Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Headlands

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2012/0496, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out amendments to paragraphs 7.1 and 7.3 of the report.

Councillor Subbarayan, as Ward Councillor, stated that he supported the recommended refusal of the application because the proposal would not match the building line of Beverley Crescent and its effect on the amenity of neighbours and in particular its effect of the amenity of the garden of 99 The Headlands. 

Mrs Watson, the next door neighbour, commented that she objected to the application; six neighbours had objected to it as well and was pleased that it was recommended for refusal. She believed that the proposal would be out of scale with the existing houses, over prominent and would affect the amenity of adjoining residents. Furthermore, the amenity of the proposal itself would be poor. She noted that the applicant’s agent had cited examples, in what he believed were similar circumstances, where planning permission had been granted but she did not think that they were similar in terms orientation or separation distances that were all greater than in this application. 

Mrs Hone, a neighbour, stated that she believed that there were four issues to be considered; firstly, overdevelopment- the gardens of the host property and the proposal would be very small; secondly, building line- the proposal would be in front of the existing garages and properties in Beverley Crescent; thirdly, parking- there were existing problems with parking and the proposal would remove two garages without any compensating off street parking being provided; and fourthly, amenities- there was an access to the sewer serving neighbouring properties on the proposal site and whilst there had not been problems previously she did not want there to be problems in the future. Mrs Hone understood that that the owner rented the house out and did not live in the area. She hoped that the Committee would refuse the application. In answer to a question, Mrs Hone stated that she had not been consulted by the applicant.

Mr Toone, the agent, commented that the area of the proposal site in paragraph 7.2 of the report should read 160 square metres. He stated that the applicant had had a positive pre application discussion with Planning Officers. He believed that this site was similar to the two examples he had given in Beech Avenue and Elmhurst Avenue. He had not observed any parking problems in Beverley Crescent; there were no issues of overlooking and he asked the Committee to approve the application particularly in light of the two other approved schemes he had highlighted.   

Mr Berkshire, the applicant, stated that he had been minded to make an application following visiting the Beech Avenue property previously referred to and pre application discussions where he had been advised to submit an application. He was confused as to why the application was now recommended for refusal. In answer to questions Mr Berkshire commented that he had given drawings to Mr and Mrs Watson and other neighbours who had discussed their reaction to them amongst themselves; and that he had not tried to ride rough shod over the neighbours.

The Head of Planning confirmed that Mr Toone’s comments about the size of the plot were correct and thanked him for bringing it to the attention of the Committee. He commented that whilst there were some parallels between the examples given by Mr Toone and the application there were also some notable differences where the separation distances in the examples were greater, the site areas were greater and relationship to the building line where the proposal would be 3 metres in front of it. There was no suggestion of loss of privacy or overlooking. He noted that all applications had to be considered on their individual merits.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused:

                        1.  By reason of its siting, and design, the proposed dwelling would result in an intrusive feature unrelated to other dwellings in Beverley Crescent which would be detrimental to the street scene and character of the locality contrary to Policies H6 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.

                        2.   By reason of its mass, height and siting, adjacent to the boundary with No. 99 The Headlands, the proposed dwelling would have a detrimental impact on the outlook and amenity of the occupiers of that property contrary to Policies H6 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.