Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Kilby-Shaw.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13^th February 2018 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

RESOLVED:

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

N/2017/1610

Gary Owens

N/2017/1613

Gary Owens

N/2017/1630

Councillor Stone

N/2017/1689

Councillor Golby

John Woolacott

Val Coleby

N/2018/0003

Julie Lappin

John Bright

Jonathan McDermott

N/2018/0011

Councillor Stone

Jane Lassetter

N/2018/0029

Paul Smith

N/2018/0069

Paul Bates

Richard Jeyes

Willem Jacobs

N/2018/0083

Councillor Smith

N/2018/0092

Councillor Smith

Dennis Stott

N/2018/0094

Natasha Declerck

Alyson Jellis

N/2018/0098

Rod Kilsby

Councillor Kilbride declared a personal and disclosable pecuniary interest in items 10c, 10d and 10j as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes (NPH).

Councillor M Markham declared a personal and disclosable pecuniary interest in items 10c, 10d and 10j as a board member of NPH.

Councillor Davenport declared a personal and non-pecuniary interest in items 10g, 10i, 10l and 10o as the Ward Councillor.

There were none.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries on behalf of the Head of Planning and elaborated thereon. It was reported that an application relating to a change of use to a HIMO at 51 Southampton Road, refused by the Committee, had been allowed at appeal; the Inspector found that the site was located in a sustainable location. It was noted that the Inspector had determined that 2 Gray Street, a proposed 3-bedroom student annexe, was also in a sustainable location and so had been allowed. Members were informed that limited evidence had been found to support claims of “no parking provision”. An advertisement application relating to 11-25 Campbell Street had been dismissed with the Inspector agreeing with officers’ decision to refuse due to visual intrusion.  An appeal at 79-83 Semilong for two dwellings was allowed.

In response to questions, it was explained that in the absence of evidence dangerous parking and high traffic volumes could not be attributed to HIMO properties and that the Inspector looked at each individual application on its own merits.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

There were none.

There were none.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the proposed works were considered small-scale and that a condition had been added to ensure that the colour of the cables was sympathetic to the design of the bell tower.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

(addendum attached)

At this juncture, Councillors Kilbride and M Markham left the room.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the application sought to vary the Construction Management Plan and change routes and access in relation to deliveries. It was proposed that bricks would be stored at the south part of a car park on Chalk Lane.

Paul Bates, a local resident, spoke against the application and commented that the conditions within the Management Plan were routinely abused, noting that several trees had been removed despite a condition to preserve all trees shown in the approved plans.

Richard Jeyes, a local resident, spoke against the application and commented that the access gate mentioned in the Management Plan was not erected until residents had complained. He raised concerns regarding a risk of toxic fumes in the area and stated that parking was at a premium and that residents could not afford to lose a third of the parking spaces in the car park.

Willem Jacobs, Project Manager for NPH, spoke in favour of the application.

In response to questions, Mr Jacobs explained that meetings had taken place with officers and residents to try and mitigate as much disruption as possible. He further commented that subcontractors had been made aware of where they should and should not park and that it was the responsibility of NPH and their primary contractors to deal with enforcement.

The Development Management Team Leader explained that several trees that had been removed were not protected and that as part of the landscaping plan, more trees would be planted on the site than were there previously.

RESOLVED:

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

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the proposed development would see 2 semi-detached and 3 terraced properties in place of 2 existing properties, with 2 parking spaces per property.

Gary Owens, project manager for NPH, spoke in favour of the application and explained that the properties would let under the “Affordable Rent” scheme.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that 2-bedroom homes had been found to be most in need in the area.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the Highway Authority had not objected to the layout of the proposed development subject to further details of the gates which would be addressed by Condition 6.

Gary Owens, project manager for NPH, spoke in favour of the application and explained that the property would let under the “Affordable Rent” scheme.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning to consider any further comments following the expiry of the consultation period.

Councillors Kilbride and M Markham re-joined the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report containing a planning application to change the building’s use and a listed building application to allow for internal works, including the reintroduction of the original ground-floor stairway to allow access to two 2-bedroom flats on each of the upper floors.

In response to a question relating to waste, the Head of Planning confirmed that the new properties would be added to a waste collection route should the applications be approved.  In addition, Members were advised that there would be scope to add a condition requiring the provision of internal refuse storage within each flat.

RESOLVED:

That the applications be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report, with the addition of a condition to agree internal refuse storage for the flats.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further representations. The Committee were informed that the property originally converted to a café under temporary permitted development right and the occupiers were now applying for a permanent change of use of the building rather than vacate the premises.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained 3 neighbour representations. The Committee were informed that the number of bedrooms proposed had reduced from 5 to 4 following objections from the Environmental Agency due to the property being situated within Flood Zone 2. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 7.5%.

Councillor Stone, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that due to the prevalence of flats, the area was much more densely populated than it appeared to be. She stated that the Committee would be acting against its own considerations should the application be approved.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

At this juncture Councillor Golby moved to public seating.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the proposed development would extend 1.6 metres further forward than the existing building and that office use would generate higher employment than the existing use. It was noted that the first floor windows would be obscure glazed to protect neighbours’ privacy.

Councillor Golby, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site and that an office block was not in keeping with the surroundings. Councillor Golby stated that whilst employment was important, local residents had concerns with the application.

After addressing the Committee, Councillor Golby left the room.

