Agenda and draft minutes

Proposed Development

*4.1     Reserved matters application for the siting, scale, layout and appearance of 81 units together with garaging and associated infrastructure pursuant to planning permission ref: WP/15/00605/VAR on Land Area 12B Residential Stanton Cross, Irthlingborough Road North, Wellingborough.

          Application No:

          NW/21/00866/REM

Speaker:

James Griffiths attended the meeting and addressed the Committee as the agent for the proposed development. The agent considered it to be an attractive scheme which responded to the requirements of the Neighbourhood centre and South Slopes design brief in this centrally located parcel of land fronting onto Irthlingborough Road. He stated that existing residents would have direct pedestrian access to the commercial centre; the elevational façade to Irthlingborough Road had undertaken significant Urban Design changes from the original application submission and the current proposal would create better massing of buildings on Irthlingborough Road and a change in the fenestration window design and roof articulation.

The agent referred to concerns of some residents in relation to the parking strategy. He reported that the scheme would provide 148 allocated parking spaces plus 14 garages and 26 visitor spaces providing 188 parking spaces overall. 

He also explained that pedestrian access directly through this phase to the south would access the neighbourhood centre and would enhance footfall by providing direct pedestrian links.

Following the speaker’s comments, members asked questions of clarification to the agent.

Decision

Members received a report to seek approval of Reserved Matters for the siting, scale, layout and appearance of 81 units together with garaging and associated infrastructure, In addition, further reserved matters had been submitted including vehicle parking, hard and soft landscaping, external amenity space and ancillary works pursuant to condition 2 of planning permission reference WP/15/00605/VAR. The application site was located within the Neighbourhood Centre and South Slopes Design Brief for the area of Stanton Cross.

It was recommended in the report to approve the Reserved Matters Consent for siting, scale, layout and appearance, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and presented the report, providing full and comprehensive details.

During the debate, members raised several questions of clarification including affordable housing, the Town and Country Park, electric vehicle charging points and the building control regulation condition with regard to water use at each dwelling.

It was proposed by Councillor Marks and seconded by Councillor Allebone that the application be approved in line with the officer’s recommendation.

It was agreed that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

Proposed Development

*4.2     Approval of Reserved Matters (EIA): All details in respect of KET/2015/0967 for 350 dwellings at Hanwood Park (Parcel R22), Barton Seagrave.

          Application No:  KET/2020/0208

Speaker:

Caroline Chave attended the meeting and addressed the Committee as the agent for the proposed development. The agent stated they had worked proactively with officers and considered a good standard had been set for future parcels and through a series of design workshops had carefully created variety to the scheme. The agent referred to biodiversity within the development and bespoke high-quality street scenes with a footpath linked to the school and a cycleway in the vicinity.

Following the speaker’s comments, members asked questions of clarification to the agent.

Decision

Members received a report to seek approval of Reserved Matters relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for a parcel of land identified on the Hanwood Park Strategic Master Plan at R22 for residential development. The proposal was seeking to deliver a total of 350 residential units comprising of 296 family dwellings and 54 apartments. A detached three storied block would contain 30 of the proposed apartments.

A presentation pack from the Developer had been distributed to each member which contained detailed images of the layout, proposed street scenes and property types. An adjournment time of 5 minutes was given to the Committee to peruse the information contained therein.

It was recommended in the report that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and presented the report, providing full and comprehensive details.

During the debate, a member congratulated the work of officers and considered it to be a good scheme. Another member raised a query in relation to the width of the footpath and cycle path which was confirmed to be 3 metres wide therefore one extra metre to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists.

Members heard that utilities were already available in relation to broadband and the proposal was a sustainable urban extension which encouraged walking and cycling.

A member asked if special Bee Bricks had been considered. The Biodiversity Officer would welcome this but explained that people do get nervous about this subject but she would like to introduce this process with a gentle approach in the future.

A query was raised in relation to open space for occupiers of flats and Members heard  there was plenty of open space and recreational activities all within walking distance.

A member questioned lighting for the open space areas which would be discussed with officers and highway engineers.

It was proposed by Councillor Dalziel and seconded by Councillor Rielly that the application be approved in line with the officer’s recommendation.

It was agreed that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

Proposed Development

*4.3  Application for land off Phoenix Parkway to provide an engineered development platform and Outline application for the development of an employment park comprising up to 43,000 sqm B2 use with all matters reserved apart from access.

          Application No. NC/21/00072/OUT

Speaker:

Bernard Ralph attended the meeting and addressed the Committee as the agent for the proposed development. The agent asked the Committee if it would resolve to approve the planning application, subject to a s106 Agreement and ecological mitigation be dealt with via condition.

Following the speaker’s comments, members asked questions of clarification to the agent.

Decision

Members received a report on a proposal for a hybrid planning application in two parts. The applicant for the present application Storefield Group Limited, sought full planning permission for proposed engineering and enabling works to level the site within the first part. The second part was seeking outline planning permission for proposed B2 (general industrial) employment uses with all matters reserved except access. It is acknowledged that the proposal straddles the administrative boundary with former East Northamptonshire District Council. The applicant proposed the development of up to 43,000m2 of B2 use.

It was recommended in the report that planning permission be refused for the reason set out in the report. However, the Planning Officer, addressed the Committee and provided an update asking the Committee to consider deferring the planning application due to further information which had been received from the applicant and the agent which needed to be considered further by officers.

During the debate, a member raised questions in relation to a badger survey and the officer responded that this could be dealt with via a method statement and a pre-commencement condition.

A member made a comment that the site was derelict with no productive use and queried why we could not grant planning permission as it was an industrial area.

The Legal Adviser informed the Committee that due to the information that had been recently submitted this should be properly considered and we would then need to follow due process and bring a recommendation back to Committee.

Members asked if the application could return to this Committee as soon as  practically possible.

It was proposed by Councillor Tebbutt and seconded by Councillor Allebone that the application be deferred.

It was agreed that the application be DEFERRED, contrary to the recommendation in the report, on the grounds that further information had been received from the applicant and agent which needed to be considered by officers.