Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lane.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17^th October 2017 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/2017/1312

Andrew Bodman

Rod Sellers

N/2017/1362

Councillor Sally Beardsworth

N/2017/1096

Councillor Stone

N/2017/0695

Councillor Stone

Mr Simmons

N/2017/0836

(Parish Cllr) Richard Matthews

N/2017/0983

Councillor Stone

N/2017/1029

Chris Parr

N/2017/1034

Councillor Stone

N/2017/1153

Councillor Stone

N/2017/1157

Stephen Pearce

Lynn Micallef

Chris Parr

N/2017/1283

Councillor Birch

Alan Ogilvie

Alan Borrell

Jennie Hann

N/2017/1304

Mark Evans

N/2017/1305

Vikkie Maloney

N/2017/1391

Laura Elliott

N/2017/1213

Councillor Sally Beardsworth

Patrick Cross

Councillor Oldham declared an interest in item 10c as the Ward Councillor.

Councillor Kilbride declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in items 10d, 10f, 10k, 10m, 10n, 10q, 10t, 10u, 10v and 10w as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes.

Councillor M Markham declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in items 10d, 10f, 10k, 10m, 10n, 10q, 10t, 10u, 10v and 10w as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes, and a predetermination in item 12a.

Councillor Davenport declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in items 10h, 10j, 10k, 10m, 10n, 10o and 10p as the Ward Councillor.

Councillor Birch declared a predetermination in item 10p and advised that she would leave the room after addressing the Committee.

Councillor Smith declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in item 10a as the Ward Councillor.

There were none.

The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon. It was noted that there were no further updates; all decisions were still awaited.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that planning permission had previously been granted for the development of the site; that the footpath would be diverted around  the previously approved building. Members heard that the bunding was necessary to provide visual and noise mitigation  and that any inconvenience caused by the increased length of the diversion of the footpath would be offset by improvements to the path.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED that an Order be made pursuant to Section 257 of the Town and Country Act 1990 as set out in the report.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that this related to a consultation on a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project which would be determined by the Planning Inspectorate.  The majority of planned works would be in South Northamptonshire comprising an intermodal freight terminal and up to 468,000 sq. m. of warehousing and associated road infrastructure and landscaping.  Works within Northampton Borough would comprise ofimprovements to junctions 15 and 15a of the M1 and to theA45. It was noted that 2 historic rights of way would be diverted and, whilst the plans were indicative at this stage, the development would contribute to employment in the area.  It was noted that discussions were ongoing with various other consultees in relation to issues surrounding highways, air quality, drainage and flooding, amongst other matters. The development, whilst plans were indicative at this stage, would contribute to employment in the area. The officer’s report provided an overview of information submitted and the Council would be required to submit a Statement of Common Ground and a Local Impact Report at a later stage in the process.

Andrew Bodman, resident of Bugbrooke, spoke against the application and commented that new, large warehouses were already being provided at DIRFT, as well as plans to expand the site.

Rod Sellers, resident of Collingtree spoke against the application and commented that many of Roxhill’s assertions are disputed and raised concerns regarding rail capacity and impact on air quality.

RESOLVED:

To submit the Council’s response to the consultation as detailed in section 10 of the officer’s report, with an additional comment that “the site is not allocated for the development in the WNJCS (2014).”

There were none.

Councillor Golby joined the meeting at this juncture and he declared a prejudicial interest in item 10c as the portfolio holder for education in NCC.

The Development Manager submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further comments from NCC Archaeology and Anglian Water. The proposed development would be finished in brick and glazing. It was noted that the office buildings were not listed but did sit within a conservation area. The modern design intended to attract more interest. The glazing was considered suitable but as the buildings were south facing, any more would cause overheating issues. The development wold provide a flexible exhibition area, café, more storage for artefacts and improvements to existing facilities.

Councillor Beardsworth addressed the Committee and stated that although she did not object to the application, she expressed concern regarding the lack of a business plan.

In response to questions, the Committee heard temperature control was important for both the comfort of museum employees and visitors and the preservation of artefacts. It was stated that any building work would be sympathetic to existing features and that the brickwork used on the exterior would be in-keeping with the current design.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

(Addendum herewith)

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought to retain the canopy and decking. It was noted that the decking was gated to prevent rough sleepers from using it at night. The Highway Authority had stated that a licence was required for the canopy overhanging the highway.

Councillor Stone, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and voiced concerns regarding drainage and the safety of the structure, in particular the wood used to build it in relation to fire safety; she also stated that one of her constituents had tried to get answers regarding the structure’s safety, to no avail.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that fire safety in relation to materials was a consideration for Building Control, who were satisfied and had raised no concerns. It was also stated that drainage was a matter for Building Control.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the property’s rooms all complied with Private Sector Housing requirements and that should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 2%

Councillor Stone, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and voiced concerns regarding waste and considered the proposal to be an overdevelopment; she further commented that she had never seen HIMO enforcement in the area. She stated her belief that the concentration in the area was higher than 2% and that this figure may be incorrect due to the Council not having the capacity to carry out proper investigations.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed the extent of the 50m radius, and that whilst HIMOs may be present elsewhere within the town centre they were outside of the 50m radius pertinent to this application.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

At this juncture of the meeting Councillor Golby left the room, having declared a predetermination.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the side had been previously identified as a future school expansion site by the Northampton Local Plan. The small spur from the roundabout would be widened and turned into an access road to the site; improvements to the roundabout between Danes Camp Way and Hunsbury Hill Road would be funded by a financial contribution provided through an S106 Agreement. Amongst other items within the Section 106 Agreement, it was noted that 35% affordable housing would be secured and all dwellings would contribute to the Council’s 5 year housing supply.

Richard Matthews, of West Hunsbury Parish Council, addressed the Committee and commented that although the Parish Council did not object to the principle of the application, they had concerns regarding the roundabout and what he called a “perennial problem” with buses and parents dropping off their children. He stated that that consultation only took place after the application was submitted. He suggested that the lack of objections from the Highways Authority was due to a lack of local knowledge, and asked that the Committee refuse the application until issues surrounding the roundabout were addressed.

In response to questions to officers, the Committee heard that should a future owner of the site wish to reduce the level of affordable housing on site, the Council could only agree in instances where it could be demonstrated that the previously agreed provision would render the scheme unviable. This would need to be evidence in the form of an assessment, which would be independently and robustly assessed. It was further explained that the Section 106 Agreement would secure a management strategy for the public open space on the site could be adopted by the Council or run by a management company. In any event, the Council would have the power to enforce any potential breaches of the Legal Agreement. 

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

At this juncture of the meeting, Councillor Hill left the meeting.

Councillor Golby returned to his seat.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further representations from Councillor Stone. The Committee heard that the building, previously used as offices, had been converted into a house, without any gardens or parking. New waste and cycle storage provision was to be provided at the rear of the ground floor. The room sizes all complied with Private Sector Housing requirements, the number of occupants had been limited by a condition and should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 3%.

Councillor Stone, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that there should not be HIMOs in a very historic part of the town. She questioned how a dwellinghouse for 4 people could turn into a HIMO property for 11 people and further enquired whether the concentration of HIMOs was calculated against other buildings, or specifically dwellings.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the concentration figures were worked out with dwellings in mind, not businesses. He further noted that whilst there were 2 shared bathrooms, 4 bedrooms had en-suite bathrooms.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that there was a good level of amenity for future residents, that all rooms met Private Sector Housing requirements and that due to existing parking restrictions already in place, the Highways Authority had no objections.

