Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Committee Wednesday 15Th December 2010 at 7.00 Pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Committee Wednesday 15th December 2010 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

INDEX

Page No. SITE VIEWING GROUP

WP/2010/0441/F - 41 High Street, Ecton. 1 WP/2010/0447/FCOU - Land adjacent 3 and 4 and land adjacent 20 Shearwater Lane, Wellingborough. 10 WP/2010/0453/FM - 1-33 Knights Court, Wellingborough. 14 WP/2010/0456/F - 34-96 Knights Court, Wellingborough. 33 WP/2010/0458/F - Land adjacent 14 Oxford Street, Finedon. 38 WP/2010/0478/F - Prince of Wales, 25 Well Street, Finedon. 45 WP/2010/0487/F - 96 Overstone Road, Sywell. 49

DISTRICT

WP/2010/0431/F - Mineral Star Holdings, 30 Harrowick Lane, Earls Barton. 54 WP/2010/0438/TX - 2-10 Denington Road, Wellingborough. 67 WP/2010/0448/FCOU - Land to side of 188 and rear of 191-193 Kilnway, Wellingborough. 78 WP/2010/0449/FCOU - Land to side of 56 Kilnway, Wellingborough. 82 WP/2010/0455/FCOU - Land between 37 and 59 Bell Court and land to rear of 43-53 Bell Court, Wellingborough. 85 WP/2010/0475/C - 67 Grendon Hall, Main Road, Grendon. 91 WP/2010/0481/C - Sywell Range Gun Club, 300 Kettering Road, Sywell. 97 WP/2010/0484/F - Rear of 19 North Street, Mears Ashby. 100 WP/2010/0507/FCOU - Unit 127 Turnells Mill Lane, Wellingborough. 110

OTHER BOROUGH

WP/2010/0200/OB - Chelveston Renewable Energy Park, Chelveston Airfield, Chelveston. 114 WP/2010/0508/OB - Newton Road (North of)/Rockingham Road (East of), Kettering. 122

FOR INFORMATION

WP/2010/0341/C - Friars School, Friars Close, Wellingborough. 125

- 1 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 14th December 2010 at 10.15 a.m.)

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0441/F

PROPOSAL: New two storey dwelling to be built on vegetable garden. No demolition required. Re-submission following withdrawn application WP/2010/0260/F.

LOCATION: 41 High Street, Ecton, Northampton. NN6 0QA

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Brian Day.

Committee consideration owing to the number of objections. Members site visit requested by Chairman.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The application site lies on the eastern side of Ecton High Street. It comprises part of the open curtilage of no. 41 High Street that is currently partly used as a vegetable garden. No. 41 High Street itself is occupied by a single detached 2-storey dwellinghouse, with an ancillary 2-storey stable building that is sited to the north of the proposed dwelling and adjacent to the common boundary with no. 35 High Street. The stable building would be retained. The site lies within the Ecton Village Policy Boundary and within the Conservation Area.

Consent is sought to erect a 2-storey detached dwellinghouse. The development would be accessed via the existing ramped driveway that serves the existing building. Parking spaces are provided to the north of the proposed dwelling and adjacent to the existing stable building. The site has an extensive tree coverage but no mature tree is proposed to be felled.

This is a revised application. The previous application was withdrawn because it was considered unacceptable by officers, owing to its scale and potential impact on the amenities of no. 35 High Street.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2010/0260/F Erection of a 2-storey dwelling – application withdrawn owing to concerns about the height and siting of the proposed dwelling.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing WP/2010/0441/F

Legend WP/2010/0441/F - 41 High Street, Ecton Description

ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead Application Site This map is accurate 1:1,250 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) Owners Property - 2 -

Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Development Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 – Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4 - Villages

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. NCC Highways – no objection subject to conditions regarding the width of the private drive, visibility standards and paving of the driveway to prevent loose materials being transferred onto the highway.

2. Borough Environmental Protection Manager – requirement for the submission of an Environmental Risk Assessment by condition.

3. Borough Design and Conservation Officer – no objection.

4. Ecton Parish Council – no objection raised. However, they request that the adjoining properties retain their right of light.

5. The occupiers of no. 35 High Street - when we were notified about the first planning application at 41 High Street, Ecton our initial reaction was that a 1 acre plot may be able to accommodate a 2 bedroom cottage without adverse impact to neighbours or the nature of the village, particularly if it was in the footprint of, and involved the restoration of any of the existing unused buildings on site.

However, when we saw the details of the proposal we immediately identified our concerns regarding the position and elevation of the proposed property to Mr O Duyile. After a site visit Mr Duyile indicated that our concerns were acknowledged and outlined to Mr and Mrs Day, and the application was withdrawn.

We would like to raise our concerns regarding this new planning application (which varies only modestly from the original) on the following grounds.

- We remain seriously concerned about the impact the presence of a development of this size and location would have on our own adjacent property.

a. The selected location, its position, proximity and elevation, would have a notable impact on our access to light and privacy, attached is an impression of the effect. Views from windows in the new development would look directly down into our garden and the proposed building would be visible from our lounge and main bedroom.

b. The selected location places the driveway and parking immediately adjacent to our own back garden, this location is significantly elevated - 3 -

above our own plot (see attached plan), approximately 1.5m higher. In other words vehicles would be adjacent to, and above, our back garden.

c. Although the proposed development is described as a modest and smaller home with only 2 bedrooms, its footprint is 20% larger than our own reasonably sized 4 bedroom house and only 20% smaller than the original Cot itself. Renaming of rooms (presently marked store room, dressing room, and study) could re-define the proposed development as a 4 or 5 bedroom house and its impact is easier to comprehend if viewed in that context.

- We would like to represent the interests of the village and its conservation status by expressing our concerns about the extent to which plans to develop this site would change the nature and character of this part of the village.

d. This site has already suffered significant change in character, in stages, over recent months by the loss of a number of mature trees. These trees have not been replaced to conserve the character of this space for the next generation. e. The positioning of the proposed development changes the nature of the Cot’s grounds and presence, an historical property itself, and impacts the environs of another listed building opposite. The elevated position of this site in relation to street level would allow a view into the house and grounds of The Manor House and vice versa. These proposals would affect the nature and aspects of what are surely the 2 most significant buildings in the lower half of the village. This property would also have a distinctly different character and dynamic from all the other properties with a visible presence on the High Street.

Guidelines covering the management of conservation areas include statements such as;

“We have a responsibility to ensure that the character of these areas is not diminished in our lifetime.”

“New development must make a positive contribution to the character of the area.”

If the Planning Committee were to consider granting permission, our concerns over our own amenity quality and the aesthetics of the village would be greatly mitigated if the development could be brought down to the street/street level, or use the footprint of the existing stables. We would also ask that generous planting using semi mature stock and species sympathetic to a conservation village setting be incorporated to help restore the character of this space.

6. The occupiers of 54 High Street - we are writing to express our comments on and objections to Planning application WP/2010/0441.

We hope that three planning conditions will be imposed on this plan.

- 4 -

1. The first floor window on the High Street side (marked in the plan as a bathroom window) must be specified as obscured glass. This is to ensure that no one can look into our garden or our first and second floor windows. The new drawings have placed this window closer to our house and the window is above the top of their hedge, even when it grows to its full height.

2. A planning condition on the ground floor window (below the bathroom window) on the High Street side that it must be exactly as drawn. That it must be a fixed pane, non-opening window and cannot be a door and the openable upper pane will only open at the height that is specified in the drawing. Until the hedge shown in the drawing grows up we wish to preserve the privacy that we currently enjoy and we hope the planners will specifically impose the existing design as drawn as a condition of building. This is also because the new drawings move the proposed house closer to our house.

We commented on the size of the house and its prominence when the plans were submitted previously and wish to point out that we clearly understood that a hedge had been included in those plans. This version of the drawings does little to diminish the imposing stature of this house on the High Street. The ridge and chimney are lower but not the height of the windows. The hedge still does not obscure views from and to its first floor windows. The new 37 degree roofline is less characteristic of houses on the High Street. The proposed building is also uncharacteristic of houses on the High Street, in that historically, these houses are actually ON the level of the High Street. All recent houses built on the High Street are on the level of the High Street. We hope you will seek clarification of this with English Heritage.

3. It is with this in mind that we hope that another planning condition will be placed on this house, which is that it should be built at High Street level, and overall be lowered to match the ground floor level of the other houses on the High Street. We note that Cole and Co mention in the design statement that their intention is to dig out and set aside all of the 'excellent topsoil'. They also state that they will widen the drive access by bringing the levels down to the High Street in order to comply with the Highways department. As they are already committed to bringing some of the site levels down to the High Street, there is no impediment to further digging.

This would also have the benefit of alleviating impact on the amenity of 35 High Street, the McCarter's, who stand to lose all privacy and light into their garden. Digging to this level would also address the comments made by Ecton Parish Council, that this new house must not interrupt light to neighbours. This proposed compromise would also alleviate impact on the amenity of Manor Farm House. Anyone standing on the first floor of this new house need only turn 45 degrees to allow them uninterrupted views straight into the gardens and windows of the first floor of Manor Farm House, even when the hedge grows to its full height.

