Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward : Castle

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application number N/2011/0305 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out an objection from 32 Watkin Terrace and the response to it.

Mr Conrad, a neighbour and on behalf of 50 residents, commented that he could not agree that there would be no car parking impact. Previously, the house had been occupied by a large family that had had one car. He believed that the situation in respect of rubbish was an environmental one and was therefore a planning matter. Putting rubbish in the gardens was not practicable, they were really large yards, and in any case he believed, would attract rats. He queried why policy H23 was being ignored and stated that the property was a four bedroom house and not eight as described in the report. He commented that the house had been consistently occupied by a single family. Mr Conrad believed that that the proposal was contrary to Policy H21 and prejudicial to the area. In answer to questions Mr Conrad commented that 50 residents had signed a petition and that others had objected too and that black sacks of rubbish in gardens would just attract vermin.

County Councillor Clarke, on behalf of residents, expressed concern that County Councillors did not have a right of address at the Committee. He believed that the application should be refused, as the previous agenda item had been. He understood that the density of this proposal equated to 120 per hectare. He questioned the accuracy of the report- it was not an eight bedroom house; the discussion in respect of policies H21 and H23 was, he believed, questionable and the statement that the street was part of a residents parking scheme was disputed. County Councillor Clarke believed that there were serious planning issues concerning noise and nuisance and that the proposed bin store was a red herring in respect of the rubbish issues; it would not work. He believed that the report was not helpful to the Committee.    

Councillor Strachan, as Ward Councillor, commented that he would be disappointed if members of the Committee did not have copies of the residents petition in front of them. The Northampton Plan was the guiding document. Residents disagreed with the content of the report and had made their comments in great detail; they had submitted floor plans of the properties already in multi occupancy. He believed that the application would not have even been considered if the Council’s policy had been stuck to: Policy H23 said that the minimum floor space of dwelling units had to be 100sq mtres; so why was the application being considered at all? Policy H25 said that off road parking must be provided but this proposal provided none. Councillor Strachan urged the Committee to refuse the application.

The Head of Planning commented that the floor plans indicated that the property was an eight bedroom house. Policy H23 was unusually prescriptive and had been designed to deal with a particular problem concerning the division of small terraced properties. Applications had to be determined in accordance with the development plans unless there were other material considerations. Although this property had a narrow frontage this was balanced by the fact that it was a large three storey building and had a basement and developed roof space. The material considerations were set out in the report and that the recommendation was that in this case, these other considerations outweighed a strict interpretation of Policy H23. In respect of car parking, the Highways Authority had advised that the street was within a designated residents parking area and that residents could request that it be implemented. Maximum parking standards were now in place but in any case the provision of off street parking in terraced streets could not be insisted upon. He confirmed that the issues raised about rubbish were not a planning consideration over and above the proposed condition requiring the provision of a bin store. The area had a mix of different property types and therefore the proposal would not prejudice the character of the area in compliance with Policy H21. In answer to questions, the Head of Planning commented that the owner could, at present, rent rooms up to six unrelated people without requiring planning permission and with the current application there would only be four bedrooms; that he was not aware of a response from the Secretary of State to the residents letter referred to in paragraph 6.9 of the report; and that other properties in the area had been developed along similar lines.    

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the proposed conversion to three self-contained flats would not cause substantially more harm to the amenity of the area than the permitted uses of the house, would bring a vacant property back into use and would not prejudice the established character of the area in accordance with Policies H24, H3, H6, E26 and H21 of the Northampton Local Plan and PPS3 – Housing.