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, Lane and Russell. |
||
(Copy herewith) Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 22nd January 2019 were agreed and signed by the Chair. |
||
Deputations / Public Addresses Minutes: RESOLVED:
That under the following items, the members of the public and Ward Councillors listed below were granted leave to address the Committee:
N/2018/0879 Barry Waine Peter Bovill
N/2018/1233 & N/2018/1234 Colin Clayson
N/2018/1534 Holly Madison Michael Tew
N/2018/1539 Matthew Berry
N/2018/1596 Matthew Berry
N/2018/1681 Matthew Berry
N/2018/1695 Richard Lee
N/2018/1713 Matt Collerson
N/2018/1769 Matthew Berry
N/2018/1772 Matthew Berry
N/2018/1773 Matthew Berry
N/2018/1775 Matthew Berry
N/2018/1778 Matthew Berry
N/2018/1779 Matthew Berry
N/2018/1781 Matthew Berry
|
||
Declarations of Interest/Predetermination Minutes: Councillor Kinbride declared a personal and disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of items 10e, 10f, 10h, 10k, 10l, 10m, 10n, 10o, 10p, and 10q as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes.
Councillor M Markham declared a personal and disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of items 10e, 10f, 10h, 10k, 10l, 10m, 10n, 10o, 10p, and 10q as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes. |
||
Matters of Urgency Which by Reason of Special Circumstances the Chair is of the Opinion Should be Considered Minutes: There were none. |
||
.... |
List of Current Appeals and Inquiries PDF 86 KB Report of Head of Planning (copy herewith) Minutes: The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. She reported that the Inspector had made one decision in relation to 25 Abington Avenue and agreed with the officer decision to refuse the application, finding that the replacement property would be too small to provide satisfactory living conditions, and have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area.
RESOLVED:
That the report be noted.
Councillor Choudary joined the meeting at this juncture. |
|
Other Reports Minutes: There were none. |
||
Northamptonshire County Council Applications Minutes: There were none. |
||
Northampton Borough Council Applications |
||
Minutes: The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the proposal was non-intrusive and would be of benefit to the future maintenance of the museum.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||
Minutes: The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the applicant sought advertising consent for the erection of various signs to be erected on the front face of the museum and noted that two banner signs would be illuminated by existing lights on the front of the building. Comments made by the Town Centre Conservation Area Advisory Committee were highlighted; Members agreed that the proposed content of the signage was underwhelming and resolved to inform the applicant of this finding.
In response to questions, Members heard that the applicant could change the design of the signs without the consent of the Authority.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report, and to let the applicant know that the Planning Committee thought the signs were too bland and not inform visitors to the town that the location is a museum. |
||
Items For Determination PDF 88 KB (Copy of addendum herewith) |
||
Minutes: The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. It was reported that the site had been allocated for commercial use for a significant period of time; warehousing was considered appropriate and the developer would be deciding between 1 large unit or 2 smaller, however both would have the same floorspace of development. It was noted that subject to conditions, the Highway Authority had raised no objections. It was further noted that any potential harm arising from the development being in close proximity to a Listed building would be balanced by the longstanding allocation of the site for commercial use. It was explained that due to the status of the farmhouse not as a listed building, officers had limited powers to insist on its retention. Finally Members heard that details such as landscaping would be confirmed in future applications and that noise mitigation was detailed by a condition contained within the report.
Barry Waine, on behalf of local residents, spoke against the application and expressed concern around the form, type and scale of the proposed development. He further voiced his dismay regarding the loss of the farmhouse.
Peter Bovill, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and advised that the applicant had worked hard to address all concerns raised by local residents.
Responding to a question, Mr Bovill advised that certain aspects of the development’s design could not be compromised on, for example ceiling height, but commented that there would be the potential for landscaping and planting later on.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||
Minutes: The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which amended the officer recommendation and the removal of a condition contained within the report. The Committee heard that the applications sought to convert part of the building from industrial to residential use, and to replace all of the windows with double glazed windows. It was explained that the scheme would not be considered viable, should the developer be required to make any S106 contributions.
Colin Clayson, the owner and applicant, spoke in favour of the applications and explained that he had been unable to find a buyer for the development in its entirety so had opted to phase the delivery of homes to make the scheme more attractive to developers.
In response to questions asked, Mr Clayson advised that finding a solution to his issue with the windows had taken a long time and that should permission be granted, he hoped to start work in 2019 and complete it before the end of the following year.
The Development Management Team Leader explained that the principle of double glazing had been agreed since the previous application in 2017.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That both applications be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the Head of Planning being given delegated authority to approve specific window details and to condition the approved details accordingly.
