Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Nene Valley

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2011/1249, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out the effects of the NPPF on the application, and additional representations from Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council and residents in Villagers Close and Berry Lane.

Mr Howson, stated that he represented residents in Berry Lane, who strongly objected to the proposed access onto Berry Lane but not to the proposed development of the site itself. He believed that there were issues of safety for pedestrians as Berry Lane narrowed at its far end and was negotiated by six buses a day. He believed that the previous planning permissions for the site were not relevant. Mr Howson asked that the Committee consider an alternative exit from the site onto Wooldale Road that he believed provided a better route for children and parents going to Caroline Chisholm School. He commented that children’s safety should be a concern to the Committee. In answer to questions Mr Howson commented that Wooldale Road ran at the back of Berry Lane and that no houses fronted onto Wooldale Road. 

Mr Renn, the architect, commented that the site had two previous permissions for residential development and that the access arrangements had been approved on each of those occasions by the Highway Authority. He believed that the site had no immediate effect on that part of Berry Lane referred to by Mr Howson which he also believed was some hundred metres distant. Discussions had taken place with the Environment Agency and flooding issues had been resolved. This proposal was for a lower density development than the previous two that had received permission and this aspect had been generally welcomed at a public meeting of the Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council in November 2011. In answer to a question Mr Renn commented that the applicant had investigated an alternative exist onto Wooldale Road but the difference in levels had led to a difficult engineering problem.

The Head of Planning clarified that the previous planning consents were a material consideration and noted that the existing permission for 21 houses could be enacted that would have a more intensive use of the site and more vehicle movements. In answer to questions the Head of Planning stated that the threshold where the provision of affordable housing would apply was 15 units; it was not known if the applicant had deliberately pitched this application so as to avoid the need to provide affordable housing; the NPPF had removed national advice on density which was now to be decided locally; that the proposed density was in keeping with the locality but might not be acceptable elsewhere; and that the Highway Authority had not required a Section 106 agreement for a TRO in the context of the current application in contrast to their position in respect of the application considered in February 2011.  

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:     That the application be approved in principle subject to:

               (1)  Prior finalisation of a S106 agreement to secure:

·   A contribution towards education provision.

·   A management plan, including management responsibilities and maintenance schedules, for the public open space and all external and shared/common areas of the development.

 (2) Planning conditions set out in the report and as amended by the NPPF as the proposed development would have no undue detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers as adequate separation can be provided to prevent any overlooking and overshadowing and would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area due to the density of development proposed. The proposal complies with Policy E6 in that the development would not unacceptably prejudice the function of the wider area of greenspace in providing green space around the built up area of Northampton. The development would therefore be in line with the Policies H6, H17, H32, E20, E40 of the Northampton Local Plan and conforms with the NPPF.

 (3)That in the event that the S106 legal agreement is not secured within three calendar months of the date of this Committee meeting, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to allow or refuse or finally dispose of the application on account of the necessary mitigation measures not being secured in order to make the proposed development acceptable.