Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Cali.

RESOLVED:

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

N/2019/0612

Sally Beardsworth

Jennifer Smith

N/2019/1451

Councillor Stone

N/2020/0119

Councillor Ansell

Mark Evans

N/2020/0128

Caroline Mayes

Councillor King

Indy Shokar

N/2020/0148

Andy Lord

Councillor M Markham advised of a predetermination in respect of item 9a and advised that she would leave the meeting for this item and take no part in the discussion.

Councillor Birch  advised that she was the County Councillor in respect of Item 9C.

None.

Report of Director of Planning and Sustainability (copy herewith)

The Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries on behalf of the Director of Planning and Sustainability. She advised of 11 appeals pending but no decisions had been made.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report to the Committee and explained that the diversion was being applied for so that the developers could make the most effective use of the land and would enable the development, previously approved by the Planning Committee on 25^th March 2020, to be carried out.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

AGREED that a diversion order be made pursuant to S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to permanently divert part of Public Right of Way, Bridleway BH4 as shown the on the submitted application details and the plan attached to the report.

Councillors M Markham and Birch left the meeting at this juncture.

None.

None.

(Copy of addendum attached)

controlled. She advised that the principle of development had already been established; the Local Highway Authority and Northamptonshire Police were satisfied that the conditions were adequate enough to control any parking and crime issues that may arise. It was noted that there was no policy support for requiring contributions towards libraries. In response to a question as to what would happen with the site should the student accommodation fail to attract occupants, the Principal Planning Officer advised that this would require the submission of a new planning application that would be assessed at that time.  In response to a question regarding whether the highway contributions were sufficient, the Principal Planning Officer advised that there were contributions towards NCC Highways costs included in the S106 Agreement, including contributions towards traffic regulation alterations, maintenance of bus shelters and monitoring of the travel plan; NCC Highways did not ask for further contributions.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the conditions, reasons and Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the planning obligations as set out in the report.

Councillors M Markham and Birch re-joined the meeting.

The Development Manager submitted a report to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained one additional neighbour objection. The application sought approval for a change of use from office to HIMO for 4 occupants. Part of the rear ground floor was proposed to be removed to provide a courtyard with refuse and cycle storage, a rear extension and 2 pitched roof dormers were also proposed, however there would be no overlooking from the dormers. The basement would be used for storage only. 3 of the bedrooms would have en-suite bathrooms and a ground floor bedroom would have access to the main bathroom. The application had been amended throughout its life to reduce the number of occupants from 6 to 4. It was explained that the NBC Conservation Officer or the Local Highway Authority had not objected to the application. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius would be 4.9%.

Councillor Stone, in her capacity as the ward councillor, spoke against the application and explained that residents were struggling with anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping and parking problems. The efforts made by residents to maintain a cohesive community were being undermined by the problems HIMOs created.

The Development Manager stated that the information the Council had on HIMOs in the area was gathered from various sources and was up to date.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Birch left the meeting at this juncture.

The Development Manager submitted a report to the Committee and explained that the application sought approval for the installation of a service counter in the front window of the Ice Cream Kiosk and roller shutters to the side window. There were no statutory 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.

Councillor Birch re-joined the meeting.

The Development Manager submitted a report to the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which corrected a typographical error in the report. The application sought approval for the construction of single storey front and rear extensions to serve the existing shop. External alterations and relocation of air conditioning units were also proposed. A previous application for single storey front and rear extensions was refused by officers under delegated powers due to the impact on a neighbouring property; this revised scheme saw a reduction in the rear extension. Comments had been received by Asset Management advising that the applicant had not been in contact, however the applicant’s agent had confirmed that their solicitor would contact Assets, should planning permission be granted.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report to the Committee and explained that as part of the application, the living room would be split to create an additional bedroom, the utility converted to a bedroom and with refuse and cycle storage to the rear of the property. Private Sector Housing had made no comment and there were no statutory objections to the application. The applicant did not provide a parking beat survey, however the property sat within a sustainable location close to local facilities and public transport links. Conditions were included relating to maximum occupancy and excluding the use of the basement as a habitable room.

