Agenda item

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to information contained in the addendum, including 2 additional Conditions relating to highway safety.

Members were informed that the impact of the development, would be neutral to the local area. It was stated that whilst the 40 parking spaces proposed were below recommendations, the development was well served by public transport and close to local amenities and the town centre. As a consequence, the development would not have an unacceptable highways impact. It was further noted that 35% of the dwellings within the development would be affordable housing, and that the 40 dwellings would contribute towards the Council’s 5-year housing supply.

Sarah Evans addressed the Committee, speaking on behalf of Far Cotton Residents Association. She said that although the building was garish as it stood presently, it was very charming. She stated that Northampton was “crying out for culture”, that some other 1930s cinemas had been restored to their former glory and had become real assets for their towns. She went on to comment that flats could go anywhere. She also stated that very few residents were aware of the application and those that were, had advised her not to speak at Committee as it would be a waste of time. She further stated that the long-term residents were suffering due to the close proximity of the university and the increase in HIMOs, commenting that the area was over-stretched already.

Jill Harris, a local resident, addressed Members. She stated that for people living in the area, parking was already a daily battle. She commented that it was a case of the domino effect; if a person could not park outside of their home, they would look further away to find a space and so on. Ms Harris noted that in theory, a maximum 64 car increase could be seen accompanying the development, even before visitors to residents or customers were factored in. The recent influx of HIMOs, she commented, had made the situation worse, and the added traffic when Delapre Abbey opened would further exacerbate the problem.

In response to questions, Ms Harris stated that she believed there were 26 HIMOs on her street alone; double parking was a frequent problem with the Police being regularly involved.

Councillor Walker addressed Members as the Ward Councillor for Delapre and Briar Hill. He also commented on the building’s regrettable prominence, sited on one of the main entrances into the town. The main problem, Councillor Walker stated, was the sense of community of spirit had been eroded and, made worse in recent years by the ever-increasing demand for student/single person accommodation without thought to local infrastructure, this application being no exception. It was noted that at a time when the Council was looking to highlight culture and tourism in the town, it seemed nonsensical to knock down one of the few Art Deco buildings in Northampton. Councillor Walker implored that the Committee refuse the application.

Responding to questions, Councillor Walker stated that he did not believe developments like this would do anything to halt or reverse the amount of HIMOs in the area as they were already there, it was a case of “too little too late”.

Nigel Ozier, the Planning Consultant, addressed Members. He commented that there were numerous benefits to the proposed development including the appearance of a new, landmark building at one of the main entrances into the town and regeneration to the local area. The current site, Members were informed, was not a viable site for a cinema and would be much better suited as housing land. He noted that having 35% of the dwellings as affordable housing would come with significant costs but it was a good plan and a sustainable proposal. Mr Ozier acknowledged parking concerns but maintained the view that 40 spaces would be enough, as single people and students/young people were less likely to be car drivers. Cycle storage would also be provided. He also stated that the development would be a positive thing for the community, bringing new people and money to the area.

Responding to questions, Mr Ozier stated that pre-application consultation had taken place with Officers and that although the provision of 40 parking spaces were less than recommended, it was unlikely that they would all be in use all of the time.

Mr Rob Woolston, the architect for the development, addressed Members. He repeated earlier statements that the building would be a prominent feature of a main gateway into the town. Although the height of the building was subject to discussion, there would be no overshadowing and that revisions had been made to the design to improve its appearance. He stated that a reduction to accommodate more parking provision would lead to viability issues (as the number of dwellings would need to be reduced). This would call into question the ability to deliver the 35% affordable housing. Underground parking had not been considered due to viability concerns and previous flooding issues.

In response to questions to officers, Members heard that although the number of HIMO properties was high in the area and existing parking pressures were noted each planning application needed to be considered on its own merits. In this instance, it was considered that, with reference to the nature of the development and its location, the parking provision was sufficient.  . They also heard that the current building was not in a conservation area so demolition was not an issue. A condition (12) had also been added regarding the implementation of a programme of archaeological work.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to an S106 Legal Agreement to secure:

1)    i)          35% on-site affordable housing;

ii)         The provision of construction worker training opportunities and a financial contribution in respect of the administration of that scheme;

iii)        The provision of construction worker training opportunities and a financial contribution in respect of the administration of that scheme;

iv)        The Council’s monitoring fee, subject to the Head of Planning being satisfied the monitoring fee is necessary and of an appropriate scale.

2)    The conditions as set out within the report and the two additional Conditions contained within the addendum and for the following reason:

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, wildlife, flood risk and the highway system. The development is therefore in conformity with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies S10 and H1 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and Policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.

3)    It was also agreed that in the event of the Section 106 Legal Agreement not being completed within 3 calendar months of this Committee meeting, in addition 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 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.