highway survey, Mr Lucas commented that the Highway authority would have taken all factors into account when making their comments.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Wildlife Trust and Ecology Inspector had found no evidence of great crested newts on the site.

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 and with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

Councillor M Markham joined the meeting at this juncture.

The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. She reported that 1 appeal had been dismissed and 2 allowed. An application relating to 59 Clarke Road had been submitted with incorrect plans; Officers gave the applicant time to submit the correct plans and once received, the Highway authority objected to the application so it was refused under delegated powers. However, the deadline for determination of the application had passed so the appeal was allowed automatically.

In response to questions, it was explained that whilst the application could have been refused due to the plans being incorrect, officers wanted to give the applicant the chance to submit the correct ones. The Head of Planning advised that this would not set a precedent for future developers to do this on purpose.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

There were none.

There were none.

There were none.

(addendum herewith)

At this juncture Councillor Smith left the room.

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn the addendum which contained an additional condition relating to a surface water management strategy. The Committee heard that the proposed extension was considered modest compared to the existing structure, the design in-keeping and that no parking spaces were to be affected. It was noted that some overshadowing would occur but the impact would not be severe. Whilst parking concerns were acknowledged, the application would only be improving existing facilities.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that no extraction was proposed as part of the development as the kitchen was existing and would simply be improved upon. Members were advised that nobody lived on the site.

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 and with additional Condition 6.

At this juncture Councillor McCutcheon left the room.

Councillor Smith re-joined the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. He explained that if no objections were raised during consultation, the Council had no grounds to object to an application.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the Authority’s PRIOR APPROVAL NOT BE REQUIRED for the reasons as set out in the report.

There were none.

Councillor McCutcheon re-joined the meeting.

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. It was explained that outline planning permission had been granted in March 2016, NBC having raised no objections at the time. The applicant since requested to vary the plans to warehousing units instead of a mix of warehouse and factory units. The Development Manager noted that regarding the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, there were no issues in terms of policy and advised that the Council would ask South Northamptonshire Council to reconfirm details of assessments of the impacts on transport, drainage, noise and air quality.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the Council RAISE NO OBJECTION to the proposed amendment to Condition 2 of planning permission S/2016/0400/EIA and that a full assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on transport, drainage, noise and air quality be carried out.