Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: New Duston

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0208 and elaborated thereon.

Councillor Hadland, on behalf of Councillor Caswell who had referred the application to the Committee, commented that the properties in the cul-de-sac were well spaced and referred to the extension at number 22 which he believed was more in keeping with the area. The proposal kept the existing roof line and bulked out the extension. He believed that the proposal would close the gap between the properties to 300mm. He suggested that the Committee should visit the site if it had not already done so.

Bill Stewart, a neighbour, commented that he believed that the proposal did not meet the Council’s Residential Design Guide and would increase the size of the property by some 67%. He queried why the extension at number 22 had been required to meet the Design Guide but that the proposal for number 24 would not. He commented that the applicant had already removed trees that were covered by a Tree Preservation Order. He also commented that whilst the application stated that the rear extension would extend 5m the effect of the flue meant that this was actually 5.6m. The development would be out of keeping with the area and necessitated the repositioning of an existing first floor window. He stated that the applicant had realigned the boundary fence some 160mm within his boundary so that the distance from the extension to the fence meant that the prescribed spacing could not be maintained.

Greg Winterburn, the applicant stated that he had asked an architect to draw up plans for him and he acknowledged that his neighbours disagreed with them. He observed that the roof lines of numbers 6, 12 and 22 Pine Copse Close were continuous. He believed that the issues regarding the rear extension were of secondary importance. He was a builder of many years experience and would not construct something distasteful. He confirmed that his boundary fence had been replaced along the original fence’s line. In answer to a question Mr Winterburn stated that he had pruned some trees before being aware of the Tree Preservation Order; he had contacted the Council and been advised that there were no issues arising from the work he had done.

The Head of Planning noted that the report referred to the extent of the extension being more than 5m and confirmed the actual proposed projection from the existing rear elevation as being 5.3metres. The Residential Design Guide was just guidance which did not preclude approval of proposals that did not conform with it and it was considered that the proposal was in general conformity with its aims and objectives. He observed that Number 22 could have extended to the existing roof line without it being refused. The Head of Planning observed that the rear extension was single storey and only projected two metres beyond the neighbour’s property. This was acceptable. The proposal at the front would not detract from the street scene and the distance between properties would still be substantial.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:    That the application be approved subject to the conditions  set out in the report as the proposed development by reason of its scale, siting and design would not have an undue detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the host building, wider streetscene, amenity of adjoining neighbours or protected trees in accordance with Policies E11, E20 and H18 of the Northampton Local Plan and advice in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Residential Extensions.