Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Old Duston

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0034, elaborated thereon and reminded the Committee that if the building had been sited 2 metres further into the site then it would not have needed planning permission.

Mr Hughes, a next door neighbour, commented that he had concerns that the applicant would use the building as an extension of his nearby nursery business. He also had concerns about the four lights that pointed towards the rear of the properties and which caused light pollution. He also commented that the first floor of the building overlooked his garden. In answer to a question Mr Hughes stated that he would like any planning permission to be conditioned to prevent its use for business or as a dwelling.

Mrs Willis, commented that she was a next door neighbour and stated that she had not had the opportunity to comment on the proposal as there had not been a planning application. She commented that the building was like having a bungalow facing the rear of the property and seemed an invasion of privacy. She commented that the lights were on until 11.00pm each evening. It was a large building and Mrs Willis had concerns that it could become a dwelling or be used commercially.

Mr Humphries, the applicant, commented that the building had been erected under permitted development rights, his mistake had been in the siting of it. He stated that that the building was not for business use and would be happy for such a condition to be placed on any planning permission. Dealing with comments that objectors had made he stated that he did not use the rear entrance to the garden from the St Crispin site and that it had certainly never been used by staff from his nursery; the lights were only 40 watt bulbs each and were on a timer from 4.30pm to 9.30pm daily but would not be a problem during the summer months; and that his grandchildren visited him frequently. In answer to questions Mr Humphries commented that he would put smaller capacity bulbs in the lights if this were an issue and that the first floor was stairs to a landing to an outside slide that he was waiting to purchase.

The Head of Planning commented that the lighting issue was an Environmental Health matter and that the building had been applied for use as a domestic outbuilding; it would require planning permission for anything else. If the Committee were minded to approve the application an additional condition could be made to restrict its use as ancillary to the dwelling

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:      That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further condition to restrict the use of the building as ancillary to the dwelling as the siting, design and appearance of the outbuilding and conservatory were acceptable and would not be detrimental to visual or residential amenity in accordance with Policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.