Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning (copy herewith).

Ward: Delapre and Briar Hill

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0909, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that contained several further comments and the officer responses to those comments as well as revised wording to paragraph 7.38 of the Committee report. 

The Borough Solicitor referred to an email from Mr Seamark, which queried the accuracy of the ownership certificate provided with the application.  The Borough Solicitor stated that a planning authority cannot entertain an application for planning permission unless it is accompanied by an appropriate certificate as to ownership.  In this case, the applicants have submitted a certificate which at face value complies with the legal requirements and no clear evidence has been provided to indicate that the certificate is inaccurate. 

The Head of Planning stated that there is a factual error in the Council’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening opinion letter in respect of the proposed development.  He briefly explained the screening process and added that the proposed development had been correctly screened but that the letter confirming that no EIA is required contained a factual error regarding the site history.  Therefore the recommendation was changed as follows: officers would re-screen the application to establish if an EIA is required.  If an EIA is not required the application would proceed as per paragraphs 1.1 to 1.3 of the Committee report.  If an EIA is required the Committee and the applicant would be advised and then the matter would be pursued accordingly with the application being brought back to the Committee for consideration in due course. 

Mr Seamark, representing the Buckingham Fields Community Action Group, addressed the Committee.  He referred to issues regarding the ownership of the land and that it was an area for housing, not commercial use.  He stated that the report did not refer to heavy metals on the site and to contamination, to land which the developer did not own, land which might be turned into a road without the owner’s consent, the need to know ground levels missing documents, and that it would not be possible to see the back gardens from houses in some cases.

Ms Percival, representing the Buckingham Fields Community Action Group, addressed the Committee.  She stated that the Urban Designer’s comments were less enthusiastic than suggested in the report and referred to the Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor’s objection to a link from the site to Towcester Road and Leah Bank.  She referred to parking issues which had not been addressed and to vehicle dominance plus areas being left undeveloped.  She also referred to properties from which it would not be possible to see their own back gardens.

Councillor Davies, as a Ward Member, addressed the Committee stating that she and the other speakers were not against the application per se but wanted the Committee to be able to make an informed decision.  The community were happy to work with the developer to make the development less obtrusive.  The path through the site would become a road but would not be adopted as the owner was unknown.  She stated that land levels needed to be known to ascertain the effect of the development on neighbouring properties.  She referred to the T junction which was acceptable to all parties, rather than a roundabout, but which was not mentioned in the report, to contamination on the site and to Police concerns not addressed in the report.

Mr Oliver, representing Bovis Homes, addressed the Committee.  He stated that the company was confident they could deliver the scheme, on which the local authority and residents had been consulted.  The scheme would include 50 affordable units and a S106 package worth £1.2m.  There would be management plans for all areas on the site and land could be requisitioned under s228 of the Highways Act 1980 if needed for a development.  The difference in level across the site was approximately 11m and Bovis did not intend to raise levels around the boundary.  Bovis intended to use local contractors on the development wherever possible.

The Committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to re-screening to ascertain whether an Environmental Impact Assessment is required, conditions and the matters in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of the report for the following reason:

The proposed development, subject to conditions, would result in the effective reuse of this vacant site and would not have undue adverse impact upon visual and neighbour amenity and highway safety. The proposal is therefore compliant with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and Local Plan Policies E11, E19, E20, E40 and H8.

2.    That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to negotiate the detail of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following or combination of these with a view to optimising the affordable housing provision provided on site:

i)       35% on-site affordable housing;

ii)      Primary School Education payment;

iii)     A payment towards the increase in capacity of Queen Eleanor interchange in accordance with the A45/M1 Growth Management Scheme;

iv)     A payment towards improvements in highway capacity;

v)      A payment towards increasing public transport provision;

vi)     That the on-site Public Open Space is maintained and made available for public access in perpetuity;

vii)    That the on-site Public Open Space and allotments are maintained in accordance with the Landscape Management Plan, dated April 2013 and received by the Council on the 9th May 2013;

viii)   Training opportunities for construction workers and associated administration costs;

ix)     A payment towards Community Development (which can include the provision and/or enhancement of off-site open space, such as Delapre Parkland);

x)      Place Making payment (which can include public realm improvements, public art and town/local centre improvements);

xi)     The Council’s monitoring fee.

3.    That in the event of the Section 106 Legal Agreement not being completed within three calendar months of this Committee meeting, in additional to being able to grant planning permission as recommended above, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to either refuse or finally dispose of the application (at their discretion) on account of the necessary mitigation measures have not been secured in order to make the proposal acceptable in line with the requirements of Northampton Local Plan Policy E19 and the National Planning Policy Framework.