Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Nene Valley

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0458, elaborated thereon, noted that in paragraph 2.1 the width of the proposed house would be 6.4 metres rather than 7 metres and referred to the Addendum that set out further representations from residents of Martins Lane and Ansell Way and made reference to a letter submitted by the Applicant that set out responses by a chartered town planner to the objections to the proposal.

Councillor Nunn, a Ward Councillor, commented that the objections to the proposal by residents and the Parish Council focussed on the effect of terracing by putting three houses together and the issue of extending beyond the building line. He referred to the Northampton Local Plan and the importance of safeguarding the symmetry and appearance of the area. Councillor Nunn asked that the Committee consider the impact of the proposal.

Mr Barten, the Chair of Hardingstone Parish Council, commented that the Parish Council in particular objected to the extension beyond the building line of properties further to the west along Martins Lane. They believed that there would be visibility issues at the junction of Martins Lane and Ansell Way and had further concerns in respect of the scale of the development, the increase in building density, fencing to the garden boundary and that the scheme represented detrimental backland development contrary to Policy H10 of the Northampton Local Plan. 

Mr Waine, agent for the applicant, commented that the application was compliant with the Council’s current policies for residential development in an area zoned for residential use. There were a mix of properties in the area and the proposal would be within the building line of Ansell Way but would extend slightly beyond that in Martins Lane. There would be no change in visibility at the junction of Ansell Way and Martins Lane and there had been no Highway objection. The proposal did not include fencing to the boundary. Mr Waine believed that most of the objections were either irrelevant or misguided. He concurred with the appraisal in the report and requested that the application be approved.

The Head of Planning commented that Policy H10 which referred to backland development did not apply in this instance and that in terms of Policies H6 and E20 the proposal was deemed to be compliant. He confirmed that there was no proposal to fence to the boundary of the site and referred to the proposed Condition 4 set out in the report that would restrict this in any case. In answer to questions, the Head of Planning noted that the concept of a building line was purely notional and although the properties to the west along Martins Lane were on generally the same alignment, given the separation from those properties and the scale of the proposal it was believed that its effect would be neutral and was, therefore, acceptable. 

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:     That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the principle of a residential development in an existing residential area was acceptable and in accordance with Policy H6 of the Northampton Local Plan.  The siting, design and appearance of the proposed dwelling would compliment the existing street scene and would not be detrimental to visual or residential amenity or highway safety in accordance with Policies H6 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan and the guidelines contained within PPG13.