‘Ridiculous’: Developer slams claims young Northampton girl was scarred by builder’s lit cigarette

The row came during a West Northamptonshire Council planning committee meeting on Thursday September 17 over plans for The Factory in Roe Road, Abington.

The former factory already had planning permission for conversion into 19 self-contained flats for supported living, along with associated building works including external alterations, a new vehicle access, undercroft parking and amenity space. The application was approved by councillors in September 2022.

But Syed by Syed Ltd later applied to change the use of the 19 units. Under the new proposal, 14 would be self-contained flats for general residential use, with five remaining as supported-living units.

Councillors refused that change-of-use application, against the recommendation of planning officers.

A mother, who lives next door with her husband and three children, told councillors: “We have had glass from those windows smashed into our garden twice.

“We have had grown men watching our children through the windows while they played outside in their swimming costumes.

“We've had grown men climb through a window and trespass into what should be our children's safe space.

“We have had adult men trying to speak to our children through open windows.

“Their trampoline has been spat on and littered with things thrown out the building.

“And my eight-year-old daughter has a scar on her head after a lit cigarette was thrown from one of those windows and landed on her.”

She said the family had already lost three summers in their garden.

Her husband then accused builders of entering their garden through a window while work was being carried out.

He said: “They entered my property through that window in order to fit it, proceeded to remove all of my belongings that were there.

“When my wife challenged them, then they laughed and continued and insinuated they didn't understand.”

The dad said he had raised concerns with the applicant, who he claimed replied by text: “I can't police them.”

He continued: "That concerns me that if he can't police people that he's paying, how is he going to be able to police those that are living independently and contributing to his income?”

The applicant hit back, saying: “When this was a factory, when we took over, it was dilapidated. They [residents] all commended what we did. Great job, you do a great thing, but not on our doorstep.

“Now, when we're saying, okay, well, we listen to you, we're doing more residential, less support. Oh, no, no, no. Honestly, I'm kind of like, well, what do we do? If you look at the old objections, you'll see them all.

“And when there was a couple of things mentioned about people looking at the neighbours, those sort of inferences, it's wrong.

“If anyone was talking to my children in the way they've alluded to it, I'd say call the police. This is ridiculous to make those sort of accusations and throw that around.

“I'm like, I would not hesitate, I would call the police, because if that was really going on, if that's the inference, call the police. Well, it's, you know, that sort of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated, call the police, you know.”

He then began to say the neighbours had ‘very conveniently’ left out the fact that the builders had bought them hampers, before being stopped by the committee chairman.

Councillors ultimately sided against the application.

Reform councillor Little proposed refusal over the intensity of the development and its impact on the adjoining neighbours’ residential amenity.

The seven parking spaces proposed for the 19 units were also found to be insufficient.

The final decision said the intensified use would result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity and that the scheme failed to meet parking standards because of the lack of spaces and reliance on on-street parking.