Agenda and minutes

Councillor King would be arriving late.

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 8d and stated that she would leave the room whilst the item was under discussion. She also advised of a personal interest in respect of item 8c due to the application being within her ward but advised of no predetermination.

To confirm the Minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 6^th September 2022 and 1^st November 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5^th November 2022 were awaiting legal sign-off and would be brough to the next meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6^th September 2022 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

To receive communications from the Chair.

There were no Chair’s announcements on this occastion.

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

WNN/2022/1072

John Howsam

N/2020/1474

Councillor Stone

Gary Burlison

N/2020/1497

Councillor Stone

N/2021/0226

Councillor Purser

WNN/2022/0730

Councillor Purser

Mark Evans

WNN/2022/0826

Roger Bullimore-Smith

WNN/2022/0861

Chris Parr

WNN/2022/1115

Councillor Davenport

The Development Management Team Leader presented a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries and advised that 2 decisions had been reached by the Inspector. An application relating to 161 Euston Road had been refused under delegated powers due to there being a proposed ground floor bedroom when the property sat within Flood Zone 2, and an application relating to 253 Billing Road East was refused under delegated powers due to the proposal not being in keeping with, and its impact on the existing property. In both cases, the Inspector agreed with the officer decisions and dismissed the appeals.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee which sought approval for a change of use from car park to temporary home for Northampton Market Stall Holders, with associated works. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an update from the Environment Agency: their objection had been removed following the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment and subject to an additional Condition (11).

Councillor Dyball joined the meeting at this juncture and took no part in the debate and did not vote on the item.

John Howsam addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He stated that due to the loss of 117 parking spaces, he calculated that the Council would lose £730,000 in parking charges in 2 years and £260,000 in rental income in the same period. He noted that 15,000 people had signed a petition opposing the plans and that discussions should take place with market traders to come up with new plans. Mr Howsam believed that people would not travel to the market’s new location.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that deliveries to the new location would take place before and after the market was open for business, and that a market management plan would be in place to ensure the smoothness of operations. Toilets would be provided onsite and there was level access to Bridge Street and St Peter’s Walk. It was noted that the cost implications were not a material consideration; this was a matter that had been considered by the Cabinet.

Members made the following comments:

·       There was concern around people not wanting to travel from the bus station.

·       There was concern around safety and equalities impacts, disabled access, etc.

·       Members had to support residents as well as the Council.

Councillor Lane proposed and Councillor Connolly seconded that the officer recommendation be agreed. The recommendation contained within the report was put to a vote and declared lost with 3 votes for, 5 votes against and 1 abstention.

Members were advised that equality and the previously submitted petition to Council were not material considerations. They were further advised that a condition could be added which required details of disabled toilet facilities. Harm to the area was also not a valid reason for refusal since the change of use was temporary.

Following the discussion, it was proposed by Councillor Z Smith and seconded by Councillor Cali that the application be deferred to a future meeting. The vote was carried with 7 votes for and 2 against.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED to a future meeting.

Councillor King joined the meeting at this juncture and advised of no declarations of interest.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that since items 8a and 8b were adjacent and very similar applications by the same applicant, he would deliver his presentation on both applications under this item. He then presented the reports to the Committee which sought outline approval for the construction of up to 6-storey buildings to provide up to 112 and 66 1, 2, and 3-bedroom flats and apartments, commercial development and associated ancillary works. 41 and 38 parking spaces were proposed for the respective developments and amenity space would be provided. Objections to the applications had been received from various conservation groups and it was explained that following the submission of a viability assessment, the schemes would not be viable if they were to provide any affordable housing.

The Chair invited Councillor Stone to speak and allowed her 6 minutes to make a statement as she had registered to speak on items 8a and 8b.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as a Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. She commented that whilst she was happy that the scheme had been amended somewhat, it still did not support the Council’s vision for cohesive communities and a clean and green town. This area of the town centre did not have the infrastructure for what could be an additional 470 people and no contributions by the applicant would be made to support local services. Councillor Stone also noted that the proposed developments would sit between 2 busy roads and that the town centre already suffered from poor air quality.

