Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Park

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/1234, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out further representations from residents of Flavell Way, and Church Way.

Mr Timothy, stated that he was a chartered Town Planner acting on behalf of neighbours. He noted PPS3 had been amended so that development should be resisted if it would cause harm to the character of the area. Church Way was characterised by large houses on large plots. The proposed development  would be in marked contrast to this and out of character with the area. Mr Timothy noted that 88 Church Way had principle windows facing the site and the development would have implications of overlooking: he believed that the application was contrary to policies 6, E20, and H10 of the Northampton Local Plan.  

Mrs Bryant, a resident of Flavell Way, commented that she had concerns about the cumulative effect of planning permissions that had been granted in Church Way in respect of road safety and the capacity of the utilities to cope. She noted that Church Way had already been dug up frequently. Mrs Bryant was aware of natural springs in the vicinity and noted that where they had been diverted had led to parts of Church Way collapsing on several occasions. She felt that developments should not put existing properties at risk  and that her objections to the original proposal remained in respect of overlooking of her bedroom. She was against this proposal as overdevelopment.    

Councillor Hill, acting as Ward Councillor, commented that planning was often a matter of opinions and concurred with the comments made by Mr Timothy and agreed that the application should be rejected on the grounds of it being contrary to policies E20 and H6 of the Northampton Local Plan in terms of density and being out of character with the area. Councillor Hill noted that whilst there had been approvals of back land development on the other side of Church Way this proposal would set a precedent for this side of the road. He believed that there would be inadequate parking provision and commented that the site visit showed how narrow Church Way was at this point. He believed that there was a demand for the type of property to be found in Church Way and only a limited supply.

Mrs Stroman, planning consultant for the applicant, stated that detailed consultations had taken place with the planning officers in order to arrive at a sensitive and attractive development. The site was characterised by a large garden bounded by hedges and stone walls. She noted that PPS3 did not rule out garden development if it was not detrimental to the character or amenity of an area. Mrs Stroman observed that in Church Way there were a variety of properties and densities including some infill. The applicant had consulted neighbours in an effort to make sure there were no unacceptable impacts to them. Three trees were protected by a TPO that would be maintained. In respect of the natural spring, no detectable flow of water or pond had been found. Mrs Stroman noted that the NPPF included a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In answer to questions Mrs Stroman confirmed that the trees covered by the TPO were those on Church Way; that the landscaping to Church Way would be enhanced and that the Monkey Puzzle tree within the site would be retained. 

Dr Green, on behalf of the applicant, commented that his wife was the architect for the scheme and that she had an interest in sustainable designs. The applicant had consulted neighbours before submitting the planning application and had not had any comments and had subsequently worked with the planners. Revisions had been made to the scheme to meet comments received. He believed that the development would be to a better standard than most on Church Way and that family members would occupy two of the properties. He hoped that the Committee would support the application.

The Head of Planning confirmed that the removal of garden land from the definition of previously developed land and Policy H10 did not completely ban development on garden land and that the separation distances of properties from the site boundary was within acceptable standards; there was no issue of overlooking; a backland development had been approved at 76 Church Way but each application needed to be considered on its merits and in respect of parking, each property would have a garage and parking space and there was some scope for visitor parking. In answer to a question, the Head of Planning confirmed that there were no windows in the elevation of the proposed dwelling facing 4 Flavell Way.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the proposed development would have no undue detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of the locality, the residential amenity of nearby occupiers or highways safety and therefore accorded with the National Planning Policy Framework and policies E20, H6 and H10 of the Northampton Local Plan.