Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Park

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of Application no. N/2011/1276 and elaborated thereon.

Mr Harland, a neighbour, commented that the site was within the Weston Favell Conservation Area and that he believed that the extension of two and a half storeys was too massive. He noted the Arboricultural Officer’s comments about the preservation of the two mature cedar trees within the conservation area. He noted that the extension would block out the residential amenity of people being able to see the trees from High Street. Mr Harland also commented upon the overshadowing effect of the extension on the front garden of the property opposite. He believed that the proposal was not appropriate.  

Miss Millen, a neighbour, commented that her property and Greenacres were two detached homes on large plots. She and the applicant had been neighbours for nearly 50 years. The properties were separated by a high leylandii hedge that had given cause for distress in the past; it was not necessarily a permanent feature. She believed that the extension was large when even compared against a typical new build; it would be 39 feet long, 28 feet high and extend 13 feet towards her property. Miss Millen was concerned about the separation distance and permanent shade to any sunshine from the west. She noted that there was no mention of obscured glass to the side facing upper windows and believed that the lack of privacy and overlooking caused by the large glass area to the rear of the proposal was out of keeping with the area.     

Mr Coley, the Applicant, commented that he loved Greenacres; he had been born there and agreed with Miss Millen that they had been neighbours for 47 years. It was intention that any extension would be sensitive to the area. Greenacres was a long narrow property; it only had one bathroom. He wanted to update it and make it more suitable for his family and modern expectations. He had consulted and taken the advice of the Conservation Area Officer who had raised no objection to the proposal. The extension would be built on the existing building line and Mr Coley believed that this would remove any overshadowing of Miss Millen’s property. He intended to leave the hedge as it was and he believed that Miss Millen’s privacy would not be affected. The upper side windows of the extension would be obscure glazed; the feature window at the rear of the extension was just for his family’s enjoyment of their own garden. Mr Coley believed that there was a misunderstanding about the “third storey”: it was intended mainly for storage but with the possibility of having a fitness rowing machine there.

The Head of Planning confirmed that the Conservation Area Officer’s comments were set out at paragraph 6.1 of the report and that proposed condition 3 dealt with the issue of obscure glass to the upper windows to the east elevation of the extension and proposed condition 4 dealt with the protection of the cedar trees.   

The Committee discussed the application

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the impact of the proposed development on the character of the original building, street scene, residential amenity and the character of the Conservation Area is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Policies E20, E26 and H18 of the Northampton Local Plan, the Residential Extensions and Alterations Design Guide SPD, and with the aims and objectives of PPS5.