Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Lane and Russell.

The minutes of the meeting held on18 December 2018 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

RESOLVED:

That with the agreement of the Chair, the members of the public and Ward Councillors were granted leave to address the Committee:

N/2018/0904

Councillor Hallam

Peter Travers

Brian Cooper

David Walton

N/2018/0774

Joanne Althorpe

N/2018/1424

Jenny Black

Christopher Black

N/2018/1433

Councillor Stone

Christian Nammour

Suzan Akbulut

N/2018/1469

N/2018/1488

N/2018/1509

N/2018/1513

N/2018/1543, N/2018/1683, N/2018/1684, N/2018/1685

N/2018/1547

N/2018/1548

N/2018/1550

Matthew Berry

N/2018/1588

Councillors Stone

Pat Dooley

N/2018/1622

Councillor Stone

Barry Waine

N/2018/1664

Councillor Stone

Pat Dooley

Councillors Golby and Meredith declared non-pecuniary interests in respect of items 8a and 12a as county councillors.

Councillor Killbride declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of items 8a and 12a as a county councillor and declared a disclosable and pecuniary interest in respect of items 10e, 10f, 10g, 10h, 10i, 10j, 10k 10l and 10m as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes (NPH). 

Councillor M Markham declared a disclosable and pecuniary interest in respect of items 10e, 10f, 10g, 10h, 10i, 10j, 10k 10l and 10m as a board member of NPH.

Councillor Birch declared a non-pecuniary interest for items 8a and 12a as a county councillor and declared a predetermination in respect of item 10o and advised that she would leave the room when the item was considered.

Councillor McCutcheon declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of items 8a and 12a as a county councillor. 

Councillor Bottwood declared a predetermination in respect of item 10b and advised that he would leave the room when the item was considered.  He further declared a disclosable and pecuniary interest in respect of items 10e, 10f, 10g, 10h, 10i, 10j, 10k 10l and 10m as a board member of NPH.

Councillor Zoe Smith declared a predetermination in respect of item 10p and declared that she would leave the room when the item was considered.

There were none.

The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon.  The Committee heard of decisions which were in relation to upcoming items.  5 appeals were dismissed by the Inspectorate following refusals under officer delegated powers.

The Committee heard of a HIMO application for 38 Euston Road which was dismissed because of over concentration as the resultant concentration would reach 17.8%, and that the proposal was in a Flood Zone and the appellant did not provide a suitable basis for assessment of the flood risk arising from the development.

The Committee heard that the appeal was dismissed for a flat roofed dormer on 21 Craven Street as the dormer would extend across the whole width of the property’s rear roof and the Inspector considered that the extension would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as a whole.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

There were none.

There were none

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the proposal seeks outline permission for up to 132 dwellings with vehicular access to the site from Devon Way and Goodwood Avenue. The proposal would provide 35% affordable housing and developer contributions would also be secured by a S106 legal agreement including contributions towards education and healthcare.  The Committee heard that there were no objections from the Highway Authority.

The Principal Planning Officer highlighted the items in the addendum, including the additional neighbour objections and proposed amendment to Condition 18 and deletion of Condition 23. 

Councillor Hallam spoke against the application stating that he believed that there are problems with traffic in this area and expressed concerns about the area being over populated and under resourced.

Peter Travers spoke in objection to the development raising issues of inadequate road capacity, inadequate education and medical provision and ecology concerns

Brian Cooper spoke in objection to the development raising issues of traffic and flooding

David Walton spoke in favour of the application and advised that the site had been identified for housing for in excess of 10 years.  In addition, the scheme has been reduced from the previous proposal for 184 dwellings and there are no objections from statutory consultees. 

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

There were none.

(Copy of addendum herewith)

Councillor McCutcheon left the room at this juncture.

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon and referred to the content of the addendum. The Committee heard that the application related to the variation of conditions 2 and 3 of Planning Permission N/2017/1097. The proposal was to relocate the flats slightly on the site and reconfigure part of the parking layout. The rest of the layout would remain the same as previously approved, apart from minor adjustment as detailed in paragraph 2.2 of the report.

The Committee heard that this was necessary because underground springs were found during the start of construction, therefore a revised layout was required.

As there was a S106 agreement completed with the previous approval, a new S106 would be required covering the same Heads of Terms as before, including 35% affordable housing.

Councillor Meredith suggested that the road in the surrounding area be cleared of mud as it was dangerous.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the finalisation of a S106 agreement and conditions and reasons as set out in the report and amended condition as set out in the addendum.

Councillor McCutcheon re-joined the Committee and Councillor Bottwood left the Committee room at this juncture.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon and referred to the content of the addendum. The Committee heard that the proposal related to a development of 118 dwellings on land west of St Crispin Drive, and that the site forms part of a larger Sustainable Urban Extension site known as Norwood Farm/Upton Lodge allocated for development within the Joint Core Strategy.

The Committee heard that there were no objections in relation to highway or drainage matters, and that the majority of protected trees to the front of the site would be retained.  Whilst there is a presence of protected species in the area, none were found on site.

The Committee heard that 35% of the development will be affordable housing and developer contributions would be secured by a S106 legal agreement including contributions towards education and healthcare.

Joanne Althorpe spoke in favour of the development.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the finalisation of a S106 agreement and conditions and reasons as set out in the report and amended conditions as set out in the addendum.  In addition, additional bullet point to Heads of Terms in relation to 35% affordable housing to be provided and the provision of a link road to the western boundary.

Councillor Bottwood re-joined the Committee at this juncture.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. It was highlighted that the application related to both Units 4 and 5.  In addition, the Committee heard that the proposal sought to expand an existing nursery business into an adjoining vacant warehouse unit to provide a soft play area, offices and weekend party venue.

Jenny Black and Christopher Black spoke in favour of the development.

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 and elaborated thereon and referred to the addendum.  The Committee heard the proposal was for a change of use of a dwellinghouse to a house in multiple occupation for 4 people, not 5, and that the proposal was not retrospective, the use having not commenced.

The proposed HIMO would result in a concentration of 11.2% in a 50m radius.

The Committee heard that the Highway Authority had raised objections on the basis that the proposal would lead to a severe impact on parking provision and highway safety within the area.

Councillor Stone spoke in objection to the development raising parking issues and matters of social cohesion.

Christian Nammour and Suzan Akbulut spoke in favour of the development as the property owners. They advised that rooms would be rented on a no-parking basis.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED against the officer recommendation for the following reason:

‘Due to their 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 aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.’

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard the proposal for a retrospective application for a dormer to the rear of 4 Harold Street.

Officer’s opinion was to reject the application as a previous proposal to retain the dormer had been refused and dismissed at appeal due to impact on the Conservation Area and overlooking, and only slight amendments had been made in the current application, still keeping the same width of the dormer.

In addition, the Committee heard that the addendum contained an additional recommended reason for refusal relating to residential amenity. 

Councillor Stone and Pat Dooley both spoke for the development stating the owner was not aware it was in a conservation area and that consideration needed to be balanced with family needs.

The Chair stated it was a dominant feature that sticks out and did not overcome the Inspector’s concerns.

Councillor Alan Bottwood stated that the proposal was overdevelopment and would set a precedent.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED as per the Officer recommendation and with an additional reason for refusal for inadequate outlook and residential amenity as contained in the Addendum.

Councillor Birch left the room at this juncture.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon and referred to the addendum. The Committee heard the proposal for the change from a dwelling house to a 5 person HIMO, including a rear extension

The Committee heard that the proposal would result in a concentration of 10.6% of HIMOs within a 50m radius.  There were no highway objections.

Councillor Stone spoke against the development stating that the HIMO concentration was not family friendly, and that the rooms were not of sufficient size to live in.

Mr Waine spoke for the application and stated that the property was below the concentration threshold of HIMO’s and was properly maintained.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Birch re-joined the Committee at this juncture. Councillor Smith left the room.

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard the proposal for the change of use from a dwelling house to a HIMO for 4 persons.

The Committee heard that the proposal would result in a concentration of 4.15% within a 50m radius. The Highway Authority has not commented on the application.  Private Sector Housing confirmed that the facilities would be adequate to serve 4 occupants.

Councillor Stone spoke in opposition to the proposal.  She lived near the site and the proposal would result in the loss of a family home.  The front bedroom next to the pavement would have no defensible space from outside.  There were more HIMOs in the area than was claimed.

Pat Dooley spoke in support of the application.  He stated that the application has had no objections from local residents and there were no parking objections raised by Highways.  The site was in a sustainable location.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Item Q was deferred to a future Planning Committee.

Councillor Smith re-joined the Committee at this juncture.  Councillors Kilbride and McCutcheon left the room.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard the proposal related to a consultation from Northamptonshire County Council for the erection of a waste transfer building.

The Committee heard that the potential occupant of this waste transfer building would be Veolia.

The Committee heard that officers had concern regarding the design of the Office/Welfare building at the front of the site and discussions were ongoing with the County Council and the applicant to achieve an improved design.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the Council raised NO OBJECTION IN PRINCIPLE to the proposal subject to the points contained in paragraph 1 of the report.

Councillors M Markham and Bottwood left the room at this juncture.  Councillor McCutcheon re-joined the Committee.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon and referred to the addendum. The Committee heard that the proposal was for the demolition of 15 existing garages and the erection of 2 new properties served by 4 parking spaces.

Matthew Berry spoke in favour of the development.

Members discussed the report. 

Councillor Jane Birch mentioned the issue of security of the properties as there were no other properties overlooking.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard the proposal was for the conversion of a previously vacant community room into a single residential dwelling.  The application proposal was retrospective.  The layout of the dwelling would be similar to other one-bed flats within the block. The proposal would add to the Borough’s housing supply and no objections were received following public consultation.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the proposal was for the demolition of two existing garages and construction of two new dwellings including the provision of 6 parking spaces.

Members discussed the report. 

RESOLVED:

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

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the proposal was for the demolition of 4 garages and the construction of 2 new dwellings served by 4 parking spaces.

Members discussed the report. 

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard the proposal for the construction of car parking area with 11 spaces off Rosgill Place.

The Committee heard that poor quality trees were to be removed. The Committee further heard that the Planning Department had received a letter of support from a member of the public.  The proposal would improve parking facility and highway safety.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon and referred to the content of the addendum. The Committee heard the proposal of 4 different locations in close proximity to each other for the construction of parking sites off Grange Road.  The existing sites were either grass verges or incidental open space. 

The Committee heard that the development would increase pedestrian safety and improve parking facilities, but would  include the removal of  poor quality trees.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That all four applications be APPROVED subject to conditions and reasons as set out in the reports and addendum.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard the proposal for the demolition of twelve existing garages and the construction of two new dwellings.  In addition, 13 parking spaces would be provided to the rear of the site.  Attention was drawn to the addendum which included an amendment to the approved plans condition.

Members discussed the report. 

RESOLVED:

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

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard the proposal for the demolition of 6 existing garages to provide parking spaces and the construction of two new bungalows.  Attention was drawn to the addendum which included an amendment to the tree protection condition.

The Committee heard that the Development Manager recommended that members accept the proposal with conditions regarding tree protection.

Members discussed the report. 

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard the proposal for the demolition of 8 domestic garages and the construction of two new dwellings.

The Committee heard there were no objections from statutory consultees to this proposal.  One objection was received from a local resident regarding reduction of parking in the area.  A total of 13 car parking spaces would be provided, 5 to serve the dwellings and 8 new parking spaces to serve other residents.

Good separation distances from existing dwellings would be maintained and the proposal would provide a good standard of accommodation.

Councillor Golby commented that these were good applications from   NPH.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

There were none.