We extended our house in 2007 (with planning permission and employing the services of an Architect) and needed to dig most of our garden down to High Street level from its previous height which was the same level as 41 High - 5 -

Street's vegetable garden is now. (We have a topographic survey that shows our original levels, if you would like to see this). At the highest points, the depth of digging necessary was approximately 1.96 metres. We brought the levels for the extension and the garden down, level with the High Street and went below that for the foundations. We found that the digging was very easy as it consisted mostly of topsoil.

The area we dug out is approximately the same as that needed for the project proposed on the plot at 41 High Street. This additional digging added less than two thousand pounds to our costs, which is not a lot in the scale of building an entire house and has given us an immensely private garden and an extension that cannot be seen from any houses on the High Street. We also have a mature privet hedge above an historic stone wall on the High Street and our extension is behind that. It makes sense to us that to preserve the setting of the High Street at this location, the new house at 41 High Street should be set at street level, and behind their wall.

We invited Isobel and Brian Day to see our extension, its setting and to meet with the neighbours because we hoped they might see that this could be a good and even preferable compromise for them. But they refused our invitation and made it clear that they have no regard for anything that the neighbours might have to say. We are happy to extend an invitation for the Planners and for Cole and Co Architectural to come and look at our extension and the survey, so they may see the merit in this compromise and hopefully seek to convince their clients.

We think that whoever occupies this new house would be grateful for the privacy that we enjoy as a result of digging down to the High Street and we hope the Planners will insist on this as a planning condition, for two reasons. Firstly to preserve the amenities of light and privacy for 35 High Street and for Manor Farm House. And second, to preserve the historic layout of the High Street.

7. The occupier of no. 56 High Street - I wish to object to the above resubmitted planning application.

Firstly, I wish to object on the grounds of the impact to my amenity. Specifically, the large first floor window in the master bedroom of the proposed development overlooks my current private garden (54 High Street cannot see beyond trees into my garden during summer) and more worryingly, my master bedroom which is currently totally private. Moving the dwelling South has only made this worse (although I understand is may help number 35).

Secondly, I wish to object on aesthetic grounds both within the Ecton Conservation Area but also in the view from Manor House, my Grade II* listed property. In particular, the proposed dwelling will be dominant in front of the Manor House garden view of the church. Manor House is one of the four most historic and important houses in the village. It is interesting to note that the proposed development isn't visible from the Cot.

- 6 -

I am not against development in the village but it has to be appropriate, in keeping and sympathetic to what is there already. I am bemused that the proposed development is considered two bedroom. Looking at the floor plan it could be considered four or five. I would prefer the proposed development be smaller in keeping with other two bedroom residences in the village (and apart from the 'important' houses that are set back), and actually on the High Street. If that cannot be done, I would be much happier if the aspect I would be looking at from my garden was smaller and my amenity wasn't quite so affected by the overlooking windows. I would suggest that can be done by digging down to a level similar to numbers 54 and 35.

In my previous objection I noted the two applications (TCON/2010/0001, TCON/2010/0004) that removed trees from the plot and suggested that was disingenuous. I stand by that. It really is most convenient that tree 3 on 2010/0001 is right in the middle of the proposed development.

I also note that there is a single new tree listed on the plans that might help restore some amenity to me. I would ask that, even if the ground can be dug down, that the tree is reinstated as mature and given the history, subject to a preservation order immediately. I see that I am listed as a consultee, however disappointingly I have not been consulted on this by Mr and Mrs Day at all.

ASSESSMENT: Principle Policy G4 of the Local Plan supports new residential development in Restricted Infill Villages such as Ecton subject to the development being within the Village Policy Boundary and there being no adverse impact on the size, form, character and setting of the surrounding area which they form part. This is to ensure that the level of provision is commensurate with their status as the primary location for residential development in the rural area, consistent with the provisions in National guidance – PPS 7.

PPS 3 (Annex) was recently amended to remove from the definition of brownfield/previously developed land, land within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. However, this does not altogether legislate against all developments within residential curtilages. Every development has to be considered on its own merits and in some instances, certain developments within the curtilage of existing dwellinghouses may be acceptable if they enhance the character and appearance of an area.

Character and Appearance and Impact on the Conservation Area This part of Ecton High Street has no coherent and recognisable spatial pattern. There are wide variations in the plot sizes and building coverage in the immediate area. However, this side of the high street is characterised by buildings directly abutting the frontage, but the application site leaves a sizeable gap, which does not conform to the norm. It is considered that the proposed dwelling would satisfactorily fill this gap and conform to the morphology of the surrounding area.

In design terms, the building is satisfactory, proposing the use of natural slate roof, natural stone with red brick verge for the elevations – all in keeping with the appearance of the buildings in the surrounding area. The Committee’s attention is drawn to the provisions at section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) - 7 -

Act 1990, which refer to the duty of the decision maker to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. In this instance, it is considered that the proposal would enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area and therefore passes the statutory test.

Amenity Impact It is considered that the proposed dwelling is sufficiently distanced from the neighbouring properties for there to be any adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers. Indeed, the proposed building has been resited (further south and away from no. 35 High Street), its height reduced (by excavation) and the angle of roof pitch reduced in order to minimise the impact on the neighbouring no. 35 High Street. It should be borne in mind that the northern elevation of the proposed dwelling facing no. 35 consists mainly of windows to non-habitable rooms such as store and study at first floor level and hall and utility room at ground floor level, although there is a window to the sitting room on the ground floor.

The resiting of the building creates a distance of about 11 metres from the flank elevation of no. 35 High Street. This is usually the standard for such situations in many residential layouts. Given the orientation of the proposed dwelling relative to those on the opposite side of the High Street and the separating distance, it is not expected that there would be any adverse impact. In the circumstances, the proposed development is acceptable and would not result in any significant impact on the living conditions of neighbours.

Traffic and Parking There is sufficient space within the site to accommodate at least 2 cars. The existing access would be utilised and in the absence of any objection from the highway authority, the proposed development has to be considered acceptable in relation to parking provision and access arrangement.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Notwithstanding any materials specified on the approved plans, representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development commences and the development shall be built in accordance with the approved samples. 3. Details of those parts of the site not covered by buildings including any parking, roads, footpath, hard and soft landscaping (including tree specimens), surface and boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the commencement of the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4. The car parking spaces shown on the approved drawings shall be provided before the occupation of the dwellings and shall thereafter be kept free from obstruction and shall be retained for parking purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the proposed dwelling. - 8 -

5. As it is to serve 2 dwellings, the existing driveway shall be laid out as a shared private drive, having a width of 4.5m over a length of 10m from the highway boundary. The vehicular crossing shall be widened, the edge of the carriageway over the width of the crossing delineated with dropped kerbs with a 25mm up- stand and all highway surfaces where disturbed by the proposals made good in accordance with the specification of the County Council. 6. To prevent loose materials being carried onto the highway, at least the first 5m of the driveway from the highway boundary shall be hard-paved and adequate provision shall be made to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water from the driveway onto the highway. 7. The stone wall on the northern side of the point of the vehicular access shall be rebuilt to provide pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2m x 2m above a height of 0.6m. 8. Before the development commences, an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) that to identify potential for contamination of the site shall be submitted to the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development. Should the ERA identify any contamination, it shall contain measures for its remediation that shall be approved in writing by the local planning authority. The site shall be remediated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the development.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. To secure a satisfactory appearance for the development in the interests of the visual amenity and the appearance of the Conservation Area. 3. To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped in the interests of the visual amenity and the appearance of the Conservation Area. 4. To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and in order to prevent additional parking in the surrounding streets, which could be detrimental to amenity and prejudicial to safety. 5. In the interest of highway safety. 6. In the interest of highway safety. 7. In the interest of highway safety. 8. In the interest of health and safety of the occupiers of the development.

2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing Numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: 2507/01A, 02A, 04A and 05A 11/10/2010 - 10 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 14th December 2010 at 11.50 a.m.)

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0447/FCOU

PROPOSAL: Removal of raised planting bed to create 6 new parking spaces.

LOCATION: Land adjacent 3 and 4 and land adjacent 20 Shearwater Lane, Wellingborough. NN8 4TS

APPLICANT: Wellingborough Homes.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination because the application site is owned by the Borough Council of Wellingborough.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above.

The site consists of a large raised planter in which two mature trees are growing that have visual amenity value and have recently been crown lifted. At the time of Officer Inspection, 13:00 in the afternoon, there were many cars parked haphazardly locally which could not be accommodated by the existing off-road car parking provision in the area. The site is located in a former GLC housing estate designed on the Radburn principles.

The applicant has served a Notice No. 1 on the Borough Council of Wellingborough as owner of the land.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2010/0269/F Removal of raised planting bed to create six new parking spaces and create two new parking spaces within existing garage court – withdrawn.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY, NATIONAL GUIDANCE AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: Regional Spatial Strategy 8 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 9; Biodiversity and Geological Conservation WP/2010/0447/FCOU

ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised Scale: reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead This map is accurate to prosecution or civil proceedings. 1:1,250 to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) Legend

WP/2010/0447/FCOU - Land adjacent 3 & 4 and land adjacent 20 Shearwater Lane, Wellingborough - 11 -

Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport Supplementary Planning Documents: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime and Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority – advises that the applicant needs to enter into a suitable agreement with the County Council as Highway Authority because the proposed works are likely to interfere with the public highway.

