NORTHAMPTON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE Wednesday, 19 December 2007 PRESENT: Councillor B. Markham (Chair); Councillor Hollis (Deputy Chair); Councillors Collins, J. Conroy, Davies, Hill, Lane, Malpas, Meredith and P.D. Varnsverry 1. APOLOGIES An apology was received from Councillor M Hoare. 2. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 November 2007 were signed by the Chair. 3. DEPUTATIONS / PUBLIC ADDRESSES RESOLVED: (1) That Mrs V King and T O Brien be granted leave to address the Committee in respect of Application N/2007/1161 Residential Development Including Demolition of 55 Berry Lane Outline Application on Land South of Berry Lane (Rear of 51-69 Berry Lane) Wootton. (2) That Mr H Barber, Mr M Pepper, Mr P Murphy and Councillor Edwards be granted leave to address the Committee in respect of Application N/2007/1305 Erection of a Chalet Bungalow on Land Adjacent to 57 Edgehill, Duston. (3) That Mr A Smith be granted leave to address the Committee in respect of Application N/2007/1411 Conversion into Three Apartments plus Single Storey Rear Extension with Rear Parking at 52 East Park Parade. (4) That Mrs F Wire, Mrs N Poon, Mr B Waine and Councillor Choudary be granted leave to address the Committee in respect of Application N/2007/1442 Change of Use From Retail (Class A1) to Hot Food Takeaway (Class A5) Opening Hours to be Between 12:00 and 22:00 Hours Sunday to Thursday and 12:00 to 22:30 Hours on Friday and Saturday and Installation of Exterior Ducting at 88 Windsor Crescent. 4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 1. That Councillors Malpas and Hill declared a personal interest in respect of Item 10b Application N/2007/1305 as being known to an objector to the application. 2. That Councillors J Conroy, B Markham and Meredith declared a personal interest
in respect of Item 10d Application N/2007/1442 as knowing the applicant. 3. That Councillor P D Varnsverry declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of Item 10d Application N/2007/1442 as knowing the applicant. 4. That Councillor Davies declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of 10d Application N/2007/1442 as knowing an objector to the application. 5. MATTERS OF URGENCY WHICH BY REASON OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE CHAIR IS OF THE OPINION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED 6. LIST OF CURRENT APPEALS AND INQUIRIES submitted a list of current appeals and enquiries. RESOLVED: That the report be noted. 7. OTHER REPORTS 8. NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL APPLICATIONS 9. NORTHAMPTON BOROUGH COUNCIL APPLICATIONS 10. ITEMS FOR DETERMINATION (A) N/2007/1161 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF 55 BERRY LANE - OUTLINE APPLICATION ON LAND SOUTH OF BERRY LANE (REAR OF 51-69 BERRY LANE ) WOOTTON submitted a report in respect of Application N/2007/1161 and referred to the Addendum which set out the Education Officer s comments requiring contributions towards the shortfall of school places in Wootton and an additional condition in respect of a wildlife survey to be carried out on the site. Mrs V King, a resident of Berry Lane, commented that her objection was based on four elements. Firstly, flooding; Berry Lane already flooded in heavy rain and floodwater flowed under her property. She was concerned that development of the site would increase water runoff and could pose a flood problem to her property. Secondly, the destruction of the varied wildlife, habitat and destruction of mature native species trees and she noted that there was a Tree Preservation Order on a tree on the boundary of
the site. Thirdly, traffic management issues in respect of further traffic onto Berry Lane and the fact that the village was not built to cope with this. Fourthly, the fact that part of the site was contaminated land; her own property being constructed on ten metre piles and concerns about subsidence. In answer to a question Mrs King commented that the current site was unmanaged in terms of wildlife management and she confirmed her concerns about the potential for flooding from surface run- off if the development were to proceed. Mr O Brien, agent for the applicant, commented that currently the land was designated as green space and provided a buffer between residential areas, however, this area was not recreational and was private land and had been separated from the remaining open space by the creation of Wooldale Road. He commented that access to the site via 55 Berry Lane was acceptable to the Highways Authority and commented that the development would be conditioned in respect of preservation of wildlife. He also commented that sustainable drainage and flood attenuation measures were to be put in place. Extensive flood and contaminated land assessments had been carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. circulated a map and extract from the Local Plan and confirmed that a flood risk assessment had been carried out and that the Environment Agency had commented that the proposal fell within the scope of the Agency s flood risk standing advice and that a sustainable drainage system was appropriate in this instance. She also confirmed that there was a tree on the boundary of the site that was covered by Tree Preservation Order. The Committee discussed the application. RESOLVED: That the application be approved in principle subject to the following: 1. The prior referral to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government as a departure from Development Plan and Policy. 2. Prior finalisation of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the provision of 35% affordable housing within the site, the provision and maintenance of a sustainable urban drainage system and a contribution towards education provision. 3. The planning conditions set out in the report and the Addendum and another additional condition that the development should be constructed to an appropriate BRE style eco-homes standard, the details of which to be delegated to the Director of People, Planning and Regeneration to finalise. The reason for approval is that whilst the use of this land, which is designated as green space for housing development would be contrary to Development Plan Policy, it is considered that the loss of this small detached section of green space would not prejudice the function of the area as green space as there would still be open land between the development and the existing roundabout and would not set a precedent for further development for reasons set out in the report. The proposal would have no
