Agenda item

(Copy herewith)

Councillors Bottwood and Kilbride re-joined the meeting at this juncture.

Councillor Lane joined the meeting and confirmed that he had no interests to declare

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further representations from local residents and several revised conditions. It was highlighted that the site had a long planning history, the most recent application having been refused by the Planning Committee in 2015. An appeal in respect of the refusal of planning permission was dismissed in 2016, with the Inspector finding that whilst warehousing was an appropriate use, the height and footprint of the proposal would cause an unacceptable level of harm. It was explained that the new proposal saw a reduction of 2m in roof height, and that landscaping and 7-8m high bunding would screen the development. The bund would project out to a non-allocated piece of land but this too would be landscaped. Details of maintenance would form part of the S106 Agreement and the Committee heard that NCC Highways and Highways England did not raise objections to the application, subject to conditions, and the mitigation secured through the Legal Agreement.

Brian Hoare spoke against the application and commented that the application was a breach of Policy B9 of the Northampton Local Plan as it extended Swan Valley into West Hunsbury. He further referenced the Local Plan by stating that any development should not be hidden but blend in, which the proposed development would not do.

Responding to a question, Mr Hoare stated that he and local residents were not opposing   development on the site, and that the current application was virtually the same as one in 2002 which was considered unacceptable at the time.

Richard Matthews, a local resident, spoke against the application and commented that the application was the same as one presented in 2002. He stated that whilst the guidance was different, the application was still not suitable for the area.

In response to a question, Mr Matthews stated that the application considered in 2009 was on a smaller scale and more suitable.

Jonathan Best, consultant on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the proposed development was a reduction of 40% in floor space compared to the previous application, and that the development would create more than 300 jobs. He further commented that no statutory objections had been received in response to the application.

In response to a question, Mr Best stated that there was no proposed greywater facility. He further stated that the Wootton Brook was sufficient to cope with the run off of water, even in cases of extreme weather.

Martin Meech, Property Director of Travis Perkins, spoke in favour of the application and stated that the company would seek occupiers for the development, or sell it on, should the application be approved. Monies raised would then be reinvested in their existing facilities in the town.

In response to a question regarding reinvestment of facilities, Mr Meech explained that the Travis Perkins Head Office was in need of renovation.

The Principal Planning Officer advised, for clarity, of a number of differences between the current and previous applications, including the bunding and that whilst the buildings would be likely to operate on a 24 hour basis; noise levels would be controlled by conditions.

Responding to questions, the Principal Planning Officer explained that the overall height of the development was 2m lower than the previous application, although there would also be a reduction in the site levels and that the distance between the proposal and the closest residence was approximately 184m. The Committee heard that the site would benefit from bunding in terms of screening the development and acting as an acoustic fence. In terms of archaeology, Members heard that a programme of archaeological investigation would take place before the development was implemented. The response to any discovery would depend upon what was found, the quantity and condition.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the prior completion of a S106 Agreement and the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and addendum.