Agenda item

(Copy herewith)

At this juncture of the meeting, Councillor Oldham, having declared an interest in Item 10d, left the room.

Councillor Golby, as the Deputy Chair, assumed the role of the Chair following Councillor Oldham’s departure from the room.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. It was noted that the report sought approval, subject to conditions, for a proposed single storey side and rear extension including garage conversion.

Mrs Veitch, owner of the neighbouring property, spoke against the application and stated that she considered it to be overbearing and that it would have a detrimental effect on the environment and also considered that the extension would lead to a loss of privacy of her property.  Furthermore, Mrs Veitch highlighted the presence of a balcony at her property and suggested that views into the proposed extension would be possible. This would unduly impact upon the occupiers of the proposed development.

Members of the Committee discussed the proposal and in doing so noted the size of the plot, but considered that the extension would project significantly beyond the rear wall of the existing house. This would result in an extension that would not be subordinate towards the original building and would therefore be of a disproportionate size.

In addition, the Committee concluded that a significant element of the proposed extension would be visible from the adjoining property at 21 Reedhill irrespective of the difference in ground levels and existing boundary treatments. By reason of the height and projection of the development, the proposed extension would create an overbearing effect that would be detrimental to the outlook and amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property, including its garden.

Furthermore, the committee recognised that currently the outlook from the adjoining property was one that featured a mixture of developed sites and elements of the natural environment. This contributes significantly to the amenity of the property and also its character. The proposed development, by reason of its proportions, would erode these characteristics and would lead to a detrimental impact upon the outlook of the neighbouring property.

The committee also noted that the neighbouring property featured a balcony that contributed to the amenity of the dwelling and the proposed extension would have an overbearing effect on this.

As a result, it was concluded that the development failed to comply with the requirements of Policy S10 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and Policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan due to the inappropriate design and significant adverse impact on neighbour amenity. Furthermore, the development failed to comply with the Residential Extensions Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document owing to the poor design, lack of subordinate design and the adverse impact on the adjoining property at 21 Reedhill.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

That the proposed development, by reason of its height and projection and proximity to 21 Reedhill, would form an incongruous and overbearing feature that would adversely affect the amenity and outlook of the adjoining property. The proposal fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy S10 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, Policies E20 and H18 of the Northampton Local Plan and the Residential Extensions Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.

Councillor Oldham re-entered the room, and resumed Chairmanship.