Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M Markham and Bottwood. Councillor Lane would be arriving late.

(Copy to follow)

The minutes of the meeting held on 21^st December 2020 would be brought to the next meeting for signing.

RESOLVED:

That under the following items, the members of the public and Ward Councillors listed below were granted leave to address the Committee:

N/2020/1346

Donald Hunter-Brown

Councillor Larratt

Thandi Zulu

N/2020/1349

Councillor Hibbert

James O’Grady

N/2020/0079

Chris Parr

N/2020/1340

Chris Parr

Councillor Birch declared a personal interest in respect of item 10F as the ward Councillor and advised of no predetermination.

None.

Report of Director of Planning and Sustainability (copy herewith)

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report of Current Appeals and Inquiries on behalf of the Director of Planning and Sustainability. She reported that 4 decisions had been reached by the Inspector; 3 appeals were dismissed and 1 was allowed. An appeal in relation to 104 Lower Thrift Street was dismissed; the Inspector agreed with officers that the basement window room failed to provide adequate light or outlook. An appeal relating to 102 Ashby Wood Drive was dismissed, the Inspector concluded that the insertion of roof lights would detract from the consistent design approach and plain roofs of the row of terraces resulting in a cluttered appearance . An appeal in relation to Little Norway Lodge, Houghton Lane was allowed; the application had been refused under delegated powers due to highway concerns of intensification of use of access and conflict with right of way but the Inspector concluded that the proposed use would not be dissimilar to that of a family home and any visits to the property would not be materially greater than that which could reasonably be expected of a reasonably busy family household. An appeal relating to 17 Holly Lodge Drive was dismissed; an application was previously approved for a 5-bed HMO but refused for a 7-bed HMO on grounds of parking and lack of amenity. The Inspector agreed with officers, noting the Council’s recently adopted SPD on HMOs and also noted parking levels in the area and considered the proposal would result in an unacceptable increase in on-road parking demand to detriment of highway safety and amenity.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

None.

None.

None.

The Interim Development Manager submitted a report to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained additional comments from Homes England. It was noted that the scheme before the Committee was the same that was approved in principle in July 2019; the only proposed changes were amendments to conditions to reflect the phased delivery of the development.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that the site had previously been subject to an independent viability assessment which concluded that due to historic costs relating to the construction of the North Orbital Road, 35% affordable housing could not be provided. It was also noted that whilst the site fell within Flood Zone 1, the application was subject to a flood assessment and conditions relating to drainage were included.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations as set out in the report.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee. The application sought approval for a change of use from Dwellinghouse to HIMO for 5 occupants. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMOs in a 50m radius would be 6.5%. It was explained that the application had been submitted further to a delegated refusal on the basis of inadequate communal space and that the current application addressed these concerns. 

In response to questions, the Committee heard that the number of toilets in the property exceeded those required in the Council’s SPD on HIMOs.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be ARPPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee. The application sought approval for the conversion of a charity shop, which had been vacant for a number of years, to hot food takeaway. A flue was proposed to be constructed to the rear of the unit.

In response to questions, it was explained that the Council did not have a current adopted policy on the provision of takeaways near schools; the Director of Planning and Sustainability advised that once the Council’s Local Plan Part 2 was adopted, more weight could be given to these issues.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

The Interim Development Manager submitted a report to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further neighbour objections in relation to the shared drive. No external alterations were proposed as part of the application. No staff would live on site but there would be a maximum of 3 members of staff in attendance at any one time, including 1 Ofsted-registered manager during the day. The use was considered similar to that of a family home and it was noted that there had been no statutory objections to the application. Conditions were included to restrict the amount and ages of children using the service and number of staff.

Donald Hunter-Brown, of a neighbouring property, spoke against the application and voiced concern around the shared access, suggesting that staffing levels may change depending on the needs of the children, and that if staff numbers increased, existing parking problems would be further exacerbated.

Councillor Larratt, speaking on behalf of local residents, spoke against the application and echoed the concerns made by Mr Hunter-Brown, stating that additional vehicles using the shared drive would cause conflict with existing residents.

Thandi Zulu, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and advised that the proposal would provide a home for children and should be encouraged. She advised that the company sought to work harmoniously with neighbours, and that the property would be maintained to Ofsted requirements and standards and would be subject to routine inspections. In response to questions, Ms Zulu advised that neighbours would be given the manager’s phone number. She further advised that whilst the property was already listed as a Children’s Home, an Ofsted licence for the home was dependent on planning permission being granted.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED due to the intensification of the use of the property with increased comings and goings and the potential for increased parking demand to the detriment of surrounding residential amenity and highway safety.

Councillor Lane joined the meeting at this juncture.

 The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further representations. The only external alteration proposed was the replacement of 1 window to a door. The site would be secured with 1 video monitored entrance where staff can let users in. A number of other existing entrances to the property would become alarmed fire escapes and the property would be served by 1 main entrance. 13 bedrooms, kitchen, reception and staff offices were proposed on the ground floor and 13 bedrooms and a further kitchen on the first floor, with bathrooms and clothes washing facilities on both. 1 further bedroom and staff office would be located on the second floor. The basements would all be used as storage. The proposal would see an increase of 2 occupants compared to the property’s previous use as a care home. It was the aim of the company that residents would spend a maximum of 28 days at the property before being moved on to more permanent accommodation, however they would stay longer if no suitable resettlement was found in that time. It was considered likely that at the most a service user would be seen by a specialist weekly on site, but the specialist would see more than 1 service user per visit. All potential service users would be referred to the site and be vetted prior to being accommodated and no guests would be permitted. The site would always be staffed and no persons would be permitted to enter or leave without a staff member present. In response to concerns raised regarding antisocial behaviour, the applicant submitted a detailed management plan and it was considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties, any more than its current use as a 25-person care home. Conditions were proposed including a limit on the number of occupants, requiring noise surveys and mitigation to neighbouring properties and bedrooms within the site, security measures and waste storage details.

Councillor Hibbert spoke in favour of the application and commented that that there were as many representations in support of the application as there were opposing it. He stated that Key Stage Housing had a good track record and were willing to work with neighbours if issues arose. Cllr Hibbert advised that he had visited the site and it was operating well. The proposal would help solve homelessness, provides a safe and secure space, is permanently staffed, and staff work with guests to help them.

James O’Grady, Director of Key Stage Housing, spoke in favour of the application and commented that there was a great need for homeless accommodation in Northampton, this was recognised by local authorities and the Government. Mr O’Grady stated that without intervention, there was a high risk that more people would die needlessly. He recognised the concern of local residents and asked that their concern be pointed in search of understanding and learning rather than fear.

Members discussed the report.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10f

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee. The application sought approval for the construction of a single-storey extension to create a self-contained “granny annex” for an elderly relative. The annex was linked to the main house, and any user would need to use the kitchen in the main house. A condition advising of the need for any occupier to be a dependent of and ancillary to the main house and not a separate planning unit was attached.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

None.

The Interim Development Management Team Leader submitted a report to the Committee which sought approval for the construction of 17 parking spaces including EV charging points for two vehicles. Additional planting to the west of the site was also proposed.

In response to a question, the Committee heard that the installation of additional EV charging points in the future would not be an onerous task.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

The Interim Development Management Team Leader submitted a report to the Committee which sought approval for the replacement of upper floor windows on Riverside House; the scheme was part-retrospective.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.