Condition 3 to be removed from both applications. |
||
Minutes: The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought the installation of an electricity-generating structure. It was noted that there were existing pumps locally and that they would be visually very similar to those already in place. Negative impacts were considered minimal and the development would support sustainable development principles, Members were informed.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||
Minutes: The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention as drawn to the addendum which contained an additional neighbour representation. The application sought approval for a single-storey extension which would have been allowed under permitted development, however the property sat on Council-owned land.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||
Minutes: Councillor M Markham left the room at this juncture.
The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought approval for a 4 bed HIMO Whilst it was noted that the Highway Authority had objected to the application, the site was considered sustainable due to its proximity to transport links and a local centre. Room sizes all met standards required by Private Sector Housing and conditions were included limiting the number of occupants and to ensure the basement would not be used as a bedroom at any time. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMOs in a 50m radius would be 5.5%.
Councillor M Markham re-entered the room and sat in the public gallery.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||
Minutes: Councillor M Markham re-joined the meeting at this juncture.
The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an amendment to Condition 2. The Committee heard that the application sought approval for a HIMO property for 5 occupants. It was noted that the room sizes all met with Private Sector Housing standards and that should Members be minded to approve the application, the concentration of HIMOs in a 50m radius would be 2.3%. Members further noted that the Highway Authority had not objected to the application.
Richard Lee, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and explained that he understood neighbouring concerns, however all objections had been responded to in his application. He expressed the need for mixed housing and advised that this would be the only HIMO in a 50m radius.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report, and amended Condition 2 in the addendum. |
||
Minutes: The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an additional Condition 5. The Committee heard that the site was considered sustainable due to its close proximity to transport links and a local centre and that should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMOs in a 50m radius would be 5.3%. It was noted that the Highway Authority had not raised an objection to the application.
Matt Collerson, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the application had been amended and the number of occupants reduced following a previous refusal.
In response to a question, Members heard that if they approved the application, the applicant could choose between it and the previous one, should the appeal be won.
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 5 in the addendum. |
||
Minutes: At this juncture Councillors Bottwood and M Markham left the meeting, having declared disclosable and pecuniary interests in the remaining items.
The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an additional Condition. The Committee heard that 11 parking spaces would be provided along with the bungalow, and that a large tree on the site would be retained. It was noted that the Highway Authority had recommended that the road serving the property be made private.
In response to a question, the Committee heard that Northampton Borough Council would “own” the road and that Northampton Partnership Homes have responsibility of the street lights.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the reasons and conditions as set out in the report and additional Condition 10 in the addendum. |
||
Minutes: The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained corrections to errors within the report and an amended Condition 2. The Committee heard that 2 blocks of 9 garages would be demolished to allow for the erection of 2 1-bedroomed semi-detached bungalows. 10 parking spaces would be provided. It was noted that there were no objections from the Highway Authority.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and amended Condition 2 in the addendum. |
||
Minutes: The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an amendment to Condition 2. The Committee heard that 4 garages were proposed to be demolished to allow for the construction of a single property and associated parking. It was noted that all trees on site would be retained and that the property front would be cladded to blend in with nearby properties.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and amended Condition 2 in the addendum. |
||
Minutes: The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the application sought the demolition of 6 garages to allow for the construction of a single bungalow with associated parking. It was noted that a mature tree to the front of the site would be retained.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||
Minutes: The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought to approve the demolition of 12 lock up garages to allow for the construction of 2 semi-detached properties and associated parking. It was noted that 4 of 7 trees on site would be removed; the remaining trees could be retained with no adverse impacts envisaged.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||
Minutes: The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought approval for the demolition of 6 garages to allow for the construction of 2 dwellings and associated parking provision. It was noted that the properties would be set back from those adjoining, and that there would be no overlooking from the side-facing windows. Members further noted that all trees would be retained, secured by a condition.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||
Minutes: The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought approval for the demolition of 6 garages to allow for the construction of a single bungalow and provision of 4 parking spaces. It was noted that 3 of the 9 trees on site would be retained and that there would be sufficient space between existing properties and 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. |
||
Minutes: The Development Manager submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained representations from the local Highway Authority. The Committee heard that the application sought approval for the demolition of 4 garages to allow for the construction of 2 semi-detached dwellings with associated parking. It was noted that several trees impinging upon the site would be removed.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||
Minutes: The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee heard that the application sought approval for the demolition of 8 garages to allow for the construction of 2 1-bedroom semi-detached dwellings and associated parking provision. It was noted that the Highway Authority had not objected to the application.
Members discussed the report.
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report. |
||
Minutes: The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained a representation from the Highway Authority. The Committee heard that the application sought approval for the demolition of 7 garages to allow for the construction of a single bungalow and associated parking. It was noted that all trees on site would be retained.
Members discussed the report.
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…