Agenda item

(Copy herewith)

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report on behalf of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. The application was for a single storey extension with a chiropractic studio. It was advised that although there were no planning objections to the single storey extension, officers were of the view that the potential number of customers would result in the significant and unacceptable increase in comings and goings to and from the property.

Mr D Ballentine, owner of 1 Marjoram Close addressed the Committee in support of the application. He stated that there would be a maximum number of four clients at the address during a one hour period. To start with it was proposed that there would be a split shift of work, with one person working in the morning and another in the afternoon. In reality this would only mean 2 customers an hour.

The hours of business were to be between 9.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday with every second Saturday operating from 9.00am to 12.00pm. In addition the Committee were advised that each patient would be allotted 20 minutes of time with a further ten minute crossover period between patients.  In addition he stated that there were a lack of chiropractic services in the local area and members of the public would have to travel into the centre of Northampton to receive treatment.

In response to questions from the Committee, Mr D Ballentine clarified a number of issues. He confirmed that most of the residents within Marjoram Close were retired and had indicated that they would support the application. He confirmed that the garage would be used to park one of the cars at the premises, therefore allowing for one customer to be able to park on the driveway.

Parish Councillor Ian Simons addressed the Committee raising concerns by members of the parish community. This included concerns that extra cars would hamper access to the street and, in particular, rubbish bin lorries, who needed to get down the street. In addition, at weekends and school holidays there would be a number of children potentially playing in the street.

Members of the Committee made a number of comments in relation to the application including:

·         Following the site visit, there was no evidence that the street was busy or would potentially be overcrowded.

·         There was little evidence that there would be an increase of anti-social behaviour and increased footfall could improve security.

However, some Members did raise concerns that although it didn’t seem overcrowded, it might be preferential for the applicant to find premises near a doctor’s surgery.

RESOLVED:

A proposal was made to refuse the application in line with the officer recommendation.  Upon taking a vote, this motion failed.

A further proposal was made to approve the application, with the drafting of conditions being delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair.

Upon taking a vote this motion was passed and the application APPROVED for the following reason:

The proposed use and extension would not have an undue detrimental impact on the residential amenity, highway safety, appearance and character of the host building and street scene and complies with Policies E20, H18 and B20 of the Northampton Local Plan, S10 and BN9 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, the Council's Residential Extensions Design Document and aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.