Councillor Stone, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that it represented an overdevelopment in the area. She stated that families were leaving their homes due to the antisocial behaviour that was often associated with transient residents. Councillor Stone stated her belief that tipping point in the area had been reached some time ago and that the Council had to be more robust in its defence of communities.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that there was a good level of amenity in the area, the property benefitted from a reasonably sized garden with waste and cycle storage, the rooms all met Private Sector Housing requirements and the Highways Authority had not objected to the application. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMOs in a 50m radius would be 5.97%.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the ground floor of the building would be converted to a restaurant with a glazed entrance; there would be additional glazing to provide the front for a new café. A canopy and outdoor seating area would also be included. The 1^st and 2^nd floors would be converted to student accommodation. It was noted that Environmental Health were satisfied with the various mitigation strategies in place.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that refuse storage to the 2 flats would be located at the front of the building and that no objections had been received from the Highway Authority. The properties would also contribute to the Council’s 5 year housing supply.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the property’s rooms all complied with Private Sector Housing requirements and that the Highways Authority had not objected due to existing parking restrictions being in place. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMOs in a 50m radius would be 6%.

Councillor Stone, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that residents in the area were disheartened by the problems associated with high numbers of HIMO properties. She stated that the property was too small for 4 adults.

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 submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum, which contained a revision of the concentration of HIMOs in the area. The Committee heard that the room sizes complied with Private Sector Housing requirements and that there were no objections from the Highways Authority. It was noted that the proposed capacity would be very similar to the property when used as a dwellinghouse.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

At this juncture of the meeting Councillor Birch moved to public seating, having declared a predetermination and her intention to speak.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum, which contained further objections. The Committee heard that this was a prior notification application and as such, it could only consider the siting and design of the mast; and that should the proposal  be resisted, the Committee would need to suggest more suitable locations within the operational search area. It was not possible to compel a third party to accommodate the development on their land. It was noted that if a decision had not been reached 54 days after the date of receiving the application, it would be assumed approved. It was further noted that although the development would result in harm to the conservation area, it was considered the least harmful location of those looked at as other sites would have a greater impact on the historic environment, residential amenity or highway safety

Councillor Birch, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that whilst she acknowledged the need for the monopole, its location was cause for concern. She stated that it did not comply with various planning policies.

After addressing the Committee, Councillor Birch left the room.

Alan Ogilvie, a local resident, spoke against the application and commented that any changes within a conservation area must harmonise with and enhance existing features; he stated this was not the case, as the monopole would be visible along the treeline.

Alan Borrell, resident of Kingsley Road, spoke against the application and noted that the proposed location of the monopole was close to the tram shelter along the tree line and would detract from the overall view of the historic area. He further stated that any new development within a conservation area must conform to its surroundings.

Jackie Hann, from Clarke Telecom, spoke in favour of the application and commented that without the monopole, many peoples’ mobile phones would lose their internet capabilities. She stated that the monopole had been designed in such a way that it was in keeping with nearby street furniture and that it was in full accordance with the Council’s various planning policies.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that other sites had been looked at, including other tall buildings, but none were considered suitable for a variety of reasons

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Birch returned to join the committee at this juncture.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum, which contained a revised figure for the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius; it had previously been calculated at 10.1%, however, new information gathered had increased that number to 11.5%. The Committee heard that the property was close to local amenities and that all of the bedrooms complied with Private Sector Housing requirements. As the change in use would result in a similar number of occupiers, the Highways Authority did not object to the application.

Mark Evans, the property owner and applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that there was no change to the layout of the property, there would be a reduction in the number of residents as there were currently 4, he noted that there were no Highways objections and that capacity in the area was below the recommended 15%. Mr Evans assured Members that he was an experienced and responsible landlord and that the letting agent managing the property would be visiting monthly to ensure there were no problems.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that Mr Evans intended to use his property as student accommodation and had given his contact details to neighbours.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

At this juncture of the meeting, Councillor Davenport left the room.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the proposed extension would be of a single storey across the whole of the rear of the property, the materials would match the existing building and that it would not impact the neighbouring properties.

