Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Park

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0019, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out further comments from residents of Mountclair Court and Edgemont Road and those from the Highway Authority.

Mr Dobrasczwk, speaking on behalf of a resident who could not be present, commented that he had been responsible for the layout of Edgemont Road on behalf on the former Development Corporation. A covenant had been created, which the Council now held, to both establish and maintain the character of the area. The character of the area would be completely changed if the application were allowed and others chose to follow suit. He noted that Policy H10 sought to preserve the character of the area.

Mrs Whittingham, the next door neighbour, commented that although the proposal was for a bungalow the land was much higher and she was concerned that it would overlook her property and garden and also a risk of surface water flooding onto her property as only a soak away was mentioned rather than a drain. Mrs Whittingham also commented that an underground watercourse between 4 and 6 Edgemont Road had already caused some issues of subsidence but this did not appear to be taken account of. She noted that the plans did not appear to take account of their extension and that the gap between her property and the new garage would be less than five metres. Mrs Whittingham believed that the proposal would have an effect on the area and would encourage others to try to get permission for back land development. In answer to a question Mrs Whittingham confirmed her concerns about surface water flooding her property.

Councillor Duncan commented that he understood that the current owner of the property was planning to sell it and that the intention behind seeking planning permission was to enhance the value of the site.

The Head of Planning noted that Covenants were a civil matter that could not be taken into account in the determination of the application. Any decision made as Planning Authority would not affect the provisions of any Covenant.  The Council’s roles as Planning Authority and land manager must be exercised separately. The proposal met the requirements for separation distances and the plot was large enough to accommodate two properties. Drainage was a matter for Building Control; the site was not in a flood risk area. The fact that the current owner might be seeking to enhance the value of their property was not a relevant planning consideration. The Head of Planning advised that if the Committee were minded to approve the application then additional conditions for the submission of a drainage scheme and to restrict the height of the slab could be included to meet the concerns that had been raised.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:      That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and additionally in respect of controlling the slab level, as the proposed development was considered acceptable in this predominantly residential area without having a detrimental impact on the appearance, character and amenity of the locality or on highway safety.  Adequate access and parking is provided and satisfactory tree protection and would comply with Policies E11, E20, H6 and H10 of the Northampton Local Plan, Policy 2 of the Regional Plan and aims of PPS1, PPS3, PPS23, PPG13 and PPG24.