Agenda item

(Copy Herewith)

6.15pm Councillors Kilbride and Mary Markham left the meeting.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the application had originally been approved in principle for 142 dwellings by Committee in 2013, subject to the prior completion of a S106 Agreement. However, at that time the applicant was unable to demonstrate good title for large parts of the land and, therefore, the S106 Agreement could not be completed.

The Development Management Team Leader stated that the site had historically been used for keeping animals and as allotments, however this site had been in decline over the years and was largely unused. The revised proposal was for the construction of 139 dwellings, comprising of 42 two bedroom dwellings, 56 three bedroom dwellings and 41 four bedroom dwellings. In addition there was provision for 341 parking spaces.

The development included a number of public open spaces and a central play area. Access to the development was to be via Lancaster Way, to the south of the site, via a new roundabout. It was stated that a number of trees would be removed for the application, however a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was in place to protect a mature tree adjacent to Lancaster Way.

Members were informed that this application made provision for 35% affordable housing, a payment for primary school education and would improve the Council’s five year housing scheme. In addition there would be payments made towards highway improvements and increased public transport provision.

Councillor Walker addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He outlined a number of issues including concerns around highway safety, namely that the application had made provision for only one entrance and exit, which in his opinion would increase traffic levels, especially with Aldi and ASDA nearby. In addition he commented that flooding would, in his view, be an issue for residents, and would affect residents as far away as Far Cotton.

Councillor Walker then left the meeting at18:25 following his address to the Committee.

John Beswick addressed the Committee on behalf of the Delapre Allotment Association and stated that the allotment owners had made several approaches to the applicant with regard to providing land to for a pedestrian link to Leah Bank, however the developer had ignored their proposals. In addition if no access were granted it would make a more hazardous place for residents.

In response to from questions from Members, it was stated that the allotment owners had not been consulted on the development recently.

Cllr Brendan Glynane addressed the Committee and commented that the Police did not want to open up the boundary by Leah Bank, as currently this area was virtually crime free. The track running through the middle of the site was still unregistered land. There was no S106 Agreement in place to ensure that the roads being constructed within the development would be adopted. In regards to flooding, there were no flooding attenuation schemes in place, particularly for the north-east corner of the site. In addition he commented that the developers were given twelve weeks to respond to concerns, however it had taken three years for the application to come back to the Committee. In response to questions from Members he confirmed that he had not been consulted recently on the development.

William Main, on behalf of the applicants, addressed the Committee and stated that recent appraisals of the development had been deemed acceptable to the Planning Department. With regards to the delays due to site being in multi ownership, this was in part down to the fact that it was time consuming to get all the title deeds in relation to a number of allotments on site. In terms of the adoption of the roads, The access road follows the line of the unregistered track and could be adopted under section 228 of the Highways Act 1980 or be subject to a management agreement. Applicant had recently submitted additional title information and nearly reached agreement on the Section 106 Agreement.

In response to questions from members William Main made a number of comments including:

·         The developers were aware of access to the north of the site, however due to the cost involved had instead provided a footpath to the site boundary

·         With regards to the adoption of roads, the developer explained the adoption process as he understood it

·         There had been no objections from the Highways Authority and any previous objections had been resolved.

·         There had been a number of consultations taken over the past three years, in order to ascertain the views of local residents.

The Development Management Team Leader stated that a number of objections had been addressed in the Addendum to the report. In terms of flooding, Conditions 8 and 9 within the report sought to clarify that no development would take place until a Surface Water Drainage Scheme and maintenance scheme had been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

With regards to the consultations, the Development Management Team Leader confirmed that a number of consultations had taken place including September 2012, January 2013, May 2013, February 2016 and a smaller consultation on minor aspects in November 2016.

In terms of the public transport provision, this was a matter that would need finalising with the Highways Authority.

Members of the Committee were informed that the developers would give a commitment to maintain the open spaces and allotments on the unregistered land in so far as they are able.

Members of the Committee welcomed the report and the comments made by members of the public and from planning officers. They stated that they were happy with amendments made, as outlined in the Addendum, however there were still concerns around the impact this development would have on traffic.

RESOLVED:

That the application is APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the S106 Agreement to secure:

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 a management strategy that is agreed in advance with the Council;

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 subject to the Head of Planning being satisfied the monitoring fee is necessary and of an appropriate scale.

and the conditions as set out in the report, along with the conditions set out in the Addendum and for the following reasons:

The proposed development, subject to conditions, represents an acceptable land use which would contribute towards the Council’s 5-year housing supply and would have a neutral impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area, visual and neighbour amenity and the highway system. The development is therefore in conformity with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies S1, S3, S10, H1, H2 and BN7 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and Policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.

It is also recommended that in the event of the Section 106 Legal Agreement not being completed within three calendar months of this Committee meeting, in addition to being able to grant planning permission as recommended above, the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning be given delegated authority to either refuse or finally dispose of the application (at his discretion) on account that the necessary mitigation measures have not been secured in order to make the proposal acceptable in line with the requirements of Policies INF1 and INF2 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

7.02pm Councillors Kilbride, Walker and Mary Markham returned to the meeting.

Councillor Davenport left the meeting at this point due to illness.