Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

[Councillor Golby left the meeting in accordance with his declaration of interest set out in Minute 4 above and did not speak or vote thereon.]

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application number N/2007/1583, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum which set out the final response from the Highways Authority and representations made by Councillor Beardsworth.

Mr Clarke, the Chair of Boughton Parish Council, commented that the proposal would have a great effect on Boughton village and that Buckton Fields had a history going back 20 years. The Parish Council believed that development of the site was premature as there were brown field sites available that should be developed first. He referred to the cumulative effect of traffic on surrounding villages and noted that was already congestion in Moulton at certain times of the day. Mr Clarke observed that there was no master plan for the NW Bypass and that not much had changed over twenty years. He believed that the infrastructure should be put in place before development. Boughton had been designated as a village that would absorb limited infill development. The proposal did not take account of the village and he believed that there should be a strategy for the whole area. The proposal would place an intolerable burden on nearby villages and the adjacent part of Northampton.

Mr Hames, on behalf of local residents and the Nene Flood Prevention Alliance, commented that the Council should maintain its previous objection to development of the site because of flood risk; the existing roads and drainage were not able to cope at present. He referred to major plans drawn up in the 1970’s for ring roads to the south and north of Northampton. The southern ring road had been built but the northern had not. A major upgrade of the road network was needed and he believed that the current works at the Cock Hotel Junction would not improve the current traffic problems. He also had concerns about the effect of the proposal in terms of flooding downstream and believed that the proposed SUDs would not cope with a 1 in 200 year flood event. He stated that the Council should not accept further flows into the Nene until this had been resolved, to do so would be irresponsible. In answer to questions Mr Hames commented that he was in dispute with the Environment Agency in respect of their views of flood risk and the effects of SUDs and believed that an independent report they had had commissioned from Scott Wilson had only dealt with the issues cursorily; Northampton remained, in his view, at severe risk of flooding: that the Section 106 contributions to the NW Bypass were insufficient: that the current proposals for a NW Bypass were incomplete in that the route would not be complete and that the standard of the road would be less than that envisaged in the 1970’s; and that he believed that there were plenty of sites where the land had been bought by the former Development Corporation in the southern part of the Town where only partial development had taken place, for example at Upton, that should be developed first.   

Michael Stead, representing residents of Boughton and Whitehills, commented that the Joint Core Strategy had not yet been accepted and that Buckton Fields was a saved policy from an old plan but was included in it. There were objections as to the suitability and sustainability of the site. He believed that there were many outstanding highways issues; there was no funding for the NW Bypass; the Sandy Lane Relief Road stopped short of this site; and that there would be a large flow of vehicles generated by the SUE’s and the M1 and A45 that would affect Boughton and other villages. He asked that the Committee vote against the proposals as little had changed since 2008.

The Head of Planning commented that the Committee was not determining this application, this would be for Daventry District Council to do and that the Committee’s concerns should be the effect of the proposal within the Borough boundary. In response to questions and points made he commented that:

·        This application was for outline consent, reserved matters application(s) would be required to deal with the detailed aspects  of the scheme, however, in approving an outline application the principle of development of the site would be established;

·        The delivery of the NW Bypass, linking through to Sandy Lane, also relied on the Dallington Grange site coming forward. The cost of the Bypass was estimated to be £18m and it was unrealistic to expect a scheme of this magnitude to be put in place before the start of development at Buckton Fields. It would more likely be phased alongside housing development on a pro rata basis;

·        In matters of flood risk the Committee should be guided by the Environment Agency;

·        The highways implications had been modelled by the Highway Authority who were satisfied with the mitigations proposed and as summarised in the report;

·        The Committee should be guided by the Local Education Authority in respect of the acceptability of the proposals for onsite primary provision and delivery of secondary school places.

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Lynch proposed and Councillor Oldham seconded “That Daventry District Council be informed that the Council objects in principle to the development of the site for the following reasons:

1. The proposed highways mitigations will not deal with current congestion problems in Kingsthorpe and at the Cock Hotel junction or adequately deal with traffic generated from the site;
2. The issue of secondary school places is not adequately dealt with given the existing over subscription of them in Kingsthorpe;
3. The concerns raised as to the timely delivery of the NW Bypass.

 However, that if Daventry District Council were minded to approve the application the Council would wish them to take account of the issues raised in paragraph 1.1 of the report.”

