Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy therewith)

Ward : Nene Valley

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application number N/2011/0437 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out an objection from Mrs T Crake and further comments from the occupiers of 27 Ash Lane.

Mr Sellers, a neighbour, expressed concern that he had to ask for information about this application and had only found out about the Committee meeting earlier in the day. He believed that the Committee had to consider the impact of the proposal on residents and the village. The planners had judged the application as a minor matter but there had been three recent applications for this site and it had only come to the Committee because of the concerns of the Ward Councillor. The Motorway had grown busier and buffers of open space were therefore, precious. The Parish Council had opposed the infill development at Collingtree Court and their fears about the non-adoption of the access road and protected trees being felled had been realised. Air quality was an issue in this area further development should not make this worse. He was aware that residents opposite the site already had existing breathing problems. He also noted that Ash Lane was the only route through the village and that the Police had recorded average traffic speeds of 36mph.

Mr Underwood, a neighbour, commented that the site was immediately north of the M1 and that land further to the north had been CPO’d by the Highways Agency for widening of the M1, but had subsequently released the land and it had now been developed. The M1 was and would remain a major factor as part of the major road network. A previous application had been made for five houses right up to the M1 boundary. Noise and air quality reports indicated that the levels were too high and the application had been reduced to three houses. Given the prevailing winds from the north and the high noise and pollution he believed that the site was only boarder line developable. If the winds moved from the South West then the boundary was pushed back. Mr Underwood observed that the mitigation on page 19 of the report that construction vehicles would turn their engines off would mean that there would be no power to the site.  

Mr Brice, Chairman of Collingtree Parish Council, commented that the current application was for five dwellings on a smaller site than previously. The Parish Council had concerns in respect of the density of the site. In terms of air quality pollution would travel from the M1 towards these houses. He queried the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. Junction 15 of the M1 already had poor air quality issues and a local doctor had previously stated that there should be no children living that close to the motorway. He felt that to say that this land was suitable for development was ludicrous. Mr Brice noted that they was no indication as to what would happen to the small area of land adjacent to the boundary of the motorway. He speculated that as this was an outline application whether another application would be subsequently made for more houses. He believed that the report did not reflect the environmental issues that had been raised. He suggested that the traffic issues were similar to the situation at Glebe Farm Close and that a 20mph speed limit should be imposed. The cost of those measures had been £68,000.

For clarification the Head of Planning noted that a previous application for five dwellings on a larger site that took the development nearer the motorway had been withdrawn.

Councillor Hill, as Ward Councillor, commented that the residents were willing to accept suitable developments, however, there were issues such as noise. The Parish Council were seeking to get a noise reduction surface put on the M1. He had used County Councillor funding for speed cameras in Ash Lane. He felt it unlikely that air quality would improve. He believed that the proposal would be out of character with the area and noted that the site already had permission for three houses. He believed that five dwellings represented overdevelopment. If the Committee were minded to approve the application he asked that trees on the site be protected.

Mr Johnson, the agent, thanked the Officers for what he believed was a considered report and the site visit that had been arranged. This application was for outline permission. The principle of development on the site had already been established. The extant permission was for three larger houses. The indicative layout in the current application showed just one way that the dwellings might be laid out. The proposal reduced the scale of the development and would be less visually intrusive and would have less impact on neighbours. The dwellings would be of a comparable design to the neighbours and at a similar density. In terms of air quality and noise no objections had been raised nor had issues been raised about trees. He believed that the application was within planning policy and hoped that the Committee would approve it. In answer to questions Mr Johnson stated that in terms of air quality the proposal was not to develop to the boundary of the site, no trees would be removed and reasonable large gardens would be retained; the development complied with Highways Authority (HA) requirements: he did not agree with the Environmental Health comments; and confirmed that the strip of land between the site and the M1 boundary was not included in the site boundary.

The Head of Planning commented that in respect of the Environmental Health comments that these reflected a professional debate. There had not been any changes to Guidance or Policy in respect of air quality. The site already had residential use as garden land. He also noted that the HA had not requested a traffic scheme for Ash Lane.

The Committee discussed the application.

The Chair moved and Councillor Golby seconded “That the recommendation in the report be approved.”

Upon a vote the motion was lost.

Councillor Hibbert moved and Councillor Oldham seconded “That insufficient information had been provided in support of the application to demonstrate that five dwellings could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site whilst adequately reflecting the character of the surrounding area in terms of layout, siting, form and scale in accordance with Policies E20 and H6(a) of the Northampton Local Plan. In particular the development needed to demonstrate that an acceptable relationship could be secured between the proposed dwellings and that sufficient garden space would be provided in accordance with the requirements of Policies E20 and H6 of the Northampton Local Plan.” 

Upon a vote the motion was agreed.

RESOLVED:        That insufficient information had been provided in support of the application to demonstrate that five dwellings could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site whilst adequately reflecting the character of the surrounding area in terms of layout, siting, form and scale in accordance with Policies E20 and H6(a) of the Northampton Local Plan. In particular the development needed to demonstrate that an acceptable relationship could be secured between the proposed dwellings and that sufficient garden space would be provided in accordance with the requirements of Policies E20 and H6 of the Northampton Local Plan.