Gary Burlison, owner of the Malt Shovel Tavern, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He commented that the developments would have a major effect on his business and that all of the light would be lost from the garden and the upstairs accommodation. He also voiced concern around the foundation of a 6-storey building and how it may affect the pub, and around the residential waste storage that would be next to his boundary wall.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that construction of the new party wall would be managed through the construction management plan. The applications were recommended for approval on the basis that the pub would continue to operate as it was, and noise mitigation measures would be put in place throughout the developments.

Members made the following comments:

·       The variety of buildings along Bridge Street were being lost.

·       Some were concerned about additional housing without any additional infrastructure support.

·       There was not enough detail around sustainability.

·       The town centre was full and had poor air quality.

·       The area was already run down; regeneration was preferable to what was there currently.

·       The proposals did not meet the policy requirements set out in the Housing Strategy.

Councillor Connolly proposed and Councillor King seconded that the recommendations contained within the reports be agreed. The recommendations were put to the vote and declared lost with 4 votes for, 6 votes against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

The presentation and debate for this application took place during the previous item.

Councillor Connolly proposed and Councillor King seconded that the recommendations contained within the reports be approved. The recommendations were put to the vote and declared lost with 4 votes for, 6 votes against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED due to the impact on the setting of the Conservation Area, overdevelopment, and scale.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the report to the Committee which sought approval for the construction of 5 apartments above the Cube Disability Day Centre. The ground floor garage would be removed to provide an entrance to the apartments and waste and cycle storage would also be provided. All of the units would meet national minimum space standards and there would be no windows on the neighbour-facing wall. While there were some overlooking concerns, the proposal would not result in any additional overlooking than already existed elsewhere on the street. It was explained that the parking impact was not significant enough to warrant refusal of the application. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained additional comments from the applicant.

Councillor Purser, in his capacity as a Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He stated that the proposal was an overdevelopment, and that the area was already congested and could not cope with additional vehicles. He felt that the lack of a Highways report was concerning.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that the applicant ran the day centre below the application site and intended to house people with additional needs, however the proposal was assessed as standard units.

Members made comments as follows:

·       There was no residual parking in the area.

·       People with additional needs may not drive but may have frequent driving visitors.

Councillor Choudary proposed and Councillor King seconded that the officer recommendation be agreed. The recommendation contained within the report was put to the vote and declared carried with 9 votes for and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Z Smith left the room, having advised of a predetermination in the following item.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee which sought approval for a change of use from dwellinghouse to HMO for 4 occupants. All rooms would exceed national minimum space standards, and should the application be approved, the concentration of HMOs in a 50m radius would be 3.6%. A condition was included to ensure that the basement was not used as a habitable room at any time. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained comments from the Local Highway Authority and amendments to the wording of Conditions 4 and 5.

Councillor Purser, in his capacity as a Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He commented that parking was congested in the area, and that the use of the term “sustainable location” in the report was a misnomer, since people living in town centre locations still used cars. He also stated that the loss of a family home was detrimental to the community.

Mark Evans, the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. He advised that he owned several successful HMOs in the town. All planning criteria had been met and the proposed HMO was in an area with low existing HMO concentration. Mr Evans further advised that the lettings agent that managed the house would carry out monthly inspections of the property and that the agent would be available to neighbours 24 hours a day, every day.

In response to questions, Mr Evans explained that car usage for an HMO was generally lower than for a family home, and that he liked to rent his properties to groups of people who knew each other as it was a more cohesive arrangement.

Members discussed the report.

Councillor Clark proposed and Councillor Connolly seconded that the officer recommendation be agreed. The recommendation contained within the report was put to a vote and declared carried with 7 votes for, 2 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and amended Conditions 4 and 5 as set out in the addendum.

Amended Condition 4

Full details of the provision for the storage of refuse and materials for recycling shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation or bringing into use of the building hereby permitted and thereafter retained.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to secure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with Policy H1 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

Amended Condition 5

Full details of facilities for the secure and covered parking of bicycles shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and fully implemented prior to the development being first brought into use and retained thereafter. 

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate facilities in accordance with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee which sought approval for the retention of a 20m high telecommunications column with associated antennas, and the replacement of a meter cabinet and ancillary works. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained an additional condition to be added should the application be approved.

