Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Semilong

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2011/1114, indicated that if the Committee were minded to approve the application proposed condition 8 should be amended by the deletion of the word “Christian” in the second line and its replacement by the word “Faith” and referred to the Addendum that set out additional correspondence from Councillor Marriott.

Miss Scott, the resident of 4 Hester Street, stated that she had lived at number 4 for eight years, it had been a detached property for 140 years and was only one of a few in the vicinity that was not some form house in multiple occupation. She believed that the applicant had the scope to extend 1-3 Hester Street but had chosen to develop the space between the properties instead. The gap between her property and the proposal would only be three inches; she understood that Building Control had concerns about this. She had concerns about the foundations of the proposal affecting her basement and foundations. Miss Scott believed that the existing parking problems would be made worse and she also understood that the amended proposed Condition 8 contradicted the applicant’s own statement, part of the planning application file, that the property was stand alone that allowed for the possibility of its future sale should such a decision be made. In answer to a question Miss Scott commented that the separation distance between the properties was such that she would be unable to maintain the exterior of that part of her property.

Mr Bird, the Architect and member of the Jesus Army, commented that the applicant was aware of the objections that had been made and had taken them into account. The possibility of extending 1-3 Hester Street had been considered but rejected as it was already a large property and it had seemed more logical to fill in the gap between it and 4 Hester Street on the land that they already owned. He stated that the separation of the buildings was dealt with by the Party Walls Act which the Applicant was obliged to comply with. Mr Bird commented that he believed that shading of the garden of 4 Hester Street would not be made any worse by the proposal. He was aware of the concerns about properties in multiple occupation in the area and parking issues: the property was likely to be occupied by one family with possibly one or two other people. Potential residents were strictly vetted. The applicants maintained a strict parking ratio of one car between five people so that there was likely to be only one extra car generated by the proposal. A separate report of advice had been obtained as to how the foundations to the proposal could be constructed without damaging the neighbour’s basement. In answer to questions Mr Bird commented that it was permissible to build up to your own boundary; that the maximum occupation of the premises was likely to be eight people and that it would be closely regulated by the Council; and that the proposal had been sited close to 4 Hester Street so as to maintain the effect of the light wells to the basement of 1-3 Hester Street and to maintain an access to the rear garden.

The Head of Planning noted the separation distance between the proposal and 4 Hester Street was a civil matter; the position in respect of trees was covered in paragraphs 7.10 and 7.11 of the report; and if the property was sold in the future it would require a change of use to allow it to be used as a single dwelling.     

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Meredith proposed and Councillor N Choudary seconded “That the application be refused as the proposal would be detrimental to neighbour amenity by virtue of its siting and harm highway safety contrary to Policy H6 (a) and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan”

Upon a vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused as the proposed development, by reason of its use, siting, design and appearance, would represent an over-intensive form of development harmful to residential amenity, particularly that of 4 Hester Street, and would give rise to additional on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety and the free-flow of traffic. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies H6 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan and the guidelines contained within PPG13.