Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: St James

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/1128 and elaborated thereon, drawing attention to those limited aspects of the application that required planning permission.

Councillor Wire DL, as Ward Councillor, commented that the site visit had given Members a clear appreciation of the issues. He was concerned that other people might try to copy this development. He noted that the applicant had co-operated by ceasing work. The Committee could decide that the Applicant should reduce the size of the development to that which had been originally agreed.

Mrs Percival, a resident of Stanley Road, commented that she believed that the previous planning application had not met all the requirements for validation but had been approved nonetheless. She commented that there was no site plan for this application and that only four neighbours had been notified about it. Mrs Percival commented that she had alerted the Council to the fact that the development was not being built to the approved planning consent. The development filled the garden and gave a feeling of enclosure. If other people were to do the same then the back yards would completely disappear. She commented that a reluctance to take enforcement action should not lead to an automatic approval of the application; it effected neighbour amenity.

The Head of Planning elaborated upon the criteria for permitted development rights for this type of property and noted that the principle question was whether the permitted development rights represented the absolute maximum that should be reasonably agreed to, the difference with that and the application being very slight. In answer to a question The Head of Planning noted that the gap between the end wall of the extension and the rear boundary wall was less than 0.5 metres and confirmed that the built form of the extension accounted for less than 50% of the backyard area. Concern was expressed regarding the size of the extension combined with the limited size of the rear yard area and the very close proximity of the neighbouring houses, particularly those to the rear in Stanley Road, and the resultant detriment of amenities of these neighbouring properties.   

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Hallam proposed and Councillor Davies seconded “That the recommendation for approval set out in the report be approved.”

Upon a vote the motion was lost.

Councillor Oldham proposed and Councillor Mason seconded “That the application be refused as the impact of the alterations compared to the previously approved development and beyond what could be erected as permitted development, by reason of their siting, size and appearance, would have an adverse impact on the character of the original dwelling and the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.  Therefore the development conflicts with Policies E20 and H18 of the Northampton Local Plan and Residential Extensions and Alterations Design Guide SPD.”

RESOLVED:   That the application be refused as the impact of the alterations compared to the previously approved development and beyond what could be erected as permitted development, by reason of their siting, size and appearance, would have an adverse impact on the character of the original dwelling and the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.  Therefore the development conflicts with Policies E20 and H18 of the Northampton Local Plan and Residential Extensions and Alterations Design Guide SPD.