Roger Bullimore-Smith, a local resident, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He commented that he was objecting to the process; he believed that the applicant had no intention of installing the column in its original location.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that Environmental Health had received no complaints regarding the column, and that its new location was due to the discovery of underground cables in its original location. It was noted that enforcement had taken place following resident calls to the Council; Planning Enforcement officers were on site the following day to serve the applicant with a notice to urgently regularise the development.

Members made comments as follows:

·       The circumstances were unfortunate, but the column was necessary.

·       Better communication with local residents would have caused less friction.

Councillor Choudary proposed and Councillor Z Smith seconded that the officer recommendation be agreed. The recommendation contained within the report was put to a vote and declared carried with 8 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report, and additional condition contained in the addendum.

Additional Condition

Within 3 months of the decision date, the approved mast and associated antennae shall be colour coated in Fir Green (RAL number 6009) and retained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity to comply with Policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.

Councillors Choudary and Flavell left the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee which sought approval for a change of use from retail units to 12 affordable apartments, including waste and cycle storage. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained a correction to the report which removed the requirement for a Section 106 Legal Agreement and a revised officer recommendation.

Chris Parr, Major Works Manager for Northampton Partnership Homes (NPH), addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. He commented that a number of the proposed units would be fully disabled accessible, and that the development would provide a higher number of parking spaces than were required.

In response to questions, Mr Parr advised that the site was on a main bus route along Bedford Road to the town centre.

Members commented that the proposed development was of high quality and much needed in the town.

Councillor Beardsworth proposed and Councillor Cali seconded that the officer recommendation be agreed. The recommendation contained within the report was put to a vote and declared carried with 9 votes for.

RESOLVED:

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

Amended Recommendation

GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS as set out below with delegated authority to the Assistant Director for Place and Economy to approve any amendments to those conditions as deemed necessary.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee which sought reserved matters approval in relation to outline application N/2019/1247, for the construction of 14 dwellings and associated works.

In response to questions, the Committee were informed that the number of dwellings had been agreed at the outline application stage, and that details of bird and bat boxes would form part of a later application.

Members discussed the report.

Councillor Clark proposed and Councillor Connolly seconded that the officer recommendation be agreed. The recommendation contained within the report was put to a vote and declared carried with 9 votes for.

RESOLVED:

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

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee which sought approval for the construction of an additional storey to form 11 apartments. A similar application for 14 apartments was approved in 2015; the apartments did not meet national minimum space standards and the consent had since fallen away. It was noted that Condition 6 was removed and replaced by Condition 5.

In response to a question, it was advised that the number of apartments provided fell below the required number to secure affordable housing.

Members made the following comments:

·       This was the second, almost identical application by the applicant; if the 2 applications had been submitted as 1, the applicant would have been required to provide an element of affordable housing.

Councillor Connolly proposed and Councillor Lane seconded that the officer recommendation be agreed. The recommendation contained within the report was put to a vote and declared carried with 5 votes for and 4 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

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

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report which sought refusal of an application for the construction of a ground and first floor side extension.

Councillor Davenport, in her capacity as Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. She commented that the proposal was significantly different to previous applications and that the change had reduced the mass of the proposal. The additional bedroom would be used for a family member who was the owner’s full-time carer.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that the proposal would result in a cramped appearance and close the visual gap between it and the neighbouring property, which was a repeated feature along the street. It was noted that there had been 1 neighbour objection on overdevelopment grounds.

Members made comments as follows:

·       Other properties on the street had similar extensions.

·       Overdevelopment changed the appearance of a street and could set a precedent.

·       Members were sympathetic to the applicant’s situation

The Head of Planning Delivery advised that personal circumstances were not a material consideration for the Committee and noted that the applicant had not appealed any of the previous refusals. She also noted that applications were judged on their own merits.

Councillor Z Smith proposed and Councillor Lane seconded that the officer recommendation be agreed. The recommendation contained within the report was put to a vote and declared lost with 2 votes for, 5 against and 2 abstentions.

The Head of Planning Delivery advised that a condition be added to ensure that the property could not be sub-divided in the future.

Councillor Connolly proposed and Councillor Cali seconded that the application be approved contrary to the officer recommendation. The proposal was put to a vote and declared carried with 9 votes for.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED contrary to the officer recommendation.

The Chair 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.