Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Kingsley

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0100 and elaborated thereon.

Mr Neal, commented that although the land was described as being “adjacent to no 23 Greenview Drive” it was, in fact, the garden of 23 Greenview Drive. He believed that the application was garden grabbing contrary to PPS3. The houses in Greenview Drive provided family accommodation. He believed that the applicant rented properties throughout the Borough and noted that 23 Greenview Drive had been let to students, which had given rise to other issues that had involved the Police. Mr Neal believed that the application was intended to maximise the rental income potential of the site and that it would change the character of the area. He referred to previous flooding issues, in particular in 1997 and was surprised that neither the Environment Agency nor Anglian Water had commented on this. Mr Neal suggested that if flooding were not an issue then Wilson Homes would have built on this site when the other houses were constructed. He referred to parking problems at the nearby shops and medical centre and commented that two extra off street car parking spaces would not compensate for the up to 11 extra vehicles this application was likely to generate. Mr Neal also stated that the location of water and drainage pipes may have been previously incorrectly identified and that these mistakes may have been translated into the current application. In answer to questions Mr Neal commented that he was not surprised that the Environment Agency or Anglian Water had not commented on the application if they had not visited the site and that the site backed onto the 15^th green of the golf course which was elevated and water ran off into the gardens of the properties in Greenview Drive, several of which had been flooded in 1997; no problems had been experienced in the recent bad weather.    

Mrs McMurdie, a neighbour, referred to Greg Clark MP’s comments that local people were being ignored when it came to the retention of green spaces and noted the end to garden grabbing and the effect of localism. She commented that local people did not want this development and concurred with Mr Neal’s comments about car parking and flooding. She noted the construction vehicle parked on the pathway (as displayed in a photograph as part of the Officer’s presentation and as previously submitted to Officers) and the hazard this was to pedestrians and to herself when trying to exit her drive safely and other users of the carriageway. She confirmed that her property had flooded in 2007 as a result of flash flooding as water had cascaded from the golf course. She believed that this posed a risk to her well being and safety. Mrs McMurdie stated that she had chosen to live in Greenview Drive because it was an established area with green spaces. In answer to a question Mrs McMurdie commented that she had spoken to the builder about the construction vehicle and for a while the parking issue had been better but had then reverted to being a problem.

Councillor Mennell, as Ward Councillor, commented that the residents concerns were not about the proposed houses themselves but were about the viability of the land to build on. Concerns had been expressed to her about the likelihood of subsidence, the narrowness of the street for parking and she noted that number 23 Greenview Drive had been the show-house for the development and it was understood that the garden of number 23 had been intended to be the water run off collection area for the street. 

Mr Lawlor, the applicant, stated that the Committee was being asked to approve the development of two affordable homes that complied with planning policy and building regulations. The construction of the houses would give work to 30 contractors plus work to professionals such as accountants and solicitors. The development would increase the housing stock without the need to develop green belt land elsewhere. The Council would gain approximately £2,000 per year from Council Tax and the Government from tax revenues. The Environment Agency, Anglian Water nor the Highway Authority had raised any concerns. He had worked with the planners to reach an acceptable development and both applicants were 4^th generation in the Town. Mr Lawlor commented that the Committee should encourage sustainable development and support the application that was in accordance with the Northampton Local Plan. In answer to questions, Mr Lawlor stated that the properties would be sold as family homes; the construction vehicle referred to previously belonged to the co-applicant and was his work vehicle; and that contractors building the houses would be professionals and therefore familiar with requirements about parking whilst undertaking construction work.

Mr Lawlor, brother to the applicant, commented that when they had purchased 23 Greenview Drive it had been run down, the Council having declared it unliveable. They had refurbished it and then enquired about developing the garden. He commented that the development would create work for 30 contactors. In answer to questions Mr Lawlor stated that one property would be 2 bed and one property 3 bed; and that they had bought the property in August 2010 and after refurbishing had let initially to students which had been a mistake and then to a family.

The Head of Planning commented that PPS3 had been amended to omit garden land as previously developed land and that this had been carried over into the NPPF (that superseded PPG3). Nonetheless, this site was considered to be underused and was designated as residential land in the Local Plan. He believed that two dwellings could be accommodated on the land. Paragraph 7.5 of the report dealt with the Article 4 situation so that a separate planning permission would be required for a shared let. He also confirmed that the Environment Agency and Anglian Water had no objection to the application and that there was off street parking at the nearby medical centre and a pull in by the local shops. In answer to questions the Head of Planning commented that Anglian Water had asked for, by way of a condition, a water management strategy that would identify what was needed and at what stage in the construction process that it would be need to be provided; that the site was not in a designated flood zone; that Building Control would also deal with drainage issues; and that there was no further information concerning the ditch that had been referred to this being a matter for either the Environment Agency or Anglian Water.    

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Meredith proposed and Councillor Hallam seconded “That consideration of the report be deferred pending a site visit.”

Upon the casting vote of the Chair the motion was lost.

Councillor Yates proposed and Councillor Davies seconded “That the recommendation in the report be approved.”

Upon a vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the siting, design and appearance of the development in an existing residential area was considered acceptable and would not be detrimental to visual or residential amenity or highway safety in accordance with Policies H6 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.