Agenda and draft minutes

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.

None advised.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 7^th February 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7^th February 2023 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

To receive communications from the Chair.

There were no Chair’s announcements 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:

WNN/2022/1310

Councillor Danielle Stone

Indy Nagra

WNN/2021/1153

Councillor Danielle Stone

WNN/2022/0410

Councillor Danielle Stone

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries. She advised that 3 decisions had been reached by the Inspector. The appeals related to 4 Casterbridge Court, 567 Harlestone Road and 46 Eastern Avenue South, and were all determined under delegated powers. In each instance, the Inspector agreed with the officers’ reasons for refusal and dismissed the appeals.

In response to a question, the Committee heard that information relating to appeal wait time could be found on the Planning Inspectorate website.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee which sought approval for the installation of metal gates at each end of Francis Jetty to prevent access. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained clarification on comments from the Crime Prevention Officer, and comments from Highways that advised that the gates not open onto the highway. Since the gates opened onto the highway for fire safety reasons, an additional condition was included that specified the gate be set back within the site so that it did not open onto the highway. It was noted that there were no objections from statutory consultees, and several third party and neighbour objections who had concerns around loss of footfall and business to Bridge Street businesses.

Councillor Stone addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. She commented that local councillors had not been consulted on the plans and asked that the application be deferred so that further consultation could take place. She advised that local businesses were willing to take responsibility for the maintenance of the alleyway, and that the views of locals should be considered.

Indy Nagra, the owner of an adjacent building, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He commented that the alleyway’s closure would affect his planning application, which proposed to use the alleyway as access to, and a fire escape for his business. He stated that local businesses had not been made aware of the proposal to close the alleyway, and that its closure would result in reduced footfall to Bridge Street.

The Development Management Manager advised the Committee that the order to close the alleyway had already been made; the application for consideration was for the gates.

The Planning Officer advised that notices were served in accordance with legislation.

Members discussed the report and made the following comments:

·       The need to consider the issues around the alleyway was recognised, but not enough consultation had taken place.

·       There was concern around the alleyway being locked 24 hours a day.

Councillor Z Smith proposed, and Councillor Lane seconded that the officer recommendation be agreed. The recommendation contained in the report was put to a vote and declared carried with 2 votes for, 1 against and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and additional condition 3 contained in the addendum.

Councillor Beardsworth declared an interest in the following item as the Chair of Kerr House Charity and took no part in the discussion or vote.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee which sought refusal for the construction of 22 apartments. This was a revised scheme following planning permission N/2020/1565 which was approved by Northampton Borough Council on 19th March 2021. There were several objections to the application, including the Conservation Section and the Town Centre Conservation Areas Advisory Committee, which had concerns around the proposal’s impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings. Officers were of the opinion that the public benefits of the development would not outweigh the harm to heritage assets.

Councillor Stone addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. She commented that developers seemed to be chopping up developments to avoid making financial contributions or providing affordable housing. She also voiced concern around the impact on local services.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that with respect of this application, a viability assessment had been submitted and independently assessed, and would be unviable if it were to provide any affordable housing.

Members discussed the report.

Councillor Z Smith proposed and Councillor Clark 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.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED as per the officer recommendation.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the report which sought approval in principle for change of uses previously granted under planning to incorporate flexible retail use on level 1, a pod hotel on level 2, and new residential uses on levels 2 and 3, with additional new build levels 4 and 5 to provide solely residential accommodation. A Section 106 Agreement would also be completed to secure financial contributions towards early years and primary education, healthcare, construction training, and 35% affordable housing, although this would be a contribution for off-site provision. It was noted that the pod hotel had been previously approved by the Committee, and the retail space would be a single unit.

In response to questions, it was explained that ventilation was a matter for Building Control, however Condition 7 related to ventilation matters. To ease Members’ concerns around the hotel being used as long-term accommodation, officers suggested adding an additional condition relating to the use of the hotel.

Members discussed the report and made the following comments:

·       It was a good scheme, however there was a level of concern around the pod hotel – Members would like an additional condition attached in relation to its use.

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 6 votes for.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and additional condition in respect of hotel use.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report which sought approval for a change of use from dwellinghouse to HMO for 4 occupants. There were no other HMOs in a 50m radius, so the proposal fell well below the 10% threshold. There were adequate facilities within the property and significant on-street parking, so there was no demonstrable harm to highway safety.

Members discussed the report and commented that the street was part of a bus route and there was a shop close by, however the Principal Planning Officer noted that Highways had not raised an objection to the application.

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 carried with 5 votes for and 1 against.

RESOLVED:

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

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

None advised.