Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Obelisk

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0193, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that made two clarifications of dimensions contained in paragraphs 7.7 and 7.10 of the report.

Mrs McFall, a neighbour, commented that she wished to object to the application. She had lived next door to the application site for 34 years and her garden was very important to her. If approved, she believed that the proposal would change her life for ever. Mrs McFall commented that the extension would block daylight, particularly in the evenings, from her garden and that the only side view she would have would be of the brickwork of the neighbour’s extension. She felt that the proposal would in effect make her property part of a terrace and she would not be able to enjoy her garden: her lounge would be overshadowed. Mrs McFall believed that the proposal was oversized and represented an overdevelopment of the garden; it was out of keeping with the surrounding properties. She asked that the Committee refuse the application. In answer to a question, Mrs McFall commented that she believed that the chamfering of the side wall of the extension was a cosmetic gesture that would not benefit her. 

Councillor Stone, commented that she was shocked that the application was recommended for approval. Green spaces were the lungs of the urban environment and the proposal would develop a large part of the garden and blight the gardens of neighbours. She believed that the Committee should be promoting good stewardship and citizenship: this development did not represent those aspirations. The proposal would affect the wellbeing of neighbours as would the construction works themselves. She queried the effect of the works on the root systems of the existing mature trees.   

Councillor Markham, as Ward Councillor and on behalf of a neighbour, commented that the gardens to these properties were quite small and that the extension would be overbearing and be in close proximity to the neighbour. She noted that this proposal was not as dominating as the application for a two storey extension had been refused but believed that it was still overbearing.

Mr Thomason, the applicant, commented that the proposal would only develop a quarter of his garden. By chamfering the side of the extension he was losing a quarter of the internal space but was prepared to do this to meet the concerns of his neighbour. Mr Thomason noted that his neighbour’s garden was full of trees that already blocked light to her own garden as well as to other neighbours. In answer to a question Mr Thomason commented that he had spoken with both neighbours about his original plans for the two storey extension but not subsequently. He had reduced the height and effect of the extension by having a combined pitched and flat roof.

The Head of Planning commented that the previous reused application was detailed at paragraph 4.1 of the report; that in terms of permitted development rights the rear extension projected 0.6 metres beyond that limit; That the projection of the rear extension beyond the rear elevation of 114 Reynard Way was 2.4 metres to the start of the chamfer and 3.6 metres at its deepest point; and that the highest part of the roof line to the extension was approximately 3.5 metres  

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as the proposed development due to its siting, scale and design would not have an undue detrimental impact on the appearance and character of the host building, or street scene and would have an acceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining properties to comply with Policies E20 and H18 of the Northampton Local Plan and advice in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Residential Extensions.