Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: East Hunsbury

The Head of Planning submitted a report, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out further representations from local residents and the officer response thereon.

Councillor Hill as Ward Councillor noted that he had addressed the previous meeting of the Committee and that the minutes accurately reflected the issues of concern. He also noted that although at that time there had not been objections to the proposed balcony residents had now objected to that aspect of the application. Councillor Hill commented that despite the alterations to the garage block the applicant had made, its width remained the same and therefore the aspect to numbers 14 and 15 Belfry Lane would remain the same. He believed that the garages would be visually too prominent and thereby be an eyesore and out of keeping with the area.  

Mr Brice on behalf of Collingtree Parish Council stated that the Parish Council did not often comment on planning applications, however, in this instance properties along Belfry Lane were spacious and open and there were concerns about both the proposed garages and the balcony. He noted that the design guide said that proposals such as the balcony should only be agreed if there was no detriment to neighbours and observed that children should be able to play in their own gardens without being overlooked. Mr Brice believed that the proposed garages would detrimentally affect the street scene and would be out of keeping with the area. He also believed that the applicant had made little real change and that the revisions did not change the issues; the garages would be close to or over existing flood drainage measures. Mr Brice hoped that the Committee would refuse the application as being contrary to Policy H18 of the Northampton Local Plan and that this would result in a better scheme coming forward. In answer to a question Mr Brice state that in his view a better scheme would have no garages at the front of the property bearing in mind that properties in this vicinity were valued in excess of £1m and where neighbours had garages in front of their properties they were set back so as not to be visually intrusive.

The Head of Planning commented that in respect of the balcony the separation distances with neighbours and the mitigation provided by the screen meant that this part of the proposal was acceptable in planning terms. In terms of the proposed garages the issues were the impact on neighbours and the effect on the character of the area and street scene. The revised proposal was not out of scale and the separation distances were in excess of the standards applied. The remaining issue of the effect on the street scene was more finely balanced. In answer to questions the Head of Planning commented that there were no overriding issues concerning flooding; confirmed the position of the accuracy of the plans detailed in paragraph 8.10 of the report; confirmed that the effect on light to the neighbour at 7 Belfry Lane would be minimal; and that the proposed garages would be on the convex curve of Belfry Lane and this made them therefore, potentially more visible than some others despite being set further back within the plot. Belfry Lane was not a regimented street hence the issue of street scene being finely balanced.

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Lane proposed and Councillor Oldham seconded “That the proposed garage, by reason of its scale, design and siting, would represent an incongruous feature harmful to and out of keeping with the character of the street scene contrary to Policies H18 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.”

Upon a vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as the proposed garage, by reason of its scale, design and siting, would represent an incongruous feature harmful to and out of keeping with the character of the street scene contrary to Policies H18 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.