Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Kingsthorpe

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2010/1013 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out an additional letter of objection from 2 Branksome Avenue. He referred to the reasons for the previous refusal of the original application set out at paragraph 2.2 of the report and noted that there had been no amendment to the car parking proposals but that the use of the first floor rooms had been reversed so that the bedroom would be at the back, as currently existed, and the living room and kitchen had been moved to the front. In the proposed Flat 4 the rear facing window had been moved to the side elevation to Studland Road. He noted that the existing format of the bay windows would be retained.

Councillor Beardsworth as Ward Councillor commented that the proposal was to convert a family home into four flats. The next door neighbours had two disabled children and had made consequent adaptations to their property and were therefore committed to it. The proposal could result in four or six extra cars with only parking provision for two. She had recently visited the area and parking was already difficult with the Doctors Surgery and Pharmacy opposite and Netto nearby. The proposal would go against the street scene of family homes in that area.

Mr Wykes the next door neighbour at 4 Thornton Road, commented that their property had been in their family for 50 years. They had three children two of whom had disabilities. Their garden was small and they knew their neighbours. They were worried about up to eight strangers living next door. Parking was already a problem that would most likely worsen. He believed that the Committee had the power to take away the stress to his family by refusing the application. In answer to a question Mr Wykes confirmed that his concerns were to do with loss of privacy, noise and the increased use of the side access.

Mr Tony Murphy welcomed the site visit the previous day and stated that Committee members would have seen the difficult geography caused by the small garden at 4 Thornton Road and the feeling of being hemmed in that the proposal would create. He noted that a letter from the Head of Planning had stated that the disability of the neighbour’s children was not a material planning consideration but felt this was alarming. He believed that the Planning Committee’s role was to protect the public. He believed that the revised planning application only made minor changes in respect of overlooking to that refused in October 2010. There would still be up to eight people occupying the four flats. There was no change to the propsed parking arrangements. The existing property had been built as a family home which was what it should be used for: this application was about generating income: the Applicant had not discussed their plans with any of the neighbours.

Mr Paul Toone, agent for the Applicant, stated that he believed that the revised scheme met the objections previously raised by the Committee. The internal layout of the rooms had been changed and a rear facing window omitted. Car parking had been re-examined but the issues raised already existed. The Highways Authority had not made an objection. Studland Road was where people chose to park. There were week day, day time parking restrictions on the left hand side of Studland Road and none on the right hand side except for a few meters of double yellow lines at the junction with Thornton Road.

The Head of Planning noted that although parking was possible on the left hand side of Studland Road, the opportunity, was in practice, limited by the garages in the gardens of properties in Branksome Road to which access had to be kept clear.          

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Hill proposed and Councillor Malpas seconded “That the application be refused in line with the Committee’s previous decision as set out in paragraph 2.2 of the report, and further, that the application, with particular reference to Flat 3 would amount to an over intensification of the use of the property and that the Head of Planning be authorised to agree the final detailed wording based upon policy E20B of the Northampton Local Plan.”

Upon a vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:    That the application be refused in line with the Committee’s previous decision as set out in paragraph 2.2 of the report and further, that the application, with particular reference to Flat 3 would amount to an over intensification of the use of the property and that the Head of Planning be authorised to agree the final detailed wording based upon policy E20B of the Northampton Local Plan.