2. Borough Council of Wellingborough Landscape Officer –

“The retention of the trees adjacent to the garage block is obviously an improvement on the previous proposal.

I would be prepared to consider the loss of one of the trees in the raised planter if the one on the end was retained as a feature on the corner. Three additional spaces could be gained thereby. However many additional spaces are provided they are unlikely to meet the demand.

The design and access statement does not acknowledge the value of the trees, and the tree report does not classify them. They are of high amenity value and should be protected as far as possible. As they apparently belong to the Council it should not be necessary to make a tree preservation order.”

3. Borough Council of Wellingborough Facilities and Property Services Manager - no comment received.

4. Neighbours – no comment received.

ASSESSMENT: Main Issues and Material Planning Considerations:

• effect on residential amenity • effect on visual amenity • highways and parking • crime and disorder • biodiversity

Effect on residential amenity It is considered that the proposed works will not significantly impact on the standard of amenity of nearby residential occupiers.

Effect on visual amenity The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (h) says, amongst other things, that new development should be of a high standard of landscaping and respect and enhance the character of its surroundings.

- 12 -

The development involves the loss of two trees which the Council’s Landscape Officer has identified as having high visual amenity value. The Landscape Officer has, however, eschewed the opportunity to place a Tree Preservation Order and is instead relying on the Council’s existing ownership of the land for their future protection.

The Council’s Landscape Officer is prepared to consider the loss of one tree; however, that proposal is not part of this application and if it were, it is considered that the loss of one tree for one additional car parking space is not acceptable when the empirical evidence is that there would still be a large unmet demand for off-street parking in Shearwater Lane that one extra space will not materially improve.

It is considered that the loss of the trees which are intended to be replaced by a concrete block hard surfaced car parking area will not result in a high standard of landscaping or enhance the character of the surroundings. The application is therefore, considered to be contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Highways and parking It is accepted that the proposed development would provide additional off-road car parking spaces for the nearby residents. However, as mentioned above, in reality the additional proposed spaces would not make any significant difference in satisfying the existing demand for off-road car parking spaces that would result in cars still being parked on footpaths and other areas not designated as car parking areas.

Crime and disorder No crime and disorder issues have been identified.

Biodiversity Apart from the loss of the trees, no other biodiversity issues have been identified within the scope of the application.

Conclusion It is considered that the proposal would not have any material effect on the assuaging the excessive demand that is evident for off-road car parking spaces in Shearwater Lane and approving the application would result in the loss of a landscape feature which confers a visual amenity benefit on the street scene. The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following reason.

1. The loss of the trees which have high visual amenity value in the street scene is contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Policy 13

Development should meet the needs of residents and businesses without compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the same quality of life - 13 -

that the present generation aspires to. Development should:

Raise standards h) Be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respects and enhances the character of its surroundings and is in accordance with the Environmental Character of the area.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: SCH17, 4637/17/01A and 4637/17/02A 13 October 2010

- 14 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 14th December 2010 at 11.30 a.m.)

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0453/FM

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing sheltered housing facility and replacement with a new 40 no. unit sheltered housing scheme plus associated car parking and landscaping - Amended Drawings.

LOCATION: 1-33 Knights Court, Wellingborough. NN8 4DD

APPLICANT: Wellingborough Homes.

This application comes before the Planning Committee for determination and is requested for site viewing by Councillor Paul Bell.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site is located on the northern fringes of Wellingborough Town Centre with vehicular access from Gold Street with the addition of pedestrian access via the south from Alliance Terrace and Outlaw Lane. There is a significant difference in land levels throughout the site with a drop down from the North of 3m.

The proposed development is as above and comprises mostly of a flat-roofed construction ranging from 2 to 3 stories over the site with the 3 stories set predominantly to the front of the site and the highway frontage with a stepping down towards the south due to the topographic changes. The buildings closest to the rear elevations of North Street are one and two storey towards the northern end of the site and 3 storey to the southern end but to the same heights due to the change of levels. The current and proposed provider is Wellingborough Homes.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2010/0456/FM Refurbishment/re-cladding of 3 apartment blocks; internal alterations resulting in a reduction in residential units (from 63 to 51); associated external works and improvements relating to landscaping, access and car parking provision - pending with recommendation for approval.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing WP/2010/0453/FM

Legend WP/2010/0453/FM - 1-33 Knights Court, Wellingborough

ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Description permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead This map is accurate Applicants Property 1:1,250 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) Application Site - 15 -

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport (PPG13). East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Strategy – Policies CS7 – Sustainable Design and Use of Resources CS8 – Co-location of waste management facilities with new development. Development and Implementation Principles SPD North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 – Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit – Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Guidance.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Housing Strategy -

“We welcome the redevelopment of the sheltered housing scheme at Knight’s Court. It will be a great improvement on the current scheme, increase the number of flats available and provide facilities for our older population which are better suited to their needs. We also welcome the introduction of eco-measures which will both reduce the carbon footprint of the scheme and reduce heating bills for the tenants.

However we are somewhat disappointed that we were not consulted on the scheme earlier by the housing association and feel that opportunities have been missed to make the scheme even better. For example:

• There is an emphasis on one bedroom flats (29) as compared with 2 bedroom flats (12). Two bedroom flats are more popular with older people who are often reluctant to move from family housing unless they have a spare room for family or carers to use.

• The scheme has not been designed to full wheelchair standards. This is disappointing given that occupants of sheltered housing schemes are becoming older and frailer. If not in need of wheelchair accommodation on entry to the scheme, they may need it later on and they should not be expected to move elsewhere – especially when wheelchair provision could have been designed in. The Core Spatial Strategy states that 5% of all new housing should be provided to wheelchair standards and we are trying to incorporate this into all new affordable housing schemes where possible. It is even more important for older people and we would therefore expect at least 10% (4) of the flats and all of the communal areas to be fully wheelchair accessible. Two lifts are provided in the scheme so this should be achievable.

- 16 -

• Could the disabled car parking not be provided nearer the building and provide covered access into the building? The sloping ground levels around the scheme may also cause an access problem, depending on gradients.

• Whilst the ecomeasures provided are welcomed, we would have liked to see some additional measures e.g. photovoltaic roof panels or air/ground source heat pumps.”

2. Police –

“Northamptonshire Police has no formal objection to the planning application in its present form other than to suggest that the following informatives/conditions are included, which if implemented will reduce the likelihood of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour occurring. This is in the interest of the security and quality life of future occupants of the development in accordance with policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy.

Informatives:

* Gap between the rear of the building and the refuse store should be gated to stop intruders having access to this area. * Once inside said boundary authorised/unauthorised personnel can freely walk the site, there maybe access control but I have no details. * Communal entrances would benefit from having a secure door entry system that incorporates audio/visual system, so that occupants can vet guests from the safety of their apartment and prevent un-wanted visitors having access to communal areas such as stairwells and courtyard. * Emergency exit doors should be linked into an alarm system or should set of an alarm if used. * Front office should be located so that staff can view the entrance doors and clearly see who is leaving and visiting the premises. * All external Entry/Exit doors should meet Pas 24:2007 or equivalent security rating. This includes any rear/front patio doors and access in to the buggy store. * Windows - All windows should conform to a minimum performance of BS7950, windows at ground floor should be fitted with 6.4mm laminated safety glass and have window restrictors. * Windows (ground floor) - In addition to the above, windows at ground floor should be fitted with 6.4mm laminated and toughened safety glass. * How the drugs will be stored and protected (what standards will the storage be e.g.BS288) * The development should be built to attain the Secured by Design (SBD) accreditation, which if implemented will reduce the likelihood of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour occurring.

Just for information: High value property (computers, projectors and technical equipment) should clearly and permanently be marked with etching solution with the Buildings name and postcode. Details of marking products can be found on www.securedbydesign.com . This makes the property difficult to sell and a less desirable target by thieves. - 17 -

Suggestion for conditions should the application be approved in its present form:

* Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme detailing the security standards to be incorporated within all openings associated with the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Police CPDA and in line with the recommendations of Secured By Design. Reason: This is in the interest of the security and quality life of future occupants of the development in accordance with policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy. * Full boundary treatment/landscape detailed drawings are supplied and approved by the LPA in consultation with the Police CPDA and inline with the recommendations of the SPG 'Planning out Crime in Northamptonshire'. The plan should include plant species/growth height for landscape plan. Height and material details for boundary treatments. This is in the interest of the security of future occupants of the development in accordance with policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy. * Full Lux plan should be supplied and approved by the LPA in consultation with the Police CPDA. This is in the interest of the security of future occupants of the development in accordance with policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy.

