Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Phippsville

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/1095, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out comments from residents of The Crescent.

Mr Button, a resident of The Crescent for 39 years, commented that he objected to the current application. He referred to a previous planning approval for a garden wall that was supposed to extend to the boundary of 2 The Crescent but this part of it had never been completed. Another application had been for a landscaped garden but this area was used as a car park contrary to the planning permission. Mr Button queried what “emergency vehicle” meant and did it include plumbers and electricians vehicles. In any case he felt if allowed the consent would be unenforceable and that the Applicant would ignore conditions as they had done in the past. He believed that the Applicant’s long term aim was to turn the garden into a car park. He also believed that the emergency access and nurses station was at the front of the building rather than at the rear. In answer to a question Mr Button commented that he did not believe that the planters put in the garden did not comply with the planning permission for landscaping. 

Mr Scarth, a local resident commented that he was representing several other residents. The proposed ambulance parking space would be opposite his home, 24 The Crescent. He did not understand the need for an emergency vehicle access this far from the facility. He believed that the location plan accompanying the report did not accurately show the land ownerships of Crescent Homes Limited. Mr Scarth commented that if a permission could not be adequately enforced then the application should be refused.

Mr Ogbourne, commented that he worked at The Crescent Care Home and lived in The Drive. The objections came from a relatively small number of people and no comments had been made about the fencing or the shed that were also part of the application. The application was not about a car park, it was not needed. The planters were for residents so that they could be wheeled around them and, if interested, do some gardening. It would be better for ambulances to be able to park on-site rather than on the street as at present or at the front of the building. Mr Ogbourne commented that the previous speakers were not aware of the internal layout of the building: residents were spread out evenly throughout the building. In answer to questions Mr Ogbourne commented that the fencing would be railings, the entrance would be narrowed and gated with bollards and signage for disabled access, and that contractors vehicles had used the parking space only whilst the refurbishment works were being carried out to the care home.

The Head of Planning commented that the location plan was sufficient and accurate enough for the purposes of this particular application.      

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:    That the application be approved subject to the conditions  set out in the report and amendment of condition 2 to define what was meant by emergency vehicles, as the proposed development would not have an undue detrimental impact on the appearance and character of the host building, wider street scene and would not have an adverse effect on the amenity or living conditions of neighbours to comply with Policies E20 and H29 of the Northampton Local Plan, Policy 2 of the East Midlands Regional Plan and the aims of PPS1, PPS3 and PPG13.