Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bottwood, Birch, B Markham and Haque. The Chair announced that Councillor Kilby-Shaw would be arriving late. The Chair further announced that Councillor Hallam had registered to speak, however he was unable to attend but would like his comments reiterated in relation to item 10c.

(Copy herewith)

The minutes of the meeting held on 30^th July 2019 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

That under the following items, the members of the public and Ward Councillors below were granted leave to address the Committee:

N/2018/1722

Councillor Smith

Paul Flatt

N/2019/0404

John Green

Gavin Warren

N/2019/0481

Bob Woolard

N/2019/0519

Rhys Bradshaw

N/2019/0647

Pat Dooley

Councillor Smith

Nick Archer

N/2019/0680

Councillor Stone

Pat Dooley

N/2019/0736

Councillor Smith

N/2019/0811

Councillor Stone

Oliver McLaughlin

N/2019/0884

Councillor Smith

Deirdre Rockingham

N/2019/0680

Councillor Stone

Pat Dooley

N/2019/0866

Pat Dooley

N/2019/0904

Pat Dooley

N/2019/0253

James Thorpe

N/2019/0385

Mrs Withey

James Thorpe

Councillor Kilbride declared a disclosable and pecuniary interest in respect of items 11a and 11b as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes (NPH).

Councillor M Markham declared a disclosable and pecuniary interest in respect of items 11a and 11b as a board member of NPH.

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

There were none.

(Copy herewith)

Councillor McCutcheon joined the meeting at this juncture. He advised of no declarations of interest or predetermination.

The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries on behalf of the Head of Planning and reported that the Inspector had dismissed 6 appeals, the initial decisions having been made under delegated authority. Of note was an appeal relating to 56 St Leonards Road which was granted planning permission for a change of use from dwellinghouse to House in Multiple Occupation for 3 occupants. An application to vary a condition to increase the number of occupants to 4 was dismissed by Planning Officers on flooding grounds due to the property’s location within Flood Zone 3; the Inspector agreed with this decision.

In response to a question relating to a retrospective application and dismissed appeal, the Development Manager explained that the applicant would now be the subject of the Planning Department’s enforcement process.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

There were none.

There were none.

The Development Manager submitted a report to the Committee. Members were informed that presently, the clock tower was accessed via wooden ladders; the proposed development would comprise of aluminium ladders and platforms, making access to the clock tower easier and safer. It was noted that Historic England had been consulted whilst making the Listed Building Consent application and had no objections. Any harm caused to the building was considered less than substantial when compared to the benefits that the development would produce.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

(Copy of addendum herewith)

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained comments from Private Sector Housing and an additional neighbour objection. The Committee were informed that currently, the property’s basement was split and used as 2 bedrooms; the rear room would remain a bedroom and the front converted to a living space, with the front and rear basement windows being enlarged. The ground floor living room would be converted to a bedroom. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMOs in a 50m radius would be 10.2%. It was explained that Private Sector Housing were satisfied with the room sizes and that the property had adequate storage for waste and bicycles. Whilst the Local Highway Authority had objected to the application, the property sat within a sustainable location, close to shops and public transport links.

Councillor Smith, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor for Abington, spoke against the application and commented that the basement was unsuitable to be used as a bedroom. She further raised concerns around the small number of bathrooms to be shared by the occupants, and around parking. Councillor Smith noted that parking restrictions in the area had recently been increased.

Paul Flatt, a local resident, spoke against the application and commented that the Council’s behaviour encouraged HIMOs in the town, that the Council was in breach of its own concentration levels with regard to HIMOs and that developers seemed to be trying to get HIMO licences in place before new laws came into effect. He further stated that an officer in the Planning Department had told him that there were more unlicensed HIMOs than HIMOs with licences but due to “resource problems”, most went un-investigated.

In response to a question, Mr Flatt explained that occupants of student HIMOs in the area were persistent offenders when it came to waste dumped on the street.

