Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Sunnyside

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/20012/0070, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out objections from residents of Chadstone Avenue and comments from the Highway Authority.

Mr Watts, commented that there were 13 houses in Chadstone Avenue and that their design was such that the ground floor had a larger floor area than the first floor. He commented that the Committee had to show good reasons for their decision. He stated that he had concerns about statements made in the report and in particular paragraph 7.4 and the reference that the proposal “would not result in an over-concentration of similar uses which would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring residents in the locality…”. He disputed this; he believed that there were no proper records of houses occupied by six or more individuals for this area. He did not believe that the property was large enough for five individuals to live in. Mr Watts stated that there were parking implications in Chadstone Avenue area and referred to the Highway Authority comments concerning noise and disturbance and street cleaning and disposal of refuse. He believed that if the proposal were agreed it would change the family nature of the area. There were also three schools in the vicinity. Mr Watts referred to paragraph 7.4 of the report again and commented that Council Tax and Housing records had been used to make the assessment that there were not an excessive number of houses in multiple occupation in the vicinity and that this same information had been used to justify the imposition of the Article 4 Direction. He believed that this was contradictory. He asked that the Committee either defer or reject the application. 

Councillor Markham, commented that she had previously spoken about HIMOs and the Article 4 Direction. She was a resident of the area and believed that the statement in the report that there were not too many HIMOs in the area was absurd. Whilst the Applicant’s management proposals for the property were commendable she queried whether he planned to monitor the premises on a daily basis. Around this area people tended to park in the street rather than using off-street parking. She suggested that the Council did not have the resources to monitor car parking or refuse problems. She believed that the Council continued to fail the residents of Sunnyside since granting the Article 4 Direction: as the Cabinet Member for Housing she was unable to build any more social housing until 2014 but had increasing numbers of homeless in bed and breakfast accommodation. She stated that there was no planning policy in respect of Article 4 and the Council should not be supporting get rich quick developers; this situation did nothing to help the homeless.

Councillor Parekh as the Ward Councillor, commented that he had lived in the area for seventeen years and he believed that quite a few of houses were HIMOs. This had a detrimental affect on the area and increased the number of students living there. He believed that not all of the proposed five car parking spaces would be usable and that the house was too small for the proposal. The area was predominantly family and retirees orientated. He believed that the property was not appropriate for students, HIMOs were not needed and that the proposal represented an over development of the site and would not encourage families to the area.  

Mr Stones, stated that he was part owner of the property was the likely landlord of it. He wanted to provide student accommodation to the highest standards and it would be closely monitored: he was working with the University’s student accommodation department. His business partner and himself both lived locally. Car parking spaces were for four cars plus the garage. He had monitored car parking in Chadstone Avenue and had only observed two students parking near the junction with Falcutt Way before the houses started. In terms of noise and waste, students would be vetted before being given tenancies and breaches would be dealt with. He would have a cleaner who would keep the site tidy and deal with refuse. Mr Stones believed that all of objections had been dealt with. He had the best of intentions and would deal with issues as they arose. In answer to questions Mr Stones commented that he lived in the Harborough Road and that he had done this sort of development before in Semilong which was fully accreditied; breaches would ultimately be dealt with by giving notice and Court Orders- this had not proved necessary so far.

The Head of Planning confirmed that there were thirteen houses in Chadstone Avenue and that the ground floor area of the houses was larger than the first floor area. In respect of paragraph 7.4 he commented that the statements contained in it were accurate and in their assessment there was not an over concentration of HIMO’s in the vicinity. Proposed condition 2 covered a management plan for the property  and proposed condition 3 restricted the occupancy to five people. To date no other applications similar to this had been received since the Article 4 Direction had come into force. In answer to questions the Head of Planning commented that there would be a net gain of one car parking space as the development would result in two additional off-street parking spaces but reduce the street parking capacity due to the associated vehicle crossover. The Council had no evidence to indicate that there were any HIMOs in Chadstone Avenue and that the records referred to in paragraph 7.4 of the report indicated that there were two to three HIMOs in Falcutt Way.  Although material planning considerations, the issues about noise and disturbance and street cleaning and disposal of refuse were not Highway Authority matters.  

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Yates proposed and Councillor Mason seconded “That the application be refused as the proposal would result in an over-concentration of similar uses in the locality leading to a material change in character which would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring residents and the locality, the property is not of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use, and the introduction of the use would lead to additional off-street parking in an area which currently experiences difficulties in this respect.  The proposed development would therefore in conflict with Policy H30 of the Northampton Local Plan.”

Upon a vote the motion was carried. 

RESOLVED:   That the application be refused as the proposal would result in an over-concentration of similar uses in the locality leading to a material change in character which would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring residents and the locality, the property is not of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use, and the introduction of the use would lead to additional off-street parking in an area which currently experiences difficulties in this respect.  The proposed development would therefore in conflict with Policy H30 of the Northampton Local Plan.