All the points raised do comply with the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy in accordance with policy 13 and I consider are commensurate with the risk. If you or the developer would like to discuss these points raised please do not hesitate to contact me. The future success and sustainability of this development can be critically influenced by crime, and Northamptonshire Police need to have a major impact on design issues.”

3. Northants County Council (Highways Authority) -

“A review of the Transport Assessment prepared by MGWSP in partnership with NCC is attached. No doubt you will arrange for the review to be taken up with the applicant and for the concerns raised to be addressed.”

The remaining Highways comments are as appears in the conditions and associated with highways safety and convenience.

4. Northants County Council (Archaeological Advisor) –

“The application site is located north of the town centre, and on the south side of Gold Street. It lies within the core of the historic settlement, and in an area characterised in both the county Historic Environment Record and the Wellingborough Extensive Urban Survey by the presence of medieval tenement groups and closes. The potential exists for the remains of medieval activity to survive on the site, albeit truncated by more recent development.

PPS5, HE8.1 stresses the importance of pre application discussions in order to assess the significance of potential heritage assets. Normally the assessment would take the form of an evaluation prior to determination; however, as the - 18 -

application depends on the demolition of existing buildings pre-determination evaluation would be impractical. In the light of this, and of the probability of truncation on the site, in this case a condition will be acceptable.

The proposed application will have a detrimental impact upon any archaeological deposits present. This does not however represent an over-riding constraint on the development provided that adequate provision is made for the investigation and recording of any remains that are affected. In order to secure this please attach an archaeological condition, as per para HE12.3 of PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment to any permission granted in respect of this application.”

5. Northants County Council (Planning Policy) –

“In relation to the above planning application the County Council, as the Waste Planning Authority, has the following comments.

Prior to any development taking place, the applicant should demonstrate how it meets Policies CS7 and CS8 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) Core Strategy (adopted May 2010). Policy CS7 of the MWDF Core Strategy states that proposals for the new development should seek to utilise the efficient use of resources in both the construction phase and its operation. Policy CS8 of the MWDF Core Strategy encourages the integration of waste management facilities in areas of significant new development.

In addition the MWDF Development & Implementation Principles Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted. March 2007, provides more detailed guidance on the requirements of Policies CS7 and CS8 of the MWDF Core Strategy.

The SPD has regard to Policy CS7 through the 'Principles for development related waste minimisation' and requires all developers to prepare and submit a Waste Audit, which is to accompany the planning application. This allows for informed decision making and consideration of waste management issues throughout the planning process. Detailed guidance is set out in paragraphs 2.12 to 2.27. Standard conditions for inclusion in planning permissions to ensure effective implementation of the SPD are outlined in paragraph 2.27.

The SPD has regard to Policy CS8 through the 'Principles for the provision of waste management facilities' and requires all forms of development to prepare and submit a Waste Management Facilities Strategy, which is to accompany the planning application. The purpose of which is to demonstrate the provision of individual waste management design features (internal and/or external) that support the separation, storage, and collection of waste in order to increase the efficiency of its subsequent re-use, recycling, and treatment Detailed guidance on development thresholds and planning applications is set out in paragraphs 2.29 to 2.39, the provision of facilities and reporting requirements are set out in paragraphs 2.43 to 2.51. Standard conditions for inclusion in planning permissions to ensure effective implementation of the SPD are outlined in paragraph 2.52.” - 19 -

6. Environment Agency and Central Networks - “no objection”.

7. Amenities Manager –

“Can you draw to the developers attention that the Waste Manager would not accept the proposed location of the waste collection point. He suggests that the site of the bins should be re-located to parking space at no. 12.”

8. Conservation Officer –

“An excellent scheme which has my full support. We just need to see materials samples, hard-surfacing treatment and windows and doors in appropriate conditions, please.”

9. Peter Bone MP – requested information following the receipt of a neighbour’s objection letter.

10. Third Parties (Objection Letters) -

47 North Street -

“… I strongly object to this planning application. This sheltered housing facility looks directly over my back garden and already affects our privacy greatly, if this application goes ahead then the new build will be another story higher thus giving us even less privacy than we have now. This new build will also give us much less sunlight than we currently receive. Then we come to the building works itself, the demolition of the old building and the building of the new one will cause a great deal of mess, dust and noise it will be absolutely terrible for the months and months it will take to complete. I currently have my house on the market and this will have a massive impact on the sale and bring the value of my house down even further commbined with the current economic climate which would basically leave us stuck here. I have given my reasons why it would be a nightmare for us if this application goes ahead…”

45 North Street –

“Having seen the proposed plans for the development of KNIGHTS COURT, we wish to make the following objections and comments on this.

1. There will be the issue of blocking our natural light to our back garden. Mr Regan is severely disabled with M.S. he is wheelchair bound and mostly the only time he gets out is in our back garden where he can sit on the decking and get fresh air and play with our dog. With this proposed building overlooking our property and land even more, any chance of his privacy or being able to keep his dignity will be well lost. 2. The drawings show no attempt at respect for the architectural style of our home. What is there now is bad enough but to make it look like a factory backing onto us and putting an extra storey onto it as well as natural lighting galleries is quite honestly hideous. - 20 -

3. There is also the issue of the major distress this development is going to cause in the demolition and construction of this proposed building to our family life. This is going to cause major disruption in the form of noise and pollution, which will prevent the use of our garden and our patio doors for a major amount of time, concluding that Mr Regan will have to stay indoors until completed and will not even, be able to keep the doors open in the better weather. 4. We also have issues regarding the probable loss of value in our property. 5. In this time of recession why are you proposing to knock down, rather than extend what seems to be an adequate modern building. Sounds like a waste of public funds to us! 6. We have no objections to providing sheltered accommodation for people in need, it is the design and the intrusive nature of the design that we have objections to. 7. A compromise would be if you would turn the design round so as the landscaped area was facing our garden making the building further back from our property and the long side of the proposed building faced buildings of the same aesthetic nature. 8. We have lived in this house for 20 years and know that prior residence have put in applications for planning permission which have been refused on grounds of not being in the nature of the area, as your proposals are also not! 9. We are concerned how far the plans seem to have gone without any prior consultation with the residents this is going to affect. 10. We require a response to all the points we have put forward and wish you to do so as a matter of extreme urgency!”

43 North Street –

“1) The first notice received was your letter of 19th October to local residents. At no time was any prior consultation or residents views sought before planning, which is clearly well advanced. 2) While I have no objection to the provision of sheltered housing for needy people, it is the architectural style and intrusive scale of the development to which I object. 3) The existing building is not exactly an aesthetic pleasure and one would have thought the opportunity to re-build would have engendered a sympathetic approach which blended in with the largely Victorian nature of surrounding housing. 4) Drawings of the proposed development are, quite frankly in my view, hideous and show no attempt whatever to respect the architectural style of adjacent housing. It looks more like factory premises rather than housing! In addition, the new building is three storeys instead of the existing two plus a natural lighting gallery which will dwarf domestic housing. 5) There will be issues concerning overlooking and the blocking of natural light to houses in North Street, in which at least one severely disabled neighbour with great mobility and dignity problems will lose garden sunlight for a significant part of the day and, of course, be seriously overlooked from at least two storeys of the building! 6) It is known that at least one attempt to construct a small upper storey in matching brickwork to a terraced house in North Street was, ironically, refused on the grounds that it spoilt the look of Victorian architecture! - 21 -

7) Since all our gardens face the proposed building, its overbearing nature will be distressing. It would be preferable for us if the whole site plan turned round so that the long side of the new building faced modem buildings and business premises and the landscaped area faced our gardens. 8) There is also an issue regarding the probable loss in value of our properties which would be vigorously pursued. 9) Additional concerns attach to the demolition of existing premises and the construction of new ones which will inevitably cause major disruption, noise and pollution surrounding our homes for a considerable time. 10) Why destroy what is presumably an adequate modem building rather than extend existing premises. This seems to be a waste of public funds. 11) I do require that you reply to all the points made above and look forward to your response. I have already contacted my MP regarding this matter, will be in touch with Paul Bell Shortly and hope to attend relevant council meetings: Please advise me of the next appropriate meeting.”

11. In response to the above objection letters the agent returned the comments:

“The main items that have been amended are summarised as follows:

1) The building has been stepped back at first floor level, within the northern wing so as to reflect more closely the external outline/profile of the existing development. As a consequence this has reduced the total number of units from 41 to 40.

2) Where the building steps back the lower roof levels are proposed to become 'green/sedum' roofs. This amendment has a series of benefits including; improving the environmental performance of the new building in accordance with the BREEAM Assessment currently being undertaken by reducing the impact of surface water run-off as well as improving the visual amenity for the new occupants and the existing residents to North Street.

NOTE: We are keen to stress that these green roof areas will NOT be used as external amenity spaces for residents but will only be accessible for the purposes of general roof maintenance by specialist sub- contractors, as and when required.

3) The material palette used to the end of the northern wing has been amended to add variety/interest to the elevation, as well as notes added regarding further landscaping/planting that will be introduced. This measure will also assist in improving the visual outlook for the existing residents of North Street.

