Agenda item

(Copy Herewith)

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the application sought outline consent for up to 30 dwellings, with access for approval, which would be fixed. The access point would be created with the demolition of 58 Booth Rise and would run to the side of 60 Booth Rise. The layout of dwellings as part of the development at this stage was indicative only.

The Highway Authority had not raised any objections to this development. In addition the development featured some in variations in terms of level, ranging from a high point adjacent to Booth Rise to a lower point next to Lumbertubs way. The indicative parameters stated that the development would comprise a combination of bungalows, two storey houses and two and half storey houses. A condition could be imposed to limit building heights of the final development. As per the report this application was subject to S106 agreements. Furthermore, the Principal Planning Officer made reference to additional comments received and attached as part of the Addendum to the meeting.

Mike Hallam, in his capacity as County Councillor for the area, addressed the Committee. He stated that three other applications in this area had been previously refused, including Booth Park, which had only been overturned on appeal. It was his opinion that this was a case of garden grabbing, irrespective of the size of gardens available to 58 and 62 Booth Rise. The owner of 60 Booth Rise refused to sell his property to the developer and was not in support of this application. The area was notoriously busy with traffic and had registered high levels of air pollution, especially around peak time traffic. In addition traffic regularly exceeded the speed limits in place.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Mike Hallam commented on a number of issues including:

·         Air emissions were high in this area due large numbers of stationary vehicles. In addition this area suffered from high levels of air pollution irrespective of it being an area of congestion.

·         The high gradient levels adjacent to the development would make this development stick out.

·         The Council originally raised objections to the Booth Park application due to traffic concerns and overdevelopment of the site, but the application was approved by WNDC

Paul Toone, resident at 50 Booth Rise, addressed the Committee and stated that a recent Police survey showed 75% of all vehicles passing the site were going in excess of the 30 mph speed limit. The pavements by the site were far too narrow to accommodate people walking past the development and were also used by cyclists. The access points were in a dangerous position and would cause a number of traffic accidents. The development did not make provision for enough car parking spaces and was short of the requirement as laid out in the 2016 Northamptonshire Policy. Furthermore this was an example of garden grabbing to try and create more housing.

In response to a question from Members, Paul Toone confirmed that there was a right filter lane in place to Booth Park development.

Geoff Armstrong, on behalf of the agent, addressed the Committee and stated that this development would fit in with the local area. In relation to impacts on Nos. 56 and 60, a six foot high wall would be erected with additional landscaping to ensure no disturbance was made to local residents and to keep out noise pollution. In a recent traffic assessment there would be 14 two way movements from the site, therefore only one movement every four minutes. The visibility by the access point far exceeded the minimum requirement and were over 90m. Furthermore there had been no objections raised by Environmental Health or ecologists.

In response to questions from Members, Geoff Armstrong responded as follows:

·         The layout plans were only indicative, therefore there was scope to move open space areas and dwelling positions.

·         There were no issues raised by ecology reports and the development has been mindful of the local wildlife.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the gradient levels would be considered when dealing with the reserved matters. This application merely sought to deal with the principal of the development and fixing the access point.

In response to further questions from Members of the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer stated:

·          The Section 106 Agreement would run with the land and as a consequence, any future landowner would be bound, in perpetuity, to maintain the open space for public use.

·         Only part of the site was garden space, the remainder was overgrown.

Members of the Committee made a number of comments including:

·         Air pollution was a major concern in this area, the inclusion of this development would only further erode this.

·         It was unsatisfactory to keep one bungalow in the middle of the access roads, this would not be in keeping with the local area.

·         The traffic on the main road up to the site was already congested and this development would only increase this.

·         There was a high risk to public safety with this development, primarily with the increased traffic coming out of a new development.

·         The development was not in keeping with policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan, as these dwellings would be different in character from surrounding buildings.

·         There were concerns around the green space areas.

·         This development was eroding natural green space to the rear of existing properties.

·         Noted that, that as the site was not identified in the current housing land supply, it would contribute towards the needed five year supply.

RESOLVED:

A proposal was made to approve the application in line with the officer’s

recommendation. Upon taking a vote, this motion failed.

A further proposal was made to refuse the application, as the fixed access point would have a detrimental impact on Nos. 56 and 60 Booth Rise and would be contrary to National Planning Policy H1.

On a vote this motion to REFUSE the application was passed for the following reason:

By reason of the scale and layout of the proposal, the development would lead to an increase in vehicle and pedestrian movements in close proximity to 56 and 60 Booth Rise. The development would therefore result in an increase in noise and disturbance creating a significant adverse impact upon residential amenity that would be contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy H1 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

8.25pm Councillor Davenport left the room at this point.