John Woolacott, a local resident, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding overdevelopment, road congestion and pollution, with particular reference to the nearby children’s play area.

Val Coleby, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the building’s design was based on similar properties nearby and that the scheme was sympathetic towards concerns raised.

In response to a question, Ms Coleby advised that up to 20 people would be working in the building at full operation.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report, with the addition of a condition for hours of operation to be agreed with the Chair and the Head of Planning.

Councillor Golby re-joined the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that prior approval was being sought to change a light industrial building to 8 micro-flats flats, the 4 points that the Committee could assess being:

·         Transport and Highways Impact

·         Contamination Risks

·         Flooding Risks

·         Impact on sustainability of industrial area

The Committee heard that whilst the Highway Authority had objected to the application, having regard to the parking requirements for the existing use and the sustainable location of the site, officers consider that the impact is not severe and therefore recommend approval.

Julie Lappin, representing her son (a local resident), spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding parking in the evenings, waste, fly tipping, noise and health and safety.

John Bright, a local resident, spoke against the application and commented that the proposal represented an overdevelopment and voiced further concerns regarding health and safety, waste, noise, parking and stated that the development was not conducive of a residential area.

In response to a question, Mr Bright confirmed that residents had not been consulted by the developer on the application.

Jonathan McDermott, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the development would bring a vacant building back into use.  In addition, Mr McDermott highlighted that the property is a light industrial building in a residential area and that the proposal had been found acceptable by officers when assessed against the 4 considerations for prior notification applications.  Mr McDermott also detailed that Appeal Inspectors have determined HIMOs on Southampton Road to be in a sustainable location and that the parking harm from light industrial would be similar to that of 8 flats.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that noise was not a consideration for this application and that the Council could not impose further conditions.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That prior notification be REFUSED against officer recommendation on impacts on transport and highways. Full refusal reason to be agreed with the Chair and the Head of Planning.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an amendment to the recommendation. The Committee were informed that should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 11.6%. It was noted that due to parking restrictions in the area, there were no objections by the Highway Authority.

Councillor Stone, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and stated that the Council did not have an accurate picture of HIMOs in the area and that the Council’s policy on HIMOs was not working for residents. She voiced concerns regarding health and safety, antisocial behaviour, parking and waste.

Jane Lassitter, a local resident, spoke against the application and voiced concerns relating to waste, fly tipping, graffiti and parking. She stated her belief that the number of HIMOs in the area had seemed to have doubled in the last year.

In response to a question, the Committee heard that the applicant could appeal on non-determination, should Members choose to defer the item.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning to consider any further comments following expiry of the consultation period.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that whilst the Highway Authority had objected to the application, the increase in parking provision was not significant enough to warrant refusal. Since this application was a variation there would be no increase in the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius.

Paul Smith, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the increase was minor and that there had been no problems with the existing tenants relating to noise or waste.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that the applicant’s research showed that 4-bed HIMOs were more sustainable, particularly when letting to students.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

At this juncture, Councillor Smith moved to public seating.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that whilst the Highway Authority had objected to the application, the location was considered sustainable due to the close proximity of local amenities. It was noted that should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 13%.

Councillor Smith, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and voiced concerns regarding parking, mentioning a recent crash in the vicinity. She advised that visibility was poor due to the high number of vehicles and maintained that people living in the town centre and in HIMOs did drive.

After addressing the Committee, Councillor Smith left the room.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Smith re-joined the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the area was well served by local amenities, the level of occupancy within the property and details related to cycle and waste storage were limited by conditions and that should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 2.9%

Members discussed the report.

RESSOLVED:

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

At this juncture, Councillor Smith moved to public seating.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the proposed development would include a ground-floor toilet and 2 first-floor shower rooms. It was noted that the area was well served by amenities and public transport links and that a condition had been added to ensure the basement would not be used as a bedroom at any time. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 13.8%.

Councillor Smith, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and voiced her concern that a parking beat survey had not been carried out. She suggested that when an applicant did not carry out a parking beat survey, the Council should, so that the Planning Committee had a fuller picture of the parking situation in an area.

In response to a question, the Committee heard that when the location of a property was considered sustainable, there was no need for a parking beat survey to be carried out.

After addressing the Committee, Councillor Smith left the room.

Dennis Stott, a local resident, spoke against the application and voiced concerns regarding sewage, stating that the property’s sewage system would not be able to cope if the property changed use.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Smith re-joined the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the changes included in this variation to the approved application were considered minor as the street was already varied.

Natasha DeClercke, of Great Houghton Parish Council, spoke against the application and stated her belief that the work had already been carried out. She further stated that the front roof lights had a negative impact on the street scene.

Alyson Jellis, the owner, spoke in favour of the application and confirmed that some repair works had been carried out.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the height of the property would remain unchanged after the extension, if approved.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that changes would need to be sufficiently minor to be accepted as non-material.

Rod Kilsby, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and stated that the materials used would match the adjoining building.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED as per the officer recommendation.

There were none.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. The Committee were informed that the site had been allocated under the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and that matters of lighting, drainage and archaeology were covered by conditions within the outline and full consent.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that there was existing parking for lorries, approximately half the size of the proposed lorry park, and that the application did include highway improvements in the immediate area. It was further explained that Section 106 Agreement obligations had been finalised as part of the outline planning application.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That Northampton Borough Council RAISE NO OBJECTIONS as per the officer recommendation.