4) Finally we have added a further drawing, which indicates how the proposed massing sits in conjunction with the existing building profiles. This also demonstrates that there is only a minor difference in relation to the overall physical impact of the new building when compared with the existing. The design of the new facility has made a conscious effort to avoid any unnecessary overlooking to North Street (hence all habitable - 22 -

windows looking either directly north or south, with only opaque glazing used on the end elevations as a means of allowing natural tight into a corridor and an upper floor bathroom).

It is worth pointing out that there are only two localised areas at which the proposed building comes within close proximity to the boundary with the rear gardens to the North Street properties - i.e. at the north and the south wings the 'C-shaped' profile of the building has been purposely designed so as to minimise the potential for overlooking and/or loss of light to the existing properties and ensuring that the main mass and focus of the building addresses the Knights Court highway.

As a result of the above it is considered that the revised stepped approach to the building's overall external profile now alleviates the concerns and comments raised by the residents of North Street.

In reference to the comments made by the Ward Councillors at our meeting last Tuesday in relation to the use of flat roofs and the potential to investigate alternative options we would put forward the following response.

The overall concept of the design seeks to reflect the existing context of Knights Court, in particular the three existing apartment blocks - using buff brick as its base material, as well as replicating a similar flat roof profile. Whilst it is acknowledged that the properties to North Street obviously form part of the surrounding context it is considered that the physical connection and architectural relationship between the proposed development and North Street is not as strong as it is when the proposed scheme is compared against the existing apartment blocks to Knights Court. Architecturally the proposals are intended to match with the suggested aesthetic/thermal improvements to the existing blocks in terms of the material palettes used and it is thought that the comprehensive redevelopment of the whole of Knights Court will bring a greater benefit to the wider community.

In our opinion, the use of a monopitch or a traditional roof construction on the new build proposals, as suggested by the councillors, would not only disrupt the obvious relationship with the existing blocks at Knights Court but would also have a significant impact upon increasing the massing and overall building height of the scheme. Throughout the development of our design we have always sought to minimise the physical impact of the scheme upon the neighbouring properties to North Street and consider that the use of the flat roof profile not only offers a reduced massing but also a clean, contemporary styling solution for the development.

Finally, we would also like to draw your attention to the fact that after further discussions with our Client, Wellingborough Homes, the scheme is to be classified as Supported Living accommodation, as opposed to Sheltered Housing. This means that the accommodation provided would be available to those tenants who are in specific need of this type of accommodation and would benefit from the additional support and resident amenity facilities made available.” - 23 -

ASSESSMENT: NOTE: In addition to the above agent comments the drawings were also revised; with the principal amendment being to the two storey element to the rear of the objecting North Street properties. This involved the first floor element being reduced so that this part is single storey and increasing to 2 stories further from the side wall, these alterations were made with a view to reducing the overbearing impact towards the objecting neighbour’s rear windows and outside space and also make it a more interesting elevation. The objectors have been re-consulted with respect to the amended drawings with no. 43 North Street reiterating their objections of above any further representations received as a result of the amendments will be reported to the committee in the late letters package.

The amendments also involved slight internal and external alterations to take heed of the Housing Strategy comments to give greater wheel chair access to the outside space. In addition the development, as a result of officer negotiation, will take advantage of the flat-roofed design with the introduction of an element of green roofing, with a view to introducing an area of habitat as well as be beneficial to the external appearance and enhance the view from some of the windows of the development.

Principle of the Development The existing premise operates as a sheltered housing facility run by Wellingborough Homes. The proposed development is intended to replace the existing with a more modern facility therefore essentially the use will remain unaltered, although it will become more intensive with an increase in the number of units. There is no specific land use designation for the site in either the Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan or the Local Plan. Therefore as the use will remain unaltered the principle is established. The existing facility whilst it may be able to operate in its current guise for some years yet it is nearing the end of its operational life and with respect to modern standards is considered unfit for purpose for a facility of this type therefore the loss of the existing to be replaced by a modern establishment and to modern standards is appropriate.

The proposed development accords with the principles of sustainable development through the reuse of a brownfield land as contained in PPS1. In terms of Policy 1 of the Core Spatial Strategy, it directly accords with the objective of principally directing development towards the urban core as the site is located within the growth town of Wellingborough. The requirements of Policy 14 are also met; with at least 10% of the demand for energy within the development will be met on site from renewable energy sources. These are detailed in full in the accompanying Energy Efficiency Statement. The proposed development is appropriately sited – in a location offering a range of community facilities and with good access to key services and infrastructure. It is therefore consistent with the integrated transport strategy approach advocated by PPG13.

The proposed development is also in accordance with the aims and objectives of the regional planning guidance for the East Midlands, adhering to the objectives and requirements of Policies 1, 2 and 3 of the East Midlands Regional Plan; and is a suitable form of development in the context of the regional guidance. In terms of Policy 1, it addresses the majority of the key generic objectives outlined for development to follow in the region. In response to these objectives the development will extend choice - 24 -

in the context of the property market for the area by providing an additional tenancy and adaptable option for the less able (not necessarily elderly) within the area. This extension of choice promotes the inclusion of the elderly within the area, aiding the mix of the local community overall. This should in turn provide ‘knock on’ benefits from a health and well being perspective.

The facility will ensure job opportunities and may create more with an increase to the number of units, making a contribution to the local economy.

Sustainability An Energy Efficiency Statement has been prepared by the developer. The statement describes the various sustainable methods to be considered as part of the overall design and layout in response to the issues raised within the SPD and demonstrates how the proposal conforms to the national and local aspirations from a sustainability perspective. Included within the proposal as a result of negotiation are the inclusions of green/sedum roofs which will reduce surface run-off. The development will also propose to contribute to its own energy by way of some or all of the following methods: Photovoltaic’s; Solar Thermal; Ground Source Heat Pump and/or Combined Heat and Power. The building will also retain heat with the use of cladding materials and the green roofing and also be a good reciprocal for solar gain with the inclusion of large full length windows to municipal areas of the development. It is anticipated that the development would be able to attain 10% in energy production on site as stipulated in Policy 14 of the NNCSS and a very good to excellent BREEAM score would be likely. This will be ensured via an appropriate condition.

It is conceded that the statement makes very little mention and is deficient in terms of detail as to how the development will be constructed sustainably with no mention of the applicable County Council Minerals and Waste Policies and Supplementary Documents throughout. The appropriate conditions are included to deal with this. In conclusion its contribution to a reduction in energy consumption and an increase in efficiency is at ease with relevant policies and is certainly an improvement to the existing ageing facility and is justification for the redevelopment of the facility rather than a superficial re- vamping that may only prolong the facilities operational life by years.

The facility enables use and/or adaption to peoples of varying abilities including wheel chair bound and includes en-suite bathing facilities as well as aided facilities. Also provided are rooms of varying sizes for community interaction and various miscellaneous rooms designed to be used for visiting practioners such as hairdressers or be converted into overnight living accommodation for carers. The provision of a fair number of 2 bed units is also seen as a benefit to enable for a dedicated carer if appropriate or for visitors something that occupiers may appreciate. The facility is open to internal manipulation and can be altered depending on the user, which is seen as a benefit when ensuring the longevity of the facility and therefore its sustainability.

Amenity Impact The existing premise is primarily laid over 2 floors although does have a 3 storey element towards the centre of the building which appears to be used for non-habitable purposes. Currently the building is under 8m from the rear gardens of the North Street properties and only 12m from the nearest rear habitable room rear window; there are currently a high number of habitable room windows in the first floor that are considered - 25 -

to significantly overlook the North Street properties that would likely be considered unacceptable today. The proposed development would result in no habitable room window that are not obscured and directly face the rear elevations of North Street closer than 23m from the boundary and 28m to a window. This is ensured via conditioning. This separation distance together with the conditions results in no detriment to the privacy of the North Street properties and would actually significantly improve on the existing situation. The proposed roof would not be used as an outside amenity space and screening will not be included to the nearest balconies towards the east as this will be ensured via conditions. The mutual overlooking towards the Knights Court block to the west is an existing situation and improved upon slightly with a set-back of the facing elevation.

The 3 objections received highlighted that immediately to the rear of their North Street properties that the building will be going closer at two storey level than the existing; as a result of the objections the developer has increased the separation distance at first floor level, which is now comparable with the existing situation, although the ground floor footprint remained unaltered. The higher 3 storey part is some 23m from the rear windows of the North Street properties, which again is comparable to the existing. It is conceded that the addition of a half-storey third floor and the increased bulk of the development would result in a increase in light loss towards the rear elevations of North Street towards the end of the day; although this loss is not considered to be of sufficient to justify refusal for the following reasons:

• Whilst the proximity of the development may be marginally closer than the existing this portion is less expansive than the existing. • The heights of the building are comparable to the existing or, in the case of the higher parts, are at a separation distance (23m) that would maintain acceptable light inundation.

Also as a result of the neighbourly objection the developer added interest to the nearest elevation with the stepping back of the first floor and also additional roof detailing including the introduction of a green/sedum roof. It is acknowledged that the building as seen in the elevation drawings appears as an obtrusive mass with the palette used being unfortunate. In reality the building is set over varying heights, levels and sections with the materials and fenestration incorporated as well as the setting back of the middle section breaking up the buildings massing and scale. In addition this increase in mass has largely be accomplished by making better use of the site contours with the 3 storey elements towards the southern end of the site retaining the existing heights but cutting into the ground to contribute a lower ground level.