adverse impact on adjoining occupiers and no adverse implications for highway safety. The provision of residential dwellings would help to meet the aspiration of the regional special strategy and would be in line with the advice contained in PPS3 (Housing). (B) N/2007/1305 ERECTION OF A CHALET BUNGALOW ON LAND ADJACENT TO 57 EDGEHILL ROAD, DUSTON submitted a report in respect of Application N/2007/1305 and referred to the Addendum and noted that a revised plan had been received on 6 December 2007. It was also noted that the addresses referred to in the report should read Edgehill Road and that the objector from 2 Dane Ridge was the Ward Councillor, Councillor Edwards. An additional condition that the landing window on the first floor north east elevation should be glazed with obscure glass and be non-opening was proposed. Mr Barber, a neighbour to the site, commented that he was representing a number of local people. There was concern that the corner of Edgehill Road was hazardous to traffic as it was a ninety degree bend with the green opposite. It was not well defined and there were already accidents that happened at this point. He also commented that since the three pedestrian walkways from Ryehill to Hopping Hill had been closed the road was used as a chicane and rat run. Mr M Pepper, Parish Councillor for Duston Parish Council, confirmed local opposition to the proposal and commented on the fact that the planning application showed internal measurements only. He confirmed the problems of the sharp bend and visibility being an issue for children and pedestrians especially walking to Hopping Hill Primary School. He commented that the Parish Council would have been happier with an extension to the existing bungalow. Councillor Edwards commented that he supported the comments made by the previous two speakers. Mr Murphy, the applicant, commented that since his original application had been refused he had worked with the planning officers to address the reasons for the refusal. He commented that highways issues had not been a reason for refusal. The present scheme omitted the originally proposed garage and the building had been realigned to keep it similar to the surrounding properties. He believed that the roadway was wide enough and commented that parking for the proposed bungalow would be behind the property and away from the bend. He was not aware of any particular comments from the Highways Authority. commented that it was not unusual for measurements of a scheme to show only internal measurements. The drawings were to scale and therefore external measurements could be made. She confirmed that during the site visit earlier in the day the measuring of the width of the site had been to the external dimensions. She also noted that the gap between the grass edge of the pavement to the proposed fence would be two metres. The previous scheme had comprised a larger footprint and had been refused on the grounds of over intensification of development of the site, however the principle of residential use of the site is considered acceptable. She confirmed that there were no objections from the Highways Authority.
The Committee discussed the application. Councillor Malpas proposed and Councillor Lane seconded That the application be refused. Upon a vote the motion was lost. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and in the Addendum as if it is considered that the site is of sufficient size to satisfactorily accommodate a dwelling which would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the site, the street scene and locality which would have a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring properties and would be adequately served in terms of access and parking, thereby complying with Policies E20 and H6 of the Northampton Local Plan and PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPS3 (Housing). (C) N/2007/1411 CONVERSION INTO 3 APARTMENTS PLUS SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION WITH REAR PARKING AT 52 EAST PARK PARADE submitted a report in respect of Application N/2007/1411 and referred to the Addendum and suggested amended Condition 3 in terms of the provision for the storage of refuse and recycling facilities to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. Mr A Smith, the owner of a neighbouring property, commented that he had been unaware of the previous planning application, as he had not been living at the premises at that time. He could not see the benefit of developing this property, which he understood dated to 1865, into flats. He commented that although parking would be provided at the rear of the site, there was nothing to prevent more cars than the three spaces provided for being parked there. He also referred to his Deeds, which suggested that alterations to the boundary party wall could not extend beyond six foot without the prior agreement of neighbours. In answer to questions Mr Smith commented that he was unaware if the other neighbouring property was split into flats and that sound was transmitted through party walls from one property to another. commented that there was an existing current consent to convert the premises to four flats and that the issue of the Deeds was a civil matter between the two owners and not a material consideration in respect of planning. She also noted that the provision of fire escapes would be covered by Building Regulation approval and the County Fire Officer. The Committee discussed the application. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and as amended by the Addendum as the proposed development would not have an undue detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the Kingsley Conservation Area and would
