Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Eastfield

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/1120, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that made corrections to paragraphs 2.1 and 7.8 of the report.

Mr Cox, commented that he was representing residents in Elmhurst Avenue. These properties had been built in the 1930’s and had changed little. The proposal would not be constructed of matching materials or design. A single dwelling would be out of keeping with the pairs of semi-detached dwellings in Elmhurst Avenue or the short terraces in Greenfield Road. Parking was already an issue; Mr Cox’s son used a disability vehicle and quite often it was not possible to park it outside their home. Mr Cox referred to a similar garden development at the rear of 17 Elmhurst Avenue that remained empty after several months. He suggested that there was not the demand for this type of development.

Mr Karabin, the next door neighbour in Greenfield Road, commented that he supported the comments made by Mr Cox. He also had concerns about overbearing and loss of privacy and light in his garden. Parking was already insufficient in Elmhurst Avenue and Greenfield Road. Mr Karabin commented that the proposed dwelling would be in advance of the building line in Elmhurst Avenue and that this might encourage other people to extend their properties frontwards. He felt that there might be two other similar garden development opportunities for properties in Broadmead Avenue.

Mr Toone, the Agent, commented that he agreed that the previously refused application had represented over development of the site. He agreed that the proposal was similar to that at the rear of 17 Elmhurst Avenue. The site was in a sustainable location close to shops and a bus route. He commented that there had been few objections and noted that all the objectors had rear accesses where vehicles could be garaged or put on hardstandings; people just chose not to use them. Mr Toone commented that from his own observations car parking was not a particular problem in this vicinity and that there would be no overlooking of the neighbour’s rear garden. Mr Toone asked the Committee to approve the application. In answer to a question Mr Toone observed that the Highway Authority had not made any comment in respect of car parking.

The Head of Planning commented that in respect of overlooking due to boundary treatments, that there were no issues from the ground floor windows and that all the first floor rear and side windows would be obscure glazed. In response to questions the Head of Planning confirmed the location of the front door to the proposed dwelling; that the separation distance to 54 Greenfield Road was over 17 metres, the standard being 13 metres; and the development accorded with the Highway Authority’s standing advice.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:     That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as this residential development was acceptable as it was in an existing residential area and the siting, design and appearance of the dwelling would not be detrimental to visual and residential amenity or highway safety in accordance with Policies H6 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.