Agenda item

Consideration was given to the report detailing the planning application which had been previously circulated.

DA/2020/0783 BARBY – Construction of 3 dwellings and associated work (access from Balding Close) – Land to rear of 25B Daventry Road, Barby

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the application for 3 detached dwellings, one of which was a bungalow. The site lay within the confines of the village and was surrounded by residential development and consented development. The site was not considered to be important open space and in principle the proposal was deemed to be in accordance with the policies of the local development plan. In October 2020 an application had been submitted for 4 four bedroom dwellings which had resulted in objections being raised regarding the density and the poor mix of properties. The applicant had amended the application in light of these concerns to what was now proposed. The new mix of dwellings was consistent with the housing needs survey for the village carried out in 2019. Although objections had been received that the development would be overcrowded, Officers considered that the density was comparable with nearby housing and complied with the Neighbourhood Development Plan. Access to the site would be through Balding Close which would need to be widened to meet adoptable standards and the Highway Authority had raised no objections to the application. Concerns had been raised by residents regarding the surface water drainage and waterlogging of the nearby gardens; the Council’s Engineer considered that the proposed new drainage system could improve this situation.

Late representations had been received since the publication of the agenda, which had been circulated to Members.

Ms Jones spoke against the application, Mr Gee spoke on behalf of the Parish Council and Mr Smith, the agent, addressed the Committee.

Councillor Alan Chantler stated that he had called-in the application as he had been contacted by the neighbours to the site. Councillor Chantler acknowledged the results of the housing needs survey but pointed out that the housing land supply in the old district area had been met (although this did not prevent developments being approved). Councillor Chantler considered that the proposal did not accord wholly with the Neighbourhood Development Plan due to overcrowding and overlooking and there would be a lack of amenity space as the new buildings would be too close to the neighbouring properties. Councillor Rosie Humphreys concurred with these concerns and added that the environmental improvements of the application were not clear and that there would be no net gain in biodiversity. Councillor Humphreys considered that the concerns raised regarding the highway needed further examination due to the 90 degree bend.

In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Highway Authority had raised no technical objections to the solution proposed by the developer and had proposed a detailed condition. With regard to the drainage condition, further details were also required. Therefore it would be difficult to refuse the application on these technical grounds. With regard to the housing land supply, although this had been met, local authorities needed to maintain a supply of housing for the 5 year rolling programme. There was also a national drive for the provision of housing in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Councillor Rupert Frost considered that the amenity of local residents would be adversely affected by the proposal. The Senior Planning Officer pointed out that it was quite usual in rows of houses to be able to look into each other’s gardens but accepted that it was a judgement call. In response to an enquiry, the Senior Planning Officer advised that in plot 3 the first floor to the end of the boundary was 8.5 metres. The Council’s Solicitor added that there were thousands of developments across the country with similar distances between properties.

Councillor Alan Chantler proposed that the application be refused as it would adversely affect the amenity space of the neighbours and as it was against policy R1 in the Joint Core Strategy and policy RA2; because it would not constitute an environmental improvement or contribute to the retention of local services and because it was against policy ENV10 due to scale and density. This was seconded by Councillor Rosie Humphreys and on being put to the meeting was declared carried with 4 voting in favour and 2 against.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

The proposal does not constitute an environmental improvement due to the proposed layout and height, and particularly short gardens, which would result in overlooking from the proposed two storey units onto existing neighbouring gardens to the detriment of the amenity that the occupants of those properties might reasonably expect to enjoy. This is contrary to policies R1(D) and R1(i) of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, policies RA2C(vi) and ENV10A(viii) of the Settlements and Countryside Local Plan and policy BO-GP1(c) of the Barby and Onley Neighbourhood Development Plan.