not cause undue harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties to accord with Policies E20, H6 and H21 of the Northampton Local Plan and advice in PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPS3 (Housing). (D) N/2007/1442 CHANGE OF USE FROM RETAIL (CLASS A1) TO HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY (CLASS A5) OPENING HOURS TO BE BETWEEN 1200 AND 2200 HOURS SUNDAY TO THURSDAY AND 1200 TO 2230 HOURS ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY AND INSTALLATION OF EXTERIOR DUCTING AT 88 WINDSOR CRESCENT Councillors Davis and P D Varnsverry, in accordance with their earlier declaration of interest, left the room during consideration of this item. submitted a report in respect of Application N/2007/1442 and referred to the Addendum and further objection letter received from the occupier of 49 Windsor Crescent and twenty nine standard letters of objection from addresses in Windsor Crescent, Yelvertoft Road, Larswood Close, London Road, Duston Road and Avebury Way and objections from the occupiers of 90 Windsor Crescent and 21 Windsor Crescent. She noted that the previous refusal had been appealed by the Applicant and the Planning Inspector had confirmed the shops as representing a neighbourhood centre rather than a local centre. The opening hours of the original proposal and noise and disturbance had been the issue on which the appeal had been dismissed but in this application the opening hours had been reduced and in the view of officers it now met the concerns of the Planning Inspector. Mrs Wire, a resident of Windsor Crescent for thirty years, commented that this was now the fourth planning application on these premises and felt that residents had been misled by the applicant in that they had been canvassed about a bakery and sandwich shop but applications had been submitted for a takeaway. She commented that despite Inspector Rayfield s comments there were community safety issues; the shops represented a local facility for residents and there were already existing parking issues on Saints s match days. She also referred to blocked drains and problems from the existing Chinese takeaway in this respect. She also commented that there were also many other takeaways within walking distance of these shops. She felt that residents needed a different facility to that proposed. Mrs Poon, a local resident, commented that she was concerned for her safety as she lived alone and she referred to young people hanging around the shops. She also referred to a bus driver who had been robbed the previous week. She made reference to drains currently blocked by the existing Chinese and worsening parking issue if the proposal were allowed to happen. She queried why so many applications could be made on a single site and commented that a number of other residents also shared this concern. Mr B Waine, on behalf of the owners of the property, commented that the application now submitted addressed the issues raised by the Planning Inspector. There were no objections from the Police, Highways Authority or Environmental Health. He commented that the property had been vacant for some three years and the existing consent on the property would allow for unrestricted opening hours of a shop. He
reiterated that Environmental Health had not raised any issues in respect of blocked drains and that objections to A5 use in one area could not be transplanted to another area. Councillor Choudary commented that he was speaking on behalf of the applicant and that the issues raised by the previous application had now been addressed. He commented that it would be better to have the property used than left empty. commented that although the existing premises was in a state of disrepair this was not a material planning consideration which should be given a great deal of weight. He confirmed that there had been no objections raised by the Highways Authority and that the existing A1 use consent had the same consideration in this respect. Access to the premises by emergency vehicles was regarded as being adequate and it was a proposed condition that details of a grease trap would be provided in respect of the drainage concerns. The Corporate Manager also commented that the fact that other takeaways existed in the vicinity was not a planning consideration. He also confirmed that the Police had not raised any particular community safety issues and that disabled access would be dealt with by Buildings Regulations but as there was no alteration to the shop front it was not considered to be reasonable for this be conditioned as part of the planning approval. RESOLVED: That the application be approved as the latest revisions to the hours of operation of the proposed change of use from Class A1 Retail to Class A5 Hot Food Takeaway is an acceptable compromise that is considered unlikely to have any significant detrimental effects on residential amenity. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policies E20, B19 and R9 of the Northampton Local Plan and the advice contained in PPG24 (Planning and Noise). 11. ENFORCEMENT MATTERS (A) E/2007/624,679 AND 680 UNAUTHORISED ERECTION OF 3NO ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS WITH ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES ADJACENT TO LAND AT TANNER STREET OFF TOWCESTER ROAD; ADJACENT TO LAND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE GREEN OFF ST.PETER'S WAY; ADJACENT TO LAND AT ST.PETER'S WAY submitted a report in respect of E/2007/624, 679 and 680. The Committee discussed the report. RESOLVED: That the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to issue an Enforcement Notice in respect of each of the unauthorised structures and instigate prosecution proceedings in respect of the unauthorised advertisements. 12. APPLICATIONS FOR CONSULTATION
<TRAILER_SECTION> The meeting concluded at 19.56 hours