Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Park

[Councillor Golby returned to the meeting]

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application number N/2011/0195 and elaborated thereon.

Barry Waine, on behalf of the neighbours, thanked the Committee for deferring their consideration of this application at their last meeting so as to allow a site visit to take place. He believed that there were two relevant matters, the impact of the extensions and the balcony. He noted the images showing the shadowing effects on the neighbouring properties in January and June respectively and commented that neither he nor his clients had had an opportunity to inspect them previously. He referred to the impact of the balcony on the Conservation Area and noted that a previous application had been refused by reason of scale. He did not feel that anything had changed in the meantime. The balcony was more of a patio. He believed that the application did not meet policies E20, E26 or H18 and asked the Committee to determine the application in accordance with the Development Plan.

David Cole, the agent for the applicant, referred to the shadowing and context photographs and noted that 56 Abington Park Crescent was close by. He noted that the gable end wall of number 49 was north facing and was therefore not overshadowed at all. The first floor of number 50 was already used as living accommodation and a balcony already existed. Privacy for number 51 would be given by the provision of a translucent screen. Mr Cole believed that there would be no loss of light to either number 49 or 51 and that the situation for both would be improved; there was no effect on their outlook and the house was not within the Conservation Area; the proposal was within the building line; and he believed that the proposal was in accordance with policies E20, E26 and H18.

Lee Romang, the applicant, stated that he wished to make the most of his property for his current and likely future family and wished to maintain his rear garden space. The intention of the balcony was to make the most of the views of the park. He wished to maintain privacy too. He had a young family, Abington Park Crescent was a busy road and there was a school nearby and the park itself was busy. His house was not in the Conservation Area and the application had been made following consultation with the Planners. He believed that the balcony at number 56 was similar to his proposal. In answer to a question Mr Romang commented that the neighbouring northern property to number 56 was a bungalow.

The Head of Planning commented that this application needed to be considered on its merits and that what had been done at other properties in the vicinity was not a material consideration. He confirmed that the property was not in the Conservation Area. He noted that the shadowing pictures showed indicatively, shadowing at 1pm in January and June and that boundary treatments could be put in place that did not require planning permission but would extend higher than the existing and proposed balcony.

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Meredith moved and Councillor Davies seconded “That the application be approved as set out in the report”

Upon a vote the motion was lost.

Councillor Golby proposed and Councillor Oldham seconded “That  the Head of Planning be authorised to discuss with the Applicant submission of an amended scheme to take account of the concerns expressed about privacy and massing of the ground floor extension and balcony over, and its effect on number 51 Abington Park Crescent, any such amended scheme to come back before the Committee, or if this was not acceptable to the Applicant, the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse the application.”

Upon a vote the motion was agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the  Head of Planning be authorised to discuss with the Applicant submission of an amended to the scheme to take account of the concerns expressed about privacy and massing of the ground floor extension and balcony over and its effect on number 51 Abington Park Crescent, any such amended scheme to come back before the Committee, or if this was not acceptable to the Applicant, the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse the application as the proposed front ground floor extension by reason of its siting, bulk, proximity to the common boundary and incorporation of a large first floor balcony, would be an over-dominant form of development causing an unacceptable loss of outlook and privacy to no. 51 Abington Park Crescent contrary to Policy H18 of the Northampton Local Plan.