Upon a vote the motion was carried.  

RESOLVED:       That Daventry District Council be informed that the Council objects in principle to the development of the site for the following reasons:

                        1. The proposed highways mitigations will not deal with current congestion problems in Kingsthorpe and at the Cock Hotel junction or adequately deal with traffic generated from the site;

                        2.  The issue of secondary school places is not adequately dealt with given the existing over subscription of them in Kingsthorpe;

                        3.  The concerns raised as to the timely delivery of the NW Bypass.

                              However, if Daventry District Council was minded to approve the application then the Council would wish the following to be taken account of:

§         The Highway Authority being satisfied that the solutions proposed and delivered to encourage walking, cycling and increased public transport use and the improvements to the highway network are satisfactory both in transport and environmental terms for a development of this scale, when taking into account the potential impact of development proposed in other locations within the town associated with the growth agenda;

§         The Environment Agency being assured that the development will not put its occupiers or those in the immediate vicinity at an unacceptable risk of flooding, or unacceptably increase the risk of flooding within the catchment of the River Nene and its tributaries, or adversely affect water quality;

§         The Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes proposed have the certainty of a suitable management regime in place to ensure that they are maintained as fit for purpose in perpetuity;

§         Utility infrastructure providers being assured that the development will not have an adverse impact on the capacity of the infrastructure network to the detriment of existing residents or businesses of the town;

§         Daventry District Council working in association with the Borough Council to ensure that the housing provided is consistent with the proportion (35%) and tenures (70% social rent and 30% Intermediate tenures) required to address affordable housing needs related to Northampton, that contributes to create a mix of housing throughout the site and that NBC partner RSLs are used to manage the affordable dwellings and that 10% of the dwellings on site are built to mobility standards;

§         The PCT ensuring that the improvements to health infrastructure required are delivered either on site or in the near vicinity;

§         That the future of the land contained within the Borough Council’s boundary and currently allocated as Greenspace in the Northampton Local Plan and which can be regarded as forming a contiguous part of the development site is properly addressed by the applicant as envisaged in the Buckton Fields Masterplan SPG.

Ideally this would be by the site being subject to a planning application to lay out the area as open space in a manner agreed with the Borough Council and with an adequately robust maintenance regime in place to maintain this use in perpetuity;

§         The County Council being satisfied that the development adequately provides for primary education on site within an appropriate timescale and for secondary education off site by way of developer contribution should such a contribution be required;

§         That the applicant makes reasonable endeavours to ensure that the proposed local centre which will at the very least provide a 500 sqm convenience shop and proposed community hall, with some additional small scale retailing and other complementary uses such as takeaways, restaurants, etc, is delivered within phase 1 of the development;

§         That the open space, playing pitches and associated sports pavilion, NEAP and LEAP are provided in a timely fashion, to an adequate standard;

§         The dwellings on site being built to at least Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and subsequently at the levels currently envisaged in the Government’s stepped approach to ensuring homes built to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6 by 2016.

§         That further consideration is given to the appropriateness of the proposed solution of providing a green wedge to the rear of properties in Spring Park. An alternative solution which means that the existing houses are backed on to by houses appropriately positioned to maintain privacy and with longer gardens will in the longer term reduce the risk of crime to those properties. It could also allow for a better form of open space, to be of wider benefit to more residents to be provided within the development;

§         That consideration be given to changing the proposed positioning of the open space to the west of the business area that will abut the Welford Road, to make it more accessible to the residential areas on site. In addition that consideration is given to moving the business area closer to the Welford Road to give a better opportunity to use an appropriate design of buildings to provide more a positive gateway feature on this edge of the built up area of Northampton.

§         The capping of the number of homes to 1050;

§         That a condition should be imposed upon any consent requiring the submission and implementation of a construction environmental impact management plan. This should include measures to control noise and vibration due to construction activities;

§         That the developer is required to produce with a more definitive way of mitigating impact upon Harborough Road Air Quality Management Area.

§         That mitigation measures should be included to address the impact on the noise levels at the existing properties in Fair Mile and Fallow Walk; the precise details of the mitigation scheme should be agreed following the review of the noise assessment; and

§         That conditions should be imposed to ensure that noise levels from plant and equipment result in no net increase in existing background noise levels. It is important that the layout of the proposed commercial part of the development is appropriately zoned to minimise the impact on neighbouring residential properties.