Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cali and Clark.

Members are asked to declare any interest and the nature of that interest which they may have in any of the items under consideration at this meeting.

Councillor Z Smith declared a predetermination in respect of Item 7D and advised that she would speak and leave the room whilst the item was discussed.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 8^th February 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8^th February 2022 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

To receive communications from the Chair.

There were no announcements from the Chair on this occasion.

RESOLVED:

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

N/2021/0035

Councillor Stone

WNN 2021/1011

Councillor Stone

WNN/2021/1145 &

WNN/2021/1146

Councillor Stone

WNN/2021/1155

Councillor Z Smith

Councillor Bob Purser

Danielle Stone

William Shields

There were no decisions to report on this occasion; an update would be brought to the next meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee which sought approval for the construction of a four-storey building, including basement, to provide 19 flats (16 x 1 bed and 3 x 2 bed, all meeting national space standards) and basement parking. The site was subject to a number of previous applications, the most recent of which was approved under N/2019/0426 for 14 flats and basement parking. The latest proposal was similar in design to that which was most recently approved with regards to height. The scheme had been amended during the course of the application to remove a corner of the development which was found to be encroaching onto the highway. Highways had objected to the application due to a lack of parking, however it was noted that the development site was in a sustainable location, close to shopping facilities and public transport links. A central void would be provided to the west to allow windows to be provided within it. Windows would be positioned within this void so that habitable rooms faced non-habitable or secondary windows which could be obscure glazed. A condition requiring this was proposed. The site sat within the Boot and Shoe Quarter Conservation Area and the Conservation Officer advised that the development would be an improvement to that previously granted which can still be implemented on site. An independent viability assessment concluded that the development would not be viable if any affordable housing was proposed and reduced S106 financial contributions were accepted. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained additional supporting comments from the Planning Agent and an amendment to the recommendation.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as a Ward Member for Castle, spoke against the application and agreed that the site needed developing, however the scheme represented an overdevelopment; there were no amenities provided and the area already suffered with issues linked to the high concentration of HMOs. Councillor Stone felt that it was wrong to provide high density accommodation with no outdoor communal space and that the site was not in a sustainable location, and raised concern with the lack of affordable housing.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that a condition was proposed to secure details of security for the entire development prior to occupation. It was noted that the Conservation Officer and TCCAAC did not agree with rendering to the external face of the building; Condition 15 required details of all proposed external facing materials to be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Council and the developer had been advised that render would not be appropriate.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to completion of an Section106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report, and  subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and that the Assistant Director for place & Economy be granted delegated authority to amend the conditions as deemed necessary.

Councillor King joined the meeting at this juncture and advised of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

The Interim Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee which sought approval for the erection of part first and second floor extensions to provide 13 apartments comprising of 7 studio apartments, 4 x 1-bed and 2 x 2-bed, self-contained apartments with associated cycle store and refuse storage, including the formation of an entrance lobby to the apartments off St Giles Terrace along with new access doors off Abington Street in Northampton town centre. The proposal was a resubmission of a previously approved scheme, reference N/2018/0795, which is time expired. Whilst it was noted that 1 studio apartment fell below the Nationally Described Space Standards, the majority of units met or exceed the requirements and it was not considered that a refusal could be upheld at appeal for this reason.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as a Ward Member for Castle, spoke against the application and stated that the scheme was an overdevelopment; she wanted the Authority to take more control over the developments that came to the town. She stated that there was no evidence that additional student/studio accommodation was required and expressed disappointment at the lack of amenities to be provided.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that separate waste storage facilities were to be provided for the flats and the commercial unit. It was also noted that Environmental Health concerns had been addressed, as had complaints relating to the scale and design of the scheme in the 2018 application.

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 which sought Planning Permission and Listed building consent for the conversion of the existing group of three buildings to 4 apartments and a 7-bed HMO, including the demolition of existing rear outbuildings to create an amenity area and associated alterations. The existing ground floor and basement area would be retained as retail/commercial use comprising 3 separate units with the residential accommodation located on the upper floors. Each of the HIMO bedrooms would be double occupancy (for a total of 14 occupants) all with en-suites and a condition limited the number of occupants.  There being no other HMOs in a 50m radius, the concentration, should the application be approved, would be 6.7%.The proposal included the installation of bin and cycle stores to the rear accessed from the ground floor. In terms of the listed building application, there would be no changes to the frontage onto Bridge Street.  External alterations to the rear would comprise the demolition of the outbuildings and making good, and internal alterations would involve the creation of new internal partitions required to create new residential accommodation. The Conservation Officer raised no objections. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an update to the recommendation.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as a Ward Member for Castle, spoke against the application and stated that this was not a “family friendly” development; it was overdevelopment; there were no amenities provided and the development would not fit in with other nearby businesses.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that the HMO would have separate access to the retail unit and that in respect of security, the HMO would be subject to Licensing requirements.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Z Smith moved to public seating at this juncture, having declared a predetermination in the following Item.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee which sought permission for a Change of Use from Flexible Use House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C3/C4) with a limit of 6 occupants, to a 7 person House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis) including a dormer loft conversion and rear extensions with associated internal alterations (extensions previously approved under N/2021/0071). All proposed bedrooms would have ensuite bathrooms. There were no objections from Environmental Health or Private Sector Housing. With regards to the impact on the highway network, it was explained that the property sat in a sustainable location, close to public transport links and shopping facilities. The proposed increase of 1 bedroom was not considered by officers to cause a significant highway impact.

Councillor Smith, in her capacity as a Ward Member for Abington, spoke against the application and commented that there was no extra parking in the area and noted that Highways as well as the Crime Prevention Officer had raised concerns. Concern was raised with why a parking beat survey was not completed. Cllr Smith advised that any increase in traffic in the area would be very dangerous notwithstanding the approach Inspectors take to sustainable locations. Councillor Smith further advised that the property was already causing problems associated with HMOs including antisocial behaviour and fly tipping.

Councillor Smith left the room for the remainder of the discussion.

Councillor Purser, in his capacity as a Ward Member for Abington, spoke against the application and commented that the application was an overdevelopment; parking was already dire in the area and whilst he welcomed the inclusion of en-suite bedrooms, it meant that living space was reduced.

Danielle Stone, in her capacity as a member of the public, spoke against the application and commented that the area was dangerous as people would have to park a significant distance from their homes and antisocial behaviour in the area was a regular occurrence. Cllr Stone advised that there are a large number of HiMOs and flats in the area and it is not a safe area. Concerns were raised with parking, and that HiMO’s are not good places to live during COVID.

William Shields, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the extensions had been previously approved. The property was already licenced as a HiMO, all of the rooms exceeded minimum space standards and good amenity was provided, and there were no technical objections to the application.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Chairman to advise whether they have agreed to any items of urgent business being admitted to the agenda.

There was no urgent business on this occasion.