Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Sunnyside

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0904, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that noted the receipt of revised plans on 11 February 2013 and an amended proposed Condition 2.

Councillor Markham stated that she was opposed to the application; she believed that it was overbearing and out of scale with neighbouring properties; it represented overdevelopment with a loss of garden space with a knock on effect upon climate change and wildlife; and was out of character with the properties in Whittlebury Close. She also stated that parking was an issue; either parked cars or those passing them had to mount the pavement. Councillor Markham was aware that the applicant lived at number 9 Whittlebury Close where there were already issues of parking and felt that the applicant was over optimistic that four vehicles could be parked within the site. She believed that the parking issues compromised highway safety. Councillor Markham noted that the Localism Act transferred powers to Local Authorities to act on behalf of local communities and made reference to the Article 4 Direction and further noted that the applicant owned several other properties in the area that were being used not to the best interests of the local community.   

Mr Clifft, on behalf of some residents in Hinton Road and Whittlebury Close, commented that they objected to the application at it extended beyond the building line in Hinton Road and were concerned that it would set a precedent. Residents also had concern that a first floor extension could be added to the ground floor extension at some point in the future. Mr Clifft concurred with the previous comments in respect of parking and expressed concerns that the property could be used for multi occupancy. Mr Clifft noted that the applicant would need an access agreement with 3 Whittlebury Close for any works on the boundary but so far no approach had been made. He hoped that the Committee would refuse the application. In answer to a question Mr Clifft commented that the parking problems generally in Whittlebury Close had been reported to the Police who had suggested referral to the Highway Authority who in turn had proposed that double yellow lines be provided. Residents were encouraged to park within the curtilage of their properties.  

Mr J Miah, the applicant and property owner, commented that he currently lived at 9 Whittlebury Close which was owned by his brother. He was getting married later in the year and wanted to move into 1 Whittlebury Close and wanted to make it comfortable. He had taken advice and met with planning officers and reduced the scale of his original proposals. He did not believe that parking was an issue as four parking spaces would be provided within the site; he had not been approached by residents about his plans; did not believe that his application was out of scale; and that he would not need an agreement with his neighbours at 3 Whittlebury Close as he was not developing up to the boundary. Mr Miah noted that any further extensions would require separate planning consent and he would be happy to discuss his plans with the neighbours. In answer to questions Mr Miah agreed that his brother had been the person that had supported the application in respect of the consultation responses and that the current tenants of 1 Whittlebury Close would be vacating the property to allow the works to take place.    

Mr Rahman, the agent, commented that the property was not going to be used as a HIMO. Part of the proposal was to create a 16’ x 11’ lounge that would not be found in a HIMO. He believed that there was sufficient parking within the curtilage of the site and the extensions were essentially being built on the existing footprint of the garage and conservatory. He commented that the original scheme had been scaled down as a result of objections and that any future first floor extension would require a separate planning consent. Mr Miah should be able to make the property suitable for his needs. Mr Rahman restated that the property was not going to be used as a HIMO and that Mr Miah would be happy to accept a condition to prevent development of a HIMO. In answer to a question Mr Rahman commented that the applicant did not feel that provision of a garage was necessary; many garages across the country were being converted for other use.

The Head of Planning commented that the HIMO situation was covered by the Article 4 Direction; any change of use would require planning permission: in respect of the building line, which was a notional concept in any case, the ground floor extension would extend beyond it as did the existing conservatory that would be replaced and would be mostly screened by the boundary fencing and was felt in this case to be acceptable as set out in the report. In respect of the boundary issues the applicant would have to have regard to the Party Wall Act. In answer to questions the Head of Planning noted that it would be possible to issue an informative with any planning consent reminding the applicant that any change of use would require planning consent; that there would be no direct overlooking of the neighbour’s property from the two storey side extension and confirmed that in this instance the extension beyond the building line as it would be mostly hidden was considered to be acceptable.      

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Palethorpe proposed and Councillor Aziz seconded “That the application be approved as set out in paragraph 1.1 of the report as amended by the Addendum.”

Upon a vote the motion was lost.

Councillor Golby proposed and Councillor Mason seconded “That consideration of the application be deferred so as to allow further discussions between the Applicant and Officers in respect of the Committee’s concerns.”

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

Councillor Hibbert proposed and Councillor Oldham seconded “That the application be refused as:

(1)       The proposed development, by reason of design and siting, would create an unacceptable overlooking and overbearing effect to adjoining properties detrimental to visual and residential amenity contrary to Policies H18 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.

(2)       The proposed development would result in the removal of the existing garage and the reduction in the number of parking spaces available to serve the occupiers of the existing dwelling. This would lead to the increase in demand of on-street parking detrimental to highway safety contrary to Policy H18 of the Northampton Local Plan.”

Upon a vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:        That the application be refused as:

(1)   The proposed development, by reason of design and siting, would create an unacceptable overlooking and overbearing effect to adjoining properties detrimental to visual and residential amenity contrary to Policies H18 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.

(2)   The proposed development would result in the removal of the existing garage and the reduction in the number of parking spaces available to serve the occupiers of the existing dwelling. This would lead to the increase in demand of on-street parking detrimental to highway safety contrary to Policy H18 of the Northampton Local Plan.