Agenda and minutes

An apologyfor absence was received from Councillor Choudary.

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 advised of a predetermination in respect of item 7f and stated that she would speak on the item and leave the room for the remainder of the discussion and the vote.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 7^th June 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7^th June 2022 would be brought to the following meeting.

To receive communications from the Chair.

The Chair announced that items 7c (WNN/2022/0307) and 7f (WNN/2022/0448) were called in by councillors who had not registered to speak before the deadline, so the applications were withdrawn from the agenda and would be determined by officers in accordance with the Council’s scheme of delegations.

RESOLVED:

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

WNN/2021/0699

Helen Marks

WNN/2021/0963

Tony Pickering

WNN/2022/0448

Councillor Z Smith

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 an industrial building to be used as B2/B8 business use, which would provide industrial/warehouse space with ancillary offices. The proposal included the building and a wider site area comprising car parking, hard surfaced yard and associated landscaping. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained amended conditions including the removal of Condition 7 as it was a repeat of Condition 6 in respect of parking requirements, and a new Condition 7 in respect of flood issues. It was explained that the applicant had operated in Milton Keynes for a number of years and was looking to relocate to a larger site. There were no policy objections or objections from statutory consultees and the Local Flood Authority had raised no objections to the application, subject to conditions which were contained within the report.

Helen Marks, the agent on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. She advised that the applicant had outgrown its current location and was looking to expand its operation. 50 staff would be employed initially, with the potential to increase these numbers by a third as demand grew. She noted that the scheme had been amended following consultee responses.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that regarding paragraph 4.1 of the report, the footpath diversion/stopping up related to a previous Section 257 application considered by Committee, however officers were waiting for this development scheme to be determined by the Committee before progressing with confirmation of the footpath diversion/stopping up Order. The footpath diversion was already in place in place on site.

Members discussed the report.

Councillor Connolly proposed and Councillor Clark seconded that the officer recommendation be approved. The recommendation contained within the report were put to a vote and was unanimously declared carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and with amendments to conditions – removal of Condition 7 and new Condition 7 (flood risk)

New Condition 7:

The development hereby shall be carried out in accordance with the approved flood risk assessment (ref SHED EdgarMobbs FRDA rev D dated 31 May 2022) and the following mitigation measures it details:

·       No development / use of land within flood zone 3b as shown in section 3.2 of the FRA.

·       No alterations to land levels in the southern part of the site which lie within flood zones 3a and 3b.

·       Finished floor level of the building should be set a minimum of 300mm above the 0.5% (1 in 200) plus climate change flood level.

These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the scheme’s timing/phasing arrangements. The measures shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To secure a satisfactory standard of development, to prevent flooding elsewhere and to reduce the risk of flooding within the site and to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee which sought approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale relating to Outline Planning Permission N/2018/1034 which was approved by Northampton Borough Council on 1st November 2018. This was a reserved matters application; the principle of development had previously been established. The proposed office unit would be similar in scale and design as others nearby and it was noted that the Arboricultural Officer had no objections to the planting scheme as proposed. The proposed office unit was over 60m from the nearest residential unit and so it was not considered that there would be any impact on neighbouring residents. Condition 3 related to flooding measures and required an Emergency Egress Plan to be implemented in the case of flooding on the site to be submitted to the Council. Additional conditions relating to security measures and a construction environmental management plan were also included.

Tony Pickering, trustee for Clubs for Young People Northamptonshire, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He commented that there had been several instances of flooding in the area following development in the area over recent years. The single lane access was frequently used by pedestrians and cyclists and Mr Pickering had concern that increased traffic would lead to an accident. He also stated that the north elevation had no features and would look very bleak from the Rowing Club.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that conditions relating to drainage and flooding were included in the report. He further confirmed that the principle of access was approved at the outline stage and Highways had raised no objections.

In response to questions, the Committee were informed that the proposed development was not required to provide EV charging points at the time that the outline application was considered as there was no policy requirement in place. It was anticipated that an attenuation and drainage management plan would be forthcoming as part of the condition requirements of the outline consent.

Members discussed the report.

Councillor Z Smith proposed, and Councillor Russell seconded that the officer recommendation be approved. The recommendation contained within the report was put to a vote and was unanimously declared carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report with an amendment to Condition 5 to include reference to external lighting with regard to biodiversity considerations.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee which sought approval for the construction of a single storey side/rear extension which would fill the gap between the outrigger and the common boundary with the neighbouring property. Materials used would match the existing building and there were no objections received in respect of the application. Whilst the proposed extension would have some overbearing visual impact on the neighbouring property, it was considered that the amended design with a lean to roof would help shift the mass away from the common boundary.

Members discussed the report.

Councillor Clark proposed, and Councillor Dyball seconded that the officer recommendation be approved. The recommendation contained within the report was put to a vote and was unanimously declared carried.

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.

Councillor Z Smith moved to public seating, having advised of a predetermination in the following item.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee which sought approval for a change from existing retail unit and associated offices and storage areas to 5 apartments, including part demolition of existing buildings and internal alterations and modifications to the existing external openings, together with new external openings. All apartments would have 1 bedroom. Two units were proposed on a single floor and the remainder to be split over 2 and 3 floors. All of the apartments met nationally described space standards. The shop windows would be replaced with domestic windows and additional windows would be installed. Conditions were included in the report to ensure that external materials used matched the surrounding properties. No parking was proposed as part of the application; however, the unit’s previous use would have generated its own parking and the properties were situated within a sustainable location.

Councillor Z Smith addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. She commented that there were too many apartments proposed and the application demonstrated landlord greed. She noted that the nationally described space standards could not be applied to the apartments that were split over 3 floors. She raised concern around dangerous parking practices and traffic issues in the area.

After addressing the Committee, Councillor Z Smith left the room for the remainder of the item.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the government had not provided guidance relating to space standards for 1 bed apartments over 3 floors but when taken as a whole, those flats did meet the nationally described space standards. He further confirmed that following amendments to the scheme, Northamptonshire Fire & Rescue Service had made no comment on the application.

Members discussed the report and commented that they would have preferred to see an application for 4 apartments, but it was acknowledged that a decision must be made on the application before them.

Councillor Lane proposed, and Councillor Dyball seconded that the officer recommendation be approved. The recommendation contained within the report was put to a vote and was declared carried with 3 votes for, 2 votes against and 3 abstentions. The Chair cast the deciding vote.

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.