It is considered that whilst the overall footprint and scale may be larger than the existing the methods incorporated in the design, detailing and the use of the topography are successful in reducing the buildings dominance towards North Street and are not considered to be an overbearing impact. Therefore having carefully considered the impact on neighbours the development is found to be in accordance with Policy 13 of the NNCSS and the parts therein that concern themselves with loss to neighbour’s amenities.

Design, Layout and Appearance The design has been driven by the existing facility as well as the 3 blocks that border - 26 -

the site and share commonality and a relationship to the existing whilst also taking into consideration the drop in site levels and the curving highway that splits the site as a whole. The intention of the proposal is to reduce its mass by as far as is achievable whilst also increasing the occupation of the facility and retaining outside space both for the users of the facility and for street interaction. The development as existing has little relationship with the surrounding properties particularly the inter-war terraced properties with their rears forming the eastern boundary to the site, it is therefore considered reasonable that the proposed development should similarly be considered as a separation to the North Street properties, although a degree of linkage would still be expected.

This desire to keep the massing down has resulted in a flat-roofed design augmented by a number of atop roof features and lipped roof detailing to break up the flat nature of the roof. It is considered that this has been successful and whilst the blank nature of the elevation drawings submitted are not helpful in indicating this the visuals provided are considered to give a truer representation of the proposal. The varying heights, varying frontage depths of the built form, the differing facia materials and fenestration details breaks up the buildings massing nicely and whilst it may be larger than the existing it is set further back from the highway and allows for a better highway and streetscene interaction than the existing. The proposed buildings in terms of external appearance and design will match the surrounding and associated blocks.

With respect to the interaction of the development upon the North Street properties, whilst it is conceded that there are very little architectural similarities the lower portions of the development are to this boundary and this together with the separation distances above ground floor is respectful of the heights of the terraces and allows them to retain their visual dominance. The views from the rear of the North Street properties is one of broken massing and scales with varying heights, features and set-back with the tallest element set in the middle and the furthest away. It is considered that the developer has succeeded in creating a built form that is neither visually dominant nor uninteresting to the North Street properties particularly when considering the existing. In conclusion the proposed design is not considered to detract from the historic nature of the North Street properties and is considered to be a good form of design taking advantage of the varying topographies and differing materials to reduce the massing whilst also improving on the buildings interaction with the street with the street set-back.

Landscaping The application includes a landscaping scheme for the site which includes planting around the periphery of the site and in and around the walkways and amenity areas. This has been designed and arranged to assimilate the general landscape character seen in the surrounding area. The key vantage points have been targeted to soften the overall aesthetic of the development, allowing the building to blend into streetscape and where possible providing a natural buffer area between the development and the highway. In addition the rear garden area is considered a very useable space and encourages interaction with a designated seating area with areas laid to lawn and planting with a defined focal point, whilst also being enclosed and non-permeable. This is seen as a significant benefit to the scheme with the existing allowing for unrestricted rear access and less formalised outside spaces.

- 27 -

Access, Transport and Parking Issues The application was submitted together with a Transport Assessment. Firstly the site is existing and appears to operate at ease with the existing highway arrangements, the living accommodation will increase by 6 units to 40, although there is an increase in bedrooms with 12 of the 40 being 2 bed whereas previous the 33 units were 1 bed only, there is also a reduction on the amount of parking from 31 to 28. During the officers site inspections the car park appeared to be sparse with few cars in situ. It is considered that the provision of 28 car parking spaces including 2 disabled and an addition 6 cycle spaces together with the proximity of the units to excellent transport links and the likely un-motorised users of the facility that this is reasonable provision. On-street parking would also be considered reasonable and not detrimental to highways safety given the closed nature of the road.

Northants County Council by way of a MGWSP review highlighted various deficiencies within the submitted transport assessment such as not highlighting distances to catering facilities and what areas could be reached by cycling. It is considered that whilst the attached Transport Assessment may be lacking detail in such areas it is purported that given the location of the site in close proximity to the Town Centre and other closer facilities that many of the deficiencies can be assumed. In addition it is important to give weight and regard to the existing facility which whilst smaller In terms of overall living accommodation is comparable and operates without any adverse highway safety and convenience concerns. Concerns have also been raised with respect to the turning head; again this is an existing situation however the application does give the potential to improve on the existing and regularise the turning head; therefore an appropriately worded condition is included as suggested by the highways authority.

Designing Out Crime Although not mentioned in the Design and Access Statement the developer did approach the Police in pre-application discussion; the proposal therefore has considered the ‘Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire’ SPG (February 2004), and accordingly has been structured to ensure that the design offers a safe environment to its future users. Through this use of strategic design processes, crime and the fear of crime can be significantly reduced. The following are the key principles that have been included within the scheme:

Natural Surveillance: The main frontages and entrances face on to the car parking areas providing natural surveillance. The layout also provides for clear and defined routes throughout the site, all of which are clearly overlooked; Secured Gates: The perimeter of the building will be secured by gates and appropriate boundary enclosure. The routes into the site to the main entrance areas are short, clear, direct and highly visible. Casual intrusion by the general public is discouraged by the structured layout with footpaths designed to solely serve the needs of the facility rather than provide unnecessary access; and Amenity Areas: The outdoor amenity area on the site is proposed within a courtyard area to the rear of the development, providing privacy to the area whilst also ensuring it remains secure at all times.

The incorporation of car parking land has been considered to help increase the semi- private and defensible space specifically to the western frontage. Notwithstanding the measures set out above and in response to the concerns of the Northamptonshire - 28 -

Police, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring a scheme detailing the security standards to be incorporated within all openings associated with the development. Upon receipt of the details, the Police CPDA will be consulted to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the recommendations of Secured By Design. A number of informatives have also been included at the bequest of the Police.

Flood Risk, Foul Sewage and Utilities The site does not lie within an area recognised as having a high risk of flooding and the Environment Agency have raised no objection to the proposal. Both storm and foul drainage will utilise existing mains systems. As stated within the Energy Efficiency Statement, the use of water will be regulated with Best Available Techniques for fixtures and fittings and it is conditioned that the use of rainwater harvesting be explored, although the use of green roofing will reduce the amount of rain water available. The development will result in a modest increase in impermeable area.

Site Waste Management Sustainable development demands a fundamental change in the way we design, produce, use and dispose of the products we consume. Unfortunately this issue has not formed any part of the applicants submission therefore in accordance with The Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework any application not inclusive of a Waste Management Facilities Strategy can reasonably be refused. In this instance however, it is considered that given the space available to sort waste within the site that the development of an appropriate strategy is feasible, therefore rather than frustrate the development an appropriately worded condition is attached.

Financial Obligations The application has not attracted any requests and as the development would involve the replacement of an existing facility and would likely house residence that currently reside at the premise or are currently located within the Borough any contribution would not be considered reasonable despite the slight increase in accommodation.

Other Considerations The biodiversity is unaffected and the principles of non-discrimination have been followed through-out.

Response to Representations The concerns submitted from third parties with respect to any potential loss of light, overlooking, overbearing or harmful impact on the area are discussed above also discussed above is the deficit state of the existing premise to act as facility of this type and whilst adaption is preferable, given the constraints of the existing building this is not considered reasonable.

The objections received concerning disruption associated with the facilities construction and the devaluation of property is not considered to be of a material planning consideration. An objector makes reference to an householder application refused by the authority on ‘out of keeping’ grounds the only record of a planning application to the North Street property was WP/2002/0540 and this was approved by the authority. In any event every application is determined on its own merits and pursuant to the relevant policy documents at the time. Finally whilst it is always beneficial for the - 29 -

developer to appraise the local residents of a forth-coming application this cannot unfortunately be insisted upon.