Vickie Maloney, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Davenport returned to her seat and Councillor M Markham left the room.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum, which contained representations from Boughton Parish Council. The Committee heard the proposal related to a consultation from Daventry District Council and that Northampton Borough Council objected to a similar outline application in 2011, Daventry District Council resolved to grant consent subject for the development, subject to an S106 Agreement; this was not completed at the time. The current consultation was in relation to the same application which the applicant has now chosen to resurrect and pursue.  It was noted that the application has been amended to a hybrid application comprising a detailed scheme for 380 dwellings and seeking outline consent for the remainder of the site and includes draft S106 Heads of Terms. It was further noted that substantial landscaping would be included to mitigate the impact on existing buildings within Northampton Borough.

Councillor Sally Beardsworth spoke against the application and commented that Harborough Road was well over capacity. She stated that it was important to have proper infrastructure and the North-West Bypass should be finished before development work commenced. She also voiced concern regarding the impact the proposed development would have on air quality in the area.

Patrick Cross, on behalf of Whitehills & Spring Park Residents Association (WASPRA), spoke against the application and commented that the group did not object to more housing, but the lack of infrastructure, namely the lack of a North-West Relief Road. He questioned whether the park and ride scheme would become a reality, or if it was a box-ticking exercise by developers. Mr Cross stated that the report was very vague with little detail and urged Members to object to the application.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That amended comments be forwarded to Daventry District Council that Northampton Borough Council OBJECT and had concerns regarding insufficient provision of highway  infrastructure prior to the delivery of the development, air quality considerations, appropriate park and ride and subject to details contained in paragraph 6.18 of the report relating to S106 requirements.

At this juncture of the meeting Councillor [BC1] Kilbride left the room, having declared interests in the following items.

Councillors Choudary and Kilby Shaw also left the room.[BC2] 

The Development Manager submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the replacement windows, which the application sought to retain, were part of a wider scheme to improve Northampton’s housing stock. It was noted that the properties that had not had replacement windows were privately owned, however, both brown and white window frames in the same block of flats were not considered unacceptable.

Lynn Micallef, local resident, spoke on behalf of Stephen Pearce and herself. She spoke against the application and commented that the external doors, as well as the windows, were mismatched. She said that a 1^st floor window was previously used as a way to get large items of furniture to the upper flats; the new, smaller window meant that this was now possible. She also commented that the windows, previously used as a fire escape, could no longer be used and as such, did not comply with fire regulations.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that Ms Micallef had been told that any changes would be like-for-like.

Chris Parr, Major Projects Manager for Northampton Partnership Homes, spoke in favour of the application. He commented that the steel beams in the stairways were not load-bearing and could be removed to provide access for large items to the upper floors. He noted that there was a “stay put” policy for council homes in Northampton and so the 1^st floor window did not need to be a means of escape. He further noted that lighting was being upgraded across all NPH flats.

Responding to questions, Mr Parr stated that the improvements were a small part of a much larger project; extensive consultation events were held but were unfortunately not well attended.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought to vary a previous application by altering the flat roof to increase the building’s height.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought to demolish 10 properties to make space for 21 2-3 bedroom properties, with provision for 48 parking spaces. It was considered a better use of the land and would contribute to the Council’s 5 year housing supply.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that the properties, as council houses, would be subject to the Right to Buy scheme.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought to retain replacement windows to the block of flats.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought to retain replacement windows to the block of flats.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought the approval of the demolition of 11 vacant garages. It was explained that the space would be used for parking.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that as part of the application, the front elevation of the garages would be replaced with windows, the kitchen would be part of a through-room with light from the front window, and 1 parking space would be provided at the front of the flat.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought the demolition of the outbuilding and construction of a single-storey extension across the back of 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 Development Manager submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that two properties, in a bad state of repair, would be demolished and the land put to better use.

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 on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought to demolish a block of flats which were considered to be surplus to requirement.

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.