The Head of Planning explained that figures relating to concentration came from a variety of sources and that all complaints were investigated. He noted that around half of complaints investigated regarding unlicensed HIMOs revealed large families living together, as well as other alternative living situations.

In response to a question regarding the toilet/bathroom facilities, the Development Management Team Leader explained that they met statutory requirements in relation to the provision of those facilities.

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 to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further comments from the Local Highway Authority regarding the design of the access. The Committee heard that the Councillor Nunn had emailed the Planning Department in relation to the application, reiterating points made by local residents and by Collingtree Parish Council. He also thanked Planning officers for their work on the amended plans.

The Development Management Team Leader explained that the site was situated in the conservation area and comprised an enclosed paddock area to the rear of a public house and part of the pub’s rear garden. The proposal would comprise 2 detached dwellings, each with double garages and 3 parking spaces. It was explained that whilst a number of objections referred to the loss of open space, the area was privately owned. The proposed footprint of the development would encroach on the pub’s garden by 10m, although 25m of the garden would remain; this was amended to ensure that sufficient space was left between the development and existing structures. It was explained that elevations facing existing properties would either be blank, or if windows were proposed, these would be an appropriate distance away or obscure glazed. The nearest listed building from the proposed development was 30m away and Members were informed that the Local Highway were happy with the plans following amendments.

John Green, Chairman of Collingtree Conservation Area Committee, spoke against the application and commented that many community events took place on the green space, the closest being a fete on 7^th September 2019, and suggested that the report’s statement that the development “would have an acceptable impact upon community facilities” was incorrect.

In response to a question, Mr Green explained that the site was the only area of open space left in the village, and although privately owned had been used for village fetes and to develop it would be a huge loss to locals.  The site also did not provide sufficient room for passing vehicles or refuse vehicles.

Gavin Warren, the developer on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the Chair of Collingtree Parish Council had praised developers for the application and explained that the large access was in line with suggestions made by the Local Highway Authority.

In response to a question, Mr Warren stated that whilst the loss of open space was lamentable, there was a pressing need for housing and the application was respectful of the area.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Russell left the room at this juncture.

The Development Manager submitted a report to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further neighbour and councillor objections. The Committee were advised that the proposed development would comprise of a single-storey, prefabricated structure, taking up approximately 4 parking spaces. The business would use up to 10 parking spaces and would create 3.5 full time employment opportunities The loss of parking spaces represented a minor impact on the site. Opening times for the car store would be similar to the supermarket and Members noted that planning permission would only last for 3 years due to the potential for the appearance of the modular to deteriorate over time.

Bob Woolard, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that there had been no statutory objections to the application. He advised that this was a new way of buying vehicles in a fast-changing industry.

In response to a question, Mr Woolard explained that around 10 applications for car stores had been approved so far.

The Development Manager advised that after 3 years, the applicant would need to submit another planning application to keep the store.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Russell re-joined the meeting and Councillor Lane left the room at this juncture.

The Development Manager submitted a report to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained additional representations and amendments to minor errors within the report. The Committee were informed that the application sought approval for single storey and two storey rear extension and a first floor extension over the garage, and alterations to the front porch roof. The application as originally submitted proposed much larger extensions, however these were reduced following neighbour objections. It was noted that if some elements of the proposal were slightly smaller, the development would have been acceptable under permitted development rights.

Rhys Bradshaw, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the plans, both external and internal, had been amended, addressing neighbour concerns. He further commented that the main patio area would be to the side of the property, not at the front. He also noted that there would now not be any overbearing or overshadowing from the proposed development.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillors Lane and Russell re-joined the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further objections in the form of a petition. The Committee heard that a small rear projection would be demolished to allow for a single-storey extension to create a new bedroom. The living room would be retained as part of the development. Should Members be minded to approve the application, the concentration of HiMOs would be 12.6%.

Councillor Smith, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and voiced concerns around parking, stating that the situation in the area was “impossible and dangerous”.

Nick Archer, a local resident, spoke against the application and commented that the area was overdeveloped and suggested that the applicant’s refusal to carry out a parking beat survey was suspicious. He stated that the development would result in a loss of light to his kitchen and stated that it would not be in-keeping with the rest of the street.

Pat Dooley, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that due to the property being within a sustainable location, the applicant was under no obligation to carry out a parking beat survey. He noted that a family of 4 might have the same number of vehicles as 4 adults. Mr Dooley explained that the applicant had chosen to retain the communal living space as he wanted to offer a high-quality property.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the height of the proposed extension was not such that it would cause unacceptable overshadowing of Mr Archer’s property. It was also advised that with regards to parking the site was in a sustainable location, within walking distance of bus stops and a local shopping centre and as such the proposal complied with the HiMO IPPS.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Kilby-Shaw arrived at this juncture and advised of no declarations of interest/predetermination.

The Development Manager submitted a report to the Committee. The Committee heard that the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 13.5%. It was noted that whilst the Local Highway Authority had objected to the application, however the property sat within a sustainable location close to public transport links and shopping facilities.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that the area faced huge pressures, including gangs, insufficient parking and prostitution. She stated that families were leaving the area due to the increase of HIMOs.

Pat Dooley, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the proposed HIMO could be similar to a family home, in terms of vehicles used by the occupants. He explained that the property would include a communal space for occupants and that the locale made it ideal for professionals who would walk to work in the town centre.

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 to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained additional comments from Private Sector Housing. The Committee were informed that a small projection to the rear of the property would be removed and replaced with a single-storey extension, creating an additional bedroom. The dining room would have a corridor inserted and be changed to a bedroom, and the lounge would also be converted to a bedroom. It was explained that the number and siting of bathrooms within the property complied with the Council’s IPPS regarding HIMOs. Should Members be minded to approve the application, the concentration of HIMOs in a 50m radius would be 9.5%. The Local Highway Authority had requested that a parking beat survey be undertaken, however with the property sitting in a sustainable location, it was not a statutory requirement.

Councillor Smith, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and advised that a “constant stream of HIMO applications” had left local residents feeling incredibly frustrated. She further commented that the proposal would result in parking and refuse issues, and that the loss of garden space meant that it would be more difficult to turn the property back into a family home.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Manager submitted a report to the Committee. Members were informed that the property was currently operating as a HIMO but did not yet have planning permission. The proposed bedrooms would all have en suite facilities and should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMOs in a 50m radius would be 8.6%. Due to parking restrictions in place in the area, the Local Highway Authority had not raised objections to the application.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and voiced concerns regarding the high number of HIMO applications in the area, as well as parking, waste and fly-tipping. She stated that the area was no longer balanced and expressed her disapproval of retrospective applications.

Oliver McLaughlin, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and stated that there had been no complaints from neighbours regarding the occupants or their parking.

In response to a question, Mr McLaughlin explained that he was not aware at the time of purchasing that the property sat within an Article 4 area, and sought to rectify the issue as soon as it came to light. He also used this time to make improvements to the property.

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 to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an additional neighbour objection. It was explained that the lounge and dining room would be converted to bedrooms and a shared kitchen/lounge would be created. Should the application be approved by Members, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 14.09% (including a property given planning permission for a change of use to HIMO earlier at the meeting). Whilst the Local Highway had not objected to the application, they did issue a warning around parking pressures in the area. The Officer explained that as with the application approved earlier within this committee, the application site is located within a sustainable location, within walking distance of bus stops and a local shopping centre and as such complies with the Council’s HiMO IPPS with regards to parking. The Officer advised that Planning Inspectors are consistently of the view that HIMOs within sustainable locations do not require parking.

Councillor Smith, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and voiced concerns around parking and that NCC Highways objected for the application over the road but not for this application. She stated that the Planning Committee were “held to ransom” by the Inspector since refusals based on parking grounds would not hold up at appeal.

Deirdre Rockingham, a local resident, spoke against the application and commented that the area had changed completely in the time that she had lived there, due to the influx of HIMOs. She explained that HiMO occupiers do own cars and double parking is already near-constant, cars were frequently blocked in and reported that recently, a funeral procession had to manoeuvre around double-parked cars. Concerns with regards to refuse issues were also raised.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED against the officer recommendation on highway safety grounds.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report to the Committee. Members were informed that a small single-storey rear extension would be built to create a shower room/toilet, the dining room would be converted to a bedroom and the living room would be retained. A new shower room and toilet would be created on the first floor with an existing bedroom enlarged, and a bedroom with en suite facilities would be created in the loft space. The property would comprise of 5 bedrooms in total and should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 10.14%. Although Highways had requested a parking beat survey, this had not been undertaken by the applicant, however due to the siting of the property within a sustainable location the proposal was considered to comply with the Council’s requirements.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that transients occupying HIMOs made it difficult to create cohesive communities. She also voiced concerns around parking and antisocial behaviour in the area.

Pat Dooley, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that his client aimed to provide accommodation that surpassed minimum requirements. He advised that car ownership could be the same among a family with adult children, as a HIMO. He noted that bad management was the reason for HIMO-related issues, not HIMOs themselves.

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 to the Committee. Members were informed that a rear conservatory would be replaced with a single-storey extension, to allow for an extension to the kitchen.  An en suite bedroom would be created at the front of the ground floor, with 2 further en suite bedrooms on the upper floors and 2 sharing bathroom facilities. Should the application be approved by the Committee, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 5.3%. Whilst the Local Highway Authority had objected to the application, the property sat within a sustainable location, close to public transport links and shopping facilities.

Pat Dooley, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the property would be completed to a very high standard, and that the applicant was looking to create storage “pods” in the basement for use by occupants, further improving the amenities in the property.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Cali left the meeting at this juncture.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn the addendum which contained further objections from neighbours and the Ward Councillor. The Committee heard that as part of the development, the rear roof would be raised to allow for the creation of a shower room. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMOs in a 50m radius would be 7.2%. The Local Highway Authority had requested that a parking beat survey be undertaken, however, the applicant declined siting a recent approval in the area where Highways advised there was residual parking.  In addition, the site is in a sustainable location.

Pat Dooley, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the application was in line with the Council’s IPPS in relation to HIMOs and noted that car ownership may be the same if the property was occupied by a family with adult children.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillors M Markham and Kilbride left the meeting at this juncture, having declared interests. Councillor Cali re-joined the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee and advised of further updates not contained in the addendum, with condition 2 (plans) to be amended to include the site plan. The Committee were informed that as part of the development, a net increase of 3 additional parking spaces would be created, including new spaces opposite the site on Tonmead Road.

Mrs Withey had left the meeting at this point; the Chair used his discretion to allow her husband to speak on her behalf. Mr Withey spoke against the application and commented that the 3 new spaces on Tonmead Road posed a danger to drivers and further stated that the loss of the parking court and garages would cause huge disruption to residents. Mr Withey noted that his property would overlook the proposed properties’ gardens and further noted that the site was not big enough for two houses and raised concern with the access to these properties being unsafe.

In response to questions, Mr Withey confirmed that NPH held a consultation meeting at a local community centre.

James Thorpe, Construction Manager for NPH, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the proposed dwellings were purpose-built for elderly residents, of which 3,000 were on a waiting list. He noted that 1 garage was occupied and a replacement had been offered 40m away. James Thorpe further advised that NPH had worked with the Planning Officer and NCC Highways to increase parking and ensure the development is safe.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the 3 spaces on Tonmead Road had been created in consultation with the Local Highway Authority.

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 to the Committee. Members were informed that the application sought approval for the demolition of 12 garages to create 1 new build property and 6 new parking spaces. An area of hardstanding would be retained to allow neighbouring properties with rear garages to retain access to these.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

There were none.