Conclusion Following careful consideration and taking into account the above it is considered that the application does not harm the amenities of neighbouring dwellings and does not detrimentally impact on the character and appearance of the area together with satisfying the remaining issues above and is therefore recommended for approval in accordance with the above planning documents, subject to appropriate conditioning.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Details of all windows and doors and external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. 3. Details of all hard-surfacing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. 4. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 5. A scheme for screen fencing/walling shall be agreed with the local planning authority before the start of construction. The agreed scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the houses are occupied. 6. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme detailing the security standards to be incorporated within all openings associated with the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the Police CPDA and in line with the recommendations of Secured By Design. 7. Full Lux plan should be supplied and approved by the local planning authority in consultation with the Police CPDA. 8. Should any archaeological remains be discovered in the course of development the developer shall contact The Northamptonshire County Council Archaeological Advisor so that an assessment can be made for the formulation of mitigating measures or the instigation of contingency procedures. 9. The Highway Conditions are as follows: a. No formal turning facility exists at the termination point of Knights Court and it is considered appropriate that suitable works are carried out at the expense of the applicant to construct an acceptable turning head and to dedicate it as highway maintainable at the public expense. The works must be carried out to - 30 -

the specification and dimensions of NCC in accordance with a suitable agreement. The arrangement indicated on the application plan does not conform to the requirements of the Highway Authority and must be redesigned as a formal turning head of adequate dimensions to permit its use by all vehicles that will regularly need to use the street. b. The proposed vehicular crossings must be constructed and all highways surfaces affected by the works reinstated in accordance with the specifications of NCC and subject to a suitable agreement. c. To permit the convenient passage of disabled and less mobile persons, consideration should be given to reconstructing the principal means of access with taper and half sections kerbs of alternatively suitable dropped kerbs with tactile paving at crossing points. 10. Prior to the commencement of development an investigation report into the possibility of Rainwater Harvesting, Solar PV's, Solar Thermal, Ground Source Heat Pump and Combined Heat and Power to demonstrate that at least 10% of the demand for energy will be met on site and is to be submitted to the local planning authority as detailed in the Design and Access Statement. Should all of some of the above be considered to be a viable prospect as decided by the local planning authority details of the installations including their positions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and be installed within the development. 11. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall prepare and submit a Waste Audit and a Waste Management Facilities Strategy to be approved in writing by the local planning authority unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The Waste Audit must address provisions subscribed in Part A, section (2.22/2.24/2.25) and the Waste Management Facilities Strategy must address provisions subscribed in Part A, Section (2.47/2.49/2.50) of the Development and Implementation SPD. 12. Prior to occupation the developer shall submit to the local planning authority a statement confirming that the development has been undertaken in accordance with the approved Waste Audit as approved as a result of condition no. 11. 13. The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Waste Management Facilities Strategy as approved as a result of condition no. 11 (unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority). 14. The roof of the development or flat-roofed areas hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or for any other purpose of a similar nature without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. 15. The east facing living room windows proposed to units 12, 25 and 26 shall be constructed of obscured glaze and the balconies to units 12, 13, 25 and 26 shall have an obscured side screen to a height of 1.8m to the eastern elevation. 16. Prior to construction the final proposed slab levels showing diagrammatically their relationship to neighbouring properties shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. In the interests of amenity. - 31 -

4. In the interests of visual amenity. 5. In the interests of amenity and privacy. 6. This is in the interest of the security and quality life of future occupants of the development. 7. This is in the interest of the security and quality life of future occupants of the development. 8. In the interests of possible archaeological remains. 9. In the interests of the safety and convenience of the highway. 10. In the interests of sustainability. 11. In the interests of sustainability. 12. Ensure Compliance with the Waste Audit. 13. Ensure compliance with the Waste Management Facilities Strategy. 14. To protect the privacy and amenities of neighbouring properties. 15. In the interests of neighbours privacy. 16. In the interests of neighbours amenity.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: Policy 13: General Sustainable Development Principles and Policy 14: Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: W171/030- Site Survey 11/10/2010 W171/040- Site Location Plan 11/10/2010 W171/041-Demolition Plan 11/10/2010 W171/039/C - Building Sections 22/11/2010 W171/031/C - Site Plan - As Proposed 29/11/2010 W171/032/D - Lower Ground Floor Plan 29/11/2010 W171/033/D - Ground Floor Plan 29/11/2010 W171/034/D - First Floor Plan 29/11/2010 W171/035/D - Second Floor Plan 29/11/2010 W171/036/C - Elevations 1 of 3 29/11/2010 W171/037/C - Elevations 2 of 3 29/11/2010 W171/038/C - Elevations 3 of 3 29/11/2010 W171/042/B - Roof Plan 29/11/2010 W171/048 - North & South Elevations 29/11/2010 3. The applicant is advised to contact the appropriate officer at the local authority to discuss the arrangements for refuse collection. 4. The Police would like to make the applicant aware of the following: * Gap between the rear of the building and the refuse store should be gated to stop intruders having access to this area. * Once inside said boundary authorised/unauthorised personnel can freely walk the site, there maybe access control but I have no details. * Communal entrances would benefit from having a secure door entry system that incorporates audio/visual system, so that occupants can vet guests - 32 -

from the safety of their apartment and prevent un-wanted visitors having access to communal areas such as stairwells and courtyard. * Emergency exit doors should be linked into an alarm system or should set of an alarm if used. * Front office should be located so that staff can view the entrance doors and clearly see who is leaving and visiting the premises. * All external Entry/Exit doors should meet Pas 24:2007 or equivalent security rating. This includes any rear/front patio doors and access in to the buggy store. * Windows - All windows should conform to a minimum performance of BS7950, windows at ground floor should be fitted with 6.4mm laminated safety glass and have window restrictors. * Windows (ground floor) - In addition to the above, windows at ground floor should be fitted with 6.4mm laminated and toughened safety glass. * How the drugs will be stored and protected (what standards will the storage be e.g.BS288) * The development should be built to attain the Secured by Design (SBD) accreditation, which if implemented will reduce the likelihood of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour occurring. Just for information: High value property (computers, projectors and technical equipment) should clearly and permanently be marked with etching solution with the Buildings name and postcode. Details of marking products can be found on www.securedbydesign.com . This makes the property difficult to sell and a less desirable target by thieves.

- 33 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 14th December 2010 at 11.30 a.m.)

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0456/F

PROPOSAL: Refurbishment/re-cladding of 3 apartment blocks; internal alterations resulting in a reduction in residential units (from 63 to 51); associated external works and improvements relating to landscaping, access and car parking provision.

LOCATION: 34-96 Knights Court, Wellingborough. NN8 4DD

APPLICANT: Wellingborough Homes.

This application comes before the Planning Committee for determination and is requested for site viewing by Councillor Paul Bell.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site is located on the northern fringes of Wellingborough Town Centre with vehicular access from Gold Street with the addition of pedestrian access via the south from Alliance Terrace and Outlaw Lane. The existing site comprises 3 blocks of 3 storey buildings with a total of 63 residential 1 and 2 bed bedsits split between the blocks. The proposal is as above.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: No planning history to subject blocks. WP/2010/0453/FM Demolition of existing sheltered housing facility and replacement with a new 41 no. unit sheltered housing scheme plus associated car parking and landscaping- pending application to adjacent site in the same ownership as the applicant.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport (PPG13). East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlements WP/2010/0456/F

Legend WP/2010/0456/F - 34-96 Knights Court, Wellingborough Description ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead Applicants Property This map is accurate 1:1,250 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) Application Site - 34 -

Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 – Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit – Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Guidance.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. NCC (Highways) -

“Because of difficulties that could arise in connection with extinguishment and transfer of highway rights it is not appropriate for the footway to be relocated to the rear of the new parking spaces at blocks Band C. The footway must remain in its present position with the new parking spaces located in rear of the existing highway boundary.

Vehicular crossings into the parking spaces must be constructed, and all highway surfaces, where affected by the operations, made good in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable agreement.”

2. Police -

Informatives:

* Detailed lighting scheme with Lux levels should be supplied and approved by the LPA in consultation with the Police CPDA . * Communal entrances would benefit from having a secure door entry system so that occupants can vet guests from the safety of their apartment and prevent un-wanted visitors having access to communal areas such as stairwells. * External Letterboxes would mean no unauthorized access needs to be gained. * Internal stairwell doors should be fire doors. * All ground floor and vulnerable doors/windows should use minimum 6.8 laminated glazing and conform to BS7950. * All external Entry/Exit and individual dwelling entrance doors should meet Pas 24:2007 or equivalent security rating. This includes any rear patio doors.

Suggested condition:

security and quality life of future occupants of the development in accordance with policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy.

3. Conservation Officer -

“This is a good scheme which I support. It will complement 10/453 opposite. Can you attach a Condition to cover checking of samples of all new materials (including windows if appropriate)?”

4. Central Networks –

“In this instance we do not object to the proposal.”

ASSESSMENT: NOTE: The original submission was amended slightly following officer advice to include additional windows and fenestration in the side elevations and also to close off a pedestrian access towards the southern boundary of the site on to Outlaw Lane to enclose the space between blocks b and c to reduce the permeability of the site.

Principle of the Development The development involves a re-cladding of an existing block of residential units with an alteration to internal arrangements to reduce the number of total units and an improvement to the layout of the retained; therefore the principle of the proposal is accepted.

Amenity Impact The massing of the building remains unaltered and therefore would not go any closer to neighbouring dwellings than the existing building and therefore would have no loss of light or overbearing issues towards surrounding properties. The proposed windows in the side elevations would not face any residential neighbours and therefore does not have any overlooking implications any more than currently exists.

Design, Layout and Appearance Essentially the scale of the building in the area remains unaffected with a refreshing of the external appearance of the buildings. The proposal is seen as an improvement to the existing rather worn appearance of the blocks and is therefore felt to be a benefit to the area which is designed to relate to the proposed re-building of the adjacent sheltered housing accommodation; which is subject to a separate application.

Highways The current situation revolving around the turning head is unclear with no obvious demarcation of parking and turning space, this shared space seems to work well and whilst the highways authority may have reservations it is largely an existing situation - 36 -

and is not one that is exacerbated by the development and is therefore considered an acceptable arrangement.

Sustainability It is expected that the ability of the blocks to retain heat is greatly improved, whilst also offering more efficient methods of heating and offers the residents greater scope to adapt the units to suit.

Landscaping The proposed development involves a degree of environmental improvements to the outside spaces of the area; principally the area between blocks b and c to reduce the stepped nature of the space and also close off the southern access to make it more akin to an enclosed garden and therefore more useable and a safer space by reducing the permeability of the site.

Other Considerations The biodiversity is unaffected and the development does not result in an increased potential for crime, with the comments of the police attached as an informative and the principles of non-discrimination have been followed through-out.

Conclusion In light of the above the proposed development is seen as an improvement to the existing external appearance and make for a better internal layout and is therefore recommended for approval with the external materials to be agreed.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Details of all external facing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. 3. Vehicular crossings into the parking spaces must be constructed, and all highway surfaces, where affected by the operations, made good in accordance with the specifications of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable agreement.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. In the interests of the safety and convenience of the highway.

Policy 13: General Sustainable Development Principles and Policy 14: Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: W177/021/B, W177/014/B, W177/015/B, W177/016/B, W177/018/B, W177/019/B, W177/017/B 05 November 2010 3. The Police would like to make the applicant aware of the following: * Detailed lighting scheme with Lux levels should be supplied and approved by the LPA in consultation with the Police CPDA . * Communal entrances would benefit from having a secure door entry system so that occupants can vet guests from the safety of their apartment and prevent un-wanted visitors having access to communal areas such as stairwells. * External Letterboxes would mean no unauthorized access needs to be gained. * Internal stairwell doors should be fire doors. * All ground floor and vulnerable doors/windows should use minimum 6.8 laminated glazing and conform to BS7950. * All external Entry/Exit and individual dwelling entrance doors should meet Pas 24:2007 or equivalent security rating. This includes any rear patio doors.

- 38 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 14th December 2010 at 1.50 p.m.)

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0458/F

PROPOSAL: New Dwelling on land adjacent to 14 Oxford Street, Finedon (Resubmission).

LOCATION: Land adjacent 14 Oxford Street, Finedon, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr Jason Trotman.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination due to Finedon Parish Council requesting a visit from the Site Viewing Group.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described.

The application site is a flat, cleared garden area associated with no. 14 Oxford Street which has the benefit of an existing vehicular access onto Sibley Road. Nos. 14 - 20 (even) Oxford Street are joined at ground floor level by flat roofed projections. Other dwellings nearby are semi-detached houses and bungalows.

Many of the dwellings in this part of Oxford Street do not have off street parking but a large proportion of the properties close-by in Sibley Road do because of their hard paved front and side garden areas. There are no on-street parking restrictions.

Running under the rear garden of no. 14 Oxford Street is a 150mm surface water sewer pipe and a 150mm foul sewer pipe.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2009/0323/F Proposed construction of two new two bedroom affordable homes – withdrawn.

WP/2009/0405/F Construction of a new three bedroom dwelling adjacent to 14 Oxford Street, Finedon – conditionally approved. The application site was inspected by the Site Viewing Group on 8 December 2009 and was subsequently approved by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 9 December 2009.

WP/2010/0458/F

ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Legend Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead This map is accurate 1:1,250 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. when reproduced at A4 WP/2010/0458/F - Land adjacent 14 Oxford Street, Finedon ± Licence No 100018694. (2010) - 39 -

WP/2010/0322/F New dwelling on land adjacent to 14 Oxford Street, Finedon – withdrawn.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY, NATIONAL GUIDANCE AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: Regional Spatial Strategy 8 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy: 1 (Strengthening the network of Settlements) 13 (General sustainable development principles) and 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: G4 (Development within the limited development and restricted infill villages) Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3; Housing Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Statement 9; Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Planning Policy Statement 23; Planning and Pollution Control Supplementary Planning Documents: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Guidance: Parking and Planning Out Crime.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Finedon Parish Council – has requested a visit from the Site Viewing Group on the grounds of overdevelopment of the area.

2. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority – has returned the application with a pro forma sticker which refers the Council to its published highway standards. The Highway Authority has also supplied a covering letter which makes reference to certain aspects of the access specification, namely: The need for widening, hard surfacing, visibility spays and opinion that the dwelling should not be situated closer than 0.5m to the highway boundary.

3. Anglian Water Services Limited – no comment received.

4. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Protection Service – no comment received.

5. Wellingborough Homes – no comment received.

6. Eon Central Networks – does not object to the development. However, the company states that there is an electricity sub station in close proximity to the application site and the developer should adopt measures to ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained for future residents.

7. Neighbours – objections have been received from the occupier of 16 Oxford Street. The writer cites the following reasons for opposing the application:

• effect on garden area • out of charterer with original estate design • near to a very busy road - 40 -

• noise and dust • law states that the building must be 3m away from a main sewer • community does not want the development

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are:

• Compliance with policy • Highway safety, access and parking • Effect on visual amenity and character of the area • Effect on neighbours amenities • Amenity space • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity • Drainage

Compliance with policy Policy 1 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that in the rural areas development will take place on sites within village boundaries, subject to criteria to be set out in development plan documents.

With regards to the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, Finedon is defined as a limited development village by Policy G4 and it states that development will be granted planning permission if it is within the policy line and if it would not have an adverse effect on the size, form character and setting of the village and its environs.

The Coalition Government has revised Planning Policy Statement 3; Housing which changed the guidance that is pertinent to this type of application because domestic gardens have been removed from the definition of brownfield land. In principle, removing the brownfield status of gardens does not prevent them from being developed; however, the other policy issues still remain, for example: location within a settlement in a sustainable location, appropriate in design terms, matters of highway safety, effects on neighbours’ amenities etc. The changes do not, therefore, rule out development of a garden but the amendment enables a local planning authority to more easily protect a garden from what it considers to be inappropriate development by not having to apply any weighting in favour of the development that previously had to be accorded to such a scheme due to the brownfield status of the application site.

Notwithstanding the policy and guidance background set out above, the recent granting of planning persimmon WP/2009/0405/F has confirmed that the general principle of residential development taking place on the site is acceptable. However, other more specific aspects of policy in relation to the current application are examined below.

Highway safety, access and parking Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that new development should have a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards and Policy 13 (n) reinforces this intent by saying that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety. - 41 -

The Highway Authority has been consulted and it is seemingly unconcerned with the proposal because it has not commented other than making reference to its published standards.

The concerns of the neighbour regarding the busy road are appreciated, given that a number of the dwellings in Oxford Street do not have off-road parking. However, close by in Sibley Road where the existing access and off road car parking for the proposed and existing dwellings are located, many of the dwellings there do have off road parking provision as a result of their front and side gardens being hard surfaced.

The car parking standard stated in the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Parking’ is an average of one and a half spaces per dwelling over the whole development and it should be remembered that the standard is expressed as a maximum provision, not a minimum requirement. There are four off road car parking spaces shown in the proposed scheme; two each for the existing and proposed dwellings, which upon the face of it, is contrary to the content of the Parking SPG. However, given the village location of the proposed development the overprovision, in these circumstances, is considered to be acceptable.

The amount of car parking spaces that could be available on street in the vicinity is capable of being a material consideration. However, in the light of no substantiation of highway difficulties being produced by the Highway Authority and the more than adequate off road car parking provision for the development, there is no evidence to come to a conclusion that the additional traffic that could be generated by the proposed development would be a sound reason for refusal on the grounds of danger to highway safety.

Effect on residential amenity Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that new development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area by reason of loss of light or overlooking,

With regards to loss of light, it is considered that the positioning of the scheme in relation to the movement of the sun during the day and the surrounding dwellings, will still allow for an acceptable amount of light to be received by the nearby residents that this is commensurate with the otherwise built up nature of the area.

With regards to privacy the proposed dwelling would be approximately 15m from the rear elevation to the rear boundary, and the surrounding rear gardens are already overlooked by their neighbours’ first floor windows. It is considered, therefore, that occupation of the proposed dwelling would not bring about such a material decrease in the standard of privacy that is currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings to warrant recommending the application for refusal.

Amenity space Policy 13 (a) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that development should meet needs by including access to amenity space enabling them to be adapted to future needs and to take into account the needs of all users.

- 42 -

Due to the shape of the footprint of the proposed building, the length of the rear amenity space measures as 5.9m at its shortest point and 9.3m at its longest. The rear garden would, however, have a width of 9.7m at its widest point and it is considered that the scheme would provide an adequate amenity space for the potential occupiers of a three bedroomed family residence.

The street scene has been described above and it is considered that the proposed dwelling, which takes its design theme from the nearby dwellings along that side of Oxford Street, respects the appearance of the group of dwellings that is nos. 14 - 20 and will harmoniously blend with the character of the surrounding housing development.

With regards to the street scene when viewed from along Sibley Road it is accepted that the proposed building may be forward of the fronts of the dwellings in that road. It is suggested however, that the development relates more to the Oxford Street frontage and there is an adequate intervening gap made up of the back garden and the off road parking spaces between the application building and the nearest dwelling along that side of Sibley Road. