Agenda and minutes
Venue: The Jeffrey Room, The Guildhall, St. Giles Square, Northampton, NN1 1DE. View directions
Contact: Email: democraticservices@northampton.gov.uk 01604 837722
Note | No. | Item | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bottwood, Meredith, M Markham, Kilbride, Smith and Choudary. |
||||
(Copy herewith) Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Lane was not present at the 31 October 2018 Committee meeting. Subject to this correction, the minutes of the meeting held on 31 October 2018 and 20 November 2018 were agreed and signed by the Chair. |
||||
Deputations / Public Addresses Minutes: RESOLVED:
That with the agreement of the Chair, the members of the public and Ward Councillors were granted leave to address the Committee:
N/2018/1122 Councillor Davenport
N/2018/1457 Ceri Cottrel
N/2018/1461 Pat Dooley
N/2018/1463 Councillor Davenport Andrew Meadows
N/2018/1467 Gary Owens
N/2018/1491 Pat Dooley Alison Chapman
N/2018/1546 Ann Brooks John Connolly Councillor Joyce Gary Owens
N/2018/1576 Gary Owens |
||||
Declarations of Interest/Predetermination Minutes: Councillor McCutcheon declared a predetermination as the County Councillor for the wardin respect of item 10g and advised that he would leave the room whilst this item was discussed. |
||||
Matters of Urgency Which by Reason of Special Circumstances the Chair is of the Opinion Should be Considered Minutes:
|
||||
.... |
List of Current Appeals and Inquiries PDF 85 KB Report of Head of Planning (copy herewith) Minutes: The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that five decisions reached were allowed and two were dismissed. Out of the 4 allowed, they were applications for a change of use to HIMOs refused by the Planning Committee, against officers’ recommendations. The Inspectors considered that the sites were within sustainable locations and the HIMOs would not cause significant impact on highway safety. In terms of 39 St Michaels Road, the Inspector considered that 15.1% concentration was not significant.
RESOLVED:
That the report be noted. |
|||
Other Reports Minutes: There were none. |
||||
Northamptonshire County Council Applications Minutes: There were none. |
||||
Northampton Borough Council Applications Minutes: There were none. |
||||
(Copy herewith) Minutes: The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the proposed development was to subdivide existing retail unit into two retail units with three flats above. The proposal also includes first floor extension to the rear and a single storey extension to the side. There would be minor alteration to the shopfront. . Three on-site parking spaces would be provided to the rear of the property. It was highlighted the Planning Legislation allows two flats to be provided above a shop, theoretically four flats could be provided above the shop units without planning permission .
Councillor Julie Davenport spoke against the application and commented that the access road is decaying badly with limited room for manoeuvring. She was concerned about parking at the property and realised planning permission would not be required if the proposal had been for four flats but she felt this should be looked at in isolation.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and within additional condition requiring additional information on the layout of the ground floor bathroom. |
||||
(Copy herewith) Minutes: The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee was advised that the loss of bungalow was not material consideration. It was highlighted that the neighbouring property, number 53, has three windows on the side elevation facing the proposed extension. One of the windows was obscurely glazed but were not principal windows to that property. There would be two proposed dormers to the front including a roof light. One of the dormers and the roof light would be obscure glazed reducing the impact of overlooking. .
Ceri Cottrel, home owner of 46 Barn Owl Close, spoke in favour of the application, referring to the windows of the neighbouring property, 53 Barn Owl Close. Mrs Cottrel stated that the blinds are constantly closed on the windows therefore lighting and privacy should not be affected.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||||
(Copy herewith) Minutes: Councillor Lane joined the meeting at this juncture.
The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee was advised that the application complied with public sector housing policy; there are not objections from Highways and there would be a 9.52% concentration of HIMOs in that area, which would be below the threshold.
Pat Dooley, architect on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented on the accessibility to public transport in the area and that his client is an experienced landlord of HIMOs which would help to control any refuge issues.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||||
(Copy herewith) Minutes: The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee was advised that the previous application for a HIMO had been refused for four occupants in July 2018. The current application is for three occupants with the fourth room proposed as a utility room.
Councillor Julie Davenport, ward Councillor, spoke against the application querying whether there had been a recent consultation with the Environment Agency and whether the bedroom on the ground floor had been subject to a flood investigation report. Councillor Davenport also queried whether the data in respect of HIMOs in the area was correct.
The Development Manager confirmed that the data in respect of HIMOs in the area is correct, being 13.95%; including an application for 161 Euston Road that is in progress. The Environment Agency (EA) raised no objection to the previous application which has an identical ground floor layout including a bedroom to the front. No comment was received from the EA this time.
Andrew Meadows, applicant, spoke for the application assuring the Committee that he is an experienced landlord of HIMOs. It will be aimed at student housing and most students do not own vehicles therefore parking should not be an issue. The property is near to public transport links. The property has not flooded in the last three years. Mr Meadows visits the property every three weeks to ensure that there is no anti-social behaviour issues.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report, with an additional condition to restrict the use of the first floor utility room not to be used as a bedroom at any time. |
||||
(Copy herewith) Minutes: The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon.
Gary Owens, on behalf of the applicant, spoke for the application advising that this development is part of a longer term plan for regeneration and after consultation the residents wanted a café.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||||
(Copy herewith) Minutes: The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee was advised Highways had on comments on the application for the HIMO. This HIMO would increase the percentage of concentration in the area to 8.51%.
Alison Chapman spoke against the application commenting on parking, refuse and anti-social behaviour issues because of the high level of concentration of HIMOs in the locality.
Pat Dooley, Agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application, commenting that the landlord is experienced and the rooms would be let to professional people only.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report |
||||
(Copy herewith) Minutes: At this junction Councillor McCutcheon left the meeting.
The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee was advised that application was around the demolition of the garages and the development of two single bed properties also providing seven off street parking spaces.
Mrs Ann Brooks, Chair of Save Our Garage Campaign, spoke against the application commented that the initial consultation letter from NPH did not match the plans shown. The relocation of garages within a mile is not practical for the garage owners.
John Connolly spoke against the application commenting that there does not appear to be an impact assessment regarding the safety of the junction between Keswick Drive and Churchill Avenue.
Councillor Joyce, ward Councillor, spoke against application, advising that the junction is dangerous. He highlighted that the garages had been refurbished recently.
Gary Owens, on behalf of the applicant, spoke for the application, commenting that NPH has a significant number of replacement garages to offer to residents. Not all garages are currently let; some are in disrepair.
At this point, the Committee adjourned at 19:15 hours and reconvened at 19:30 hours. At this juncture, Councillor Golby temporarily left the meeting.
In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the Council did not have any planning policy regarding the retention of garages, or that garages be used for the parking of cars. Whilst it was noted that the sites nearby could be developed for housing, the decision had to be made based upon the merits of the proposal.
RESOLVED:
That the application be DEFERRED to enable officers to explore with the applicant opportunities to retain some garages, create additional car parking and to revise the design of the development. Following such amendments, a further period of public consultation would follow before the application would be reported back to committee. |
||||
(Copy herewith) Minutes: Councillors Golby and McCutcheon re-joined the meeting at this juncture.
The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee was advised that planning permission had already been granted but the design has been adapted.
Gary Owens, on behalf of the applicant, offered to respond to any questions from the Committee. There were none.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||||
Enforcement Matters Minutes: There were none. |
||||
Items For Consultation Minutes: There were none. |
Follow us on…