Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M Markham and McCutcheon.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10^th April 2018 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

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

N/2017/1356

Councillor Russell

Martin Pollard

N/2018/0071

Shailesh Patel

N/2018/0112

Councillor Smith

Barry Waine

N/2018/0167

David Johnson

Marlene Taylor

N/2018/0466

Kathryn White

Councillor Oldham declared a personal interest in item 10d as the Ward Councillor and advised that he would leave the room whilst the discussion took place.

Councillor Kilbride declared a personal and disclosable pecuniary interest in items 5a and 7a as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes (NPH).

Councillor Smith declared a predetermination in items 10c and 10i. She advised that she would be speaking on item 10c and would leave the room whilst both of the items were being discussed.

At this juncture Councillor Kilbride left the meeting, having declared a personal and disclosable interest.

The Development Manager submitted a verbal report which sought the Committee’s approval for the non-material amendment application N/2018/0638 to an application previously approved in 2016 at Little Cross Street.  The alterations sought to change the colour of window frames on a block of flats from grey to white, and the doors from grey to black, to match the current design. It was noted that the timeframe was too narrow for the application to be presented at the next Planning Committee and that as the amendments were non-material, the officer’s recommendation was for approval.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED as per the officer recommendation.

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members were advised that to save time, delegated powers were sought for the Head of Planning to determine 42 individual applications relating to refurbishment of flats throughout the Thorplands estate. It was noted that all representations would be duly considered.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee AGREED to delegate decision making authority to the Head of Planning to determine the relevant planning applications as referred in the report and that any representations received be agreed with the Chair first.

At this juncture Councillors Golby and Birch joined the meeting.

Councillor Kilbride re-joined the meeting.

The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and elaborated thereon. Members heard that an appeal relating to 101 Harborough Road had been dismissed with the Inspector concurring with the Council’s decision. An appeal relating to a House in Multiple Occupation (HiMO) at 49 Birchfield Road had been allowed; the Inspector gave little weight to the recommendation from the Highway Authority and the appeal was allowed as the site is in a sustainable location.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members were asked to note that that delegated authority would be given to the Head of Planning by the Borough Secretary in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, to agree a Statement of Common Ground and prepare a Local Impact Report to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, in relation to the report considered by the Committee in November 2017.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to agree a Statement of Common Ground with the Applicant and to produce a Local Impact Report for submission to the Planning Inspectorate, by the Borough Secretary in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, in accordance with Part 8, Part B, Paragraph 2.1.4 of the Council’s Constitution.

There were none.

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. It was noted that lighting had decreased in quality following the removal of several display cabinets in the museum’s east and west wings, and that the works proposed would be reversible.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. It was noted that Historic England had not objected to the application and that the officer recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions contained within the report.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Addendum attached.

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained additional representations from objectors. It was noted that the Highway Authority had objected to the application due to excessive parking demand and that a further condition had been added to ensure that the basement would not be used as a bedroom at any time.

Councillor Russell, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and stated that due to the small size of the property, the loss of amenity for occupants would be profound.

Martin Pollard, the property owner, spoke in favour of the application and explained that having previously managed a HiMO, it was important to him that the property be a good home for future occupants.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and additional condition 7) to ensure that the basement would not be used as a bedroom at any time.

The Senior Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. It was noted that the Highway Authority had objected to the application due to the “severe” parking situation in the area. Members were asked to note Conditions 3 and 5 which related to the use of the basement.

Shailesh Patel, the property landlord, spoke in favour of the application and commented that it had previously been licensed as a HiMO. He advised that he had a good management team in place to look after the property.

The Committee were advised that although the concentration of HiMOs in a 50m radius was higher than the Council’s adopted IPPS, at 15.1%, it would be difficult to argue that 0.1% would result in significant harm in planning terms.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

1)    The proposal would result in a concentration of 15.1% of properties within a 50m radius of the application site being in use as a house in multiple occupation, exceeding the maximum threshold of 15% as set down in the Council's House in Multiple Occupation Interim Planning Policy Statement. This would be detrimental to the character of the area leading to potential adverse impacts on residential amenity and resulting in an imbalanced mix of housing in the area contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy H30 of the Northampton Local Plan and Policies H1 and H5 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

2)    Due to there 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 the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

At this juncture Councillor Smith moved to public seating.

The Senior Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. It was explained that planning permission had previously been refused to change the property to a 9 bed HiMO and that the Highway Authority had raised an objection due to the parking demand being “severe”.

Councillor Smith, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and asserted that parking was still problematic in some locations considered “sustainable”.

After addressing the Committee, Councillor Smith left the room whilst the discussion took place.

Barry Waine, town planner on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the IPPS recognised people living in shared accommodation were more likely to walk or cycle rather than drive and noted that the application complied with all of the Council’s policies regarding HiMOs.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the Planning Inspector gave more weight to the IPPS than the Northamptonshire Parking Standards, referencing recent appeal decisions on similar applications on nearby streets.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Smith re-joined the meeting.

Councillor Oldham left the room at this juncture, having declared an interest.

Councillor Lane took the Chair.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further representations from neighbouring properties and a statement from the applicant addressing some concerns. It was explained that whilst the owner used the property to teach, the volume of students were low so no material change of use of the property has taken place. It was noted that the application complied with the Council’s policies and standards.

David Johnson, of a neighbouring property, spoke against the application and stated that the application contravened the Council’s own parking standards and that the report omitted negative factors.

Marlene Taylor, of a neighbouring property, spoke against the application and stated that the application did not meet the Council’s minimum standards regarding parking. She asked that permitted development rights be removed and a bat survey be carried out.

The Head of Planning advised that permitted development rights were being removed in relation to the installation of additional windows in the eastern elevation and referred to Condition 3 within the report.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Oldham re-joined the meeting and took the Chair. Councillor Hill left the room at this juncture.

The Senior Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further representations from the Highway Authority regarding the rear access. It was explained that the officer recommendation was for approval of the application subject to the conditions contained within the report.

In response to a question, it was explained that whilst parking restrictions were in place, the area was well served by public transport links and close to a local centre.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Hill re-joined the meeting.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. It was explained that a Condition had been added to ensure that a side facing window be obscurely glazed and non-opening to protect neighbours’ privacy.

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. The Committee were informed that the Highway Authority had not objected to the application, and that there was sufficient space for waste and cycle storage.

In response to a question, the Committee heard that planning permission would be required to convert the garage into a liveable space.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Senior Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further information regarding external plant from the agent. The Committee heard that the nearest residential property was 30m away and that a Condition had been included to ensure that materials used matched the existing building.

Kathryn White, the Chief Executive of Growing Together Northampton, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the proposed development was part of a plan to improve a deprived area of the town.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Smith left the meeting at this juncture, having declared a predetermination.

The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. She explained that the applicant declined to have a parking beat survey carried out but due to the sustainable location and compliance with the IPPS policies, it was not a 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.

There were none.