Councillor Ansell, in his capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that the area had changed dramatically due to the increase in HIMOs in respect of parking and waste issues. Regarding parking, Councillor Ansell advised that barriers recently installed around Abington had helped alleviate the situation, however he believed that more HIMOs would undo the progress that had been made.

Mark Evans, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented as a local resident and local landlord, had consulted with neighbours before applying for planning permission. He noted that the application met all of the requirements in the Council’s HIMO Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and noted that the concentration was well below the 10% threshold. Mr Evans further advised that should the application be approved, once let, the property would be managed by a local lettings’ agent and monthly visits to the property would occur.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that due to its close proximity to Northampton General Hospital, the property would likely appeal mostly to hospital workers.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

Councillor McCutcheon left the meeting at this juncture.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee. The application sought approval for a change of use from dwellinghouse to HIMO for 10 occupants. The current concentration of HIMO properties in a 50m radius was 2%; this would increase to 4% if the application was approved. Private Sector Housing had confirmed that the room sizes and facilities were acceptable for a 10 bed HIMO. The Principal Planning Officer advised of an error in paragraph 7.18 of the report; it stipulated that 10 parking spaces would need to be provided, however the Parking Standards refer to bedrooms and not occupancy. Therefore, the guidance seeks 7 parking spaces, rather than 10. Although, the Principal Planning Officer also advised that the HIMO guidance allows for zero parking developments in sustainable locations close to shopping facilities and local transport links.

Councillor King, in her capacity as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and commented that parking was a frequent problem in the area to the point where local businesses were suffering; some residents and business owners had to park as far as a ten-minute walk from their homes and businesses.

Caroline Mayes, a local resident, spoke against the application and commented that the application was an overdevelopment, noting that it had the potential to bring large number of additional vehicles to the area. She stated that St Matthews Parade was an arterial road into the town centre that already faced significant pressures.

Indy Shokar, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that an identical proposal had been approved in an adjacent property, and that it had satisfied all of the relevant tests relating to the Council’s newly adopted HIMO SPD. Mr Shokar referred to the low concentration of HIMOs in the area and the sustainable location of the property and stated that there was no reason the Council, if adhering to planning policy, could not follow the officer recommendation for approval.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that the applicant had several other HIMOs in the town that were managed by a lettings agency. In addition, the applicant’s agent advised that the proposal was not considered an overdevelopment in terms of planning policy and that the communal space within the proposal met the requirements for a HIMO for 10 occupants.

Members discussed the report.

A motion was proposed to accept the officer recommendation.

Upon a vote, the motion fell.

A further motion was proposed to defer the item to a future Planning Committee.

Upon a vote, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED to a future Planning Committee to allow for negotiation with the applicant about a possible reduction in the number of occupants.

Councillor McCutcheon re-joined the meeting but took no part in the discussion of this item.

The Planning Solicitor advised the Chair that based on the near-identical properties of the application compared to the previous one that the Chair could move to defer consideration of the item on that basis. The Director of Planning and Sustainability confirmed his agreement.

A motion was proposed to defer the item.

Upon a vote, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED to a future Planning Committee to allow for negotiation with the applicant about a possible reduction in the number of occupants.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee. The application sought to vary Conditions 2 and 24 of application N/2019/0851 to broaden the use of 2 offices to include use by the management company of the building. There were no objections to the variation application.

Andy Lord, the Development Manager for the site, spoke in favour of the application and explained that there was no physical link to the flats, and that a small office for management would provide a great benefit.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report to the Committee. The application sought approval for a change of use from dwellinghouse to HIMO for 6 occupants. A basement kitchen/dining room was proposed, with a small lightwell to the front and a large window to the rear of the basement. 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom were proposed on the ground, first and second floors. Private Sector Housing had raised no objection to the level of amenities provided and the room sizes complied with the council’s guidance. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HIMOs in a 50m radius would be 9.6%. The applicant did not provide a parking beat survey, however, the property sat within a “sustainable location”, close to local facilities and public transport links.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that whilst planning regulations allow for the submission of retrospective applications, the works were carried out at the applicant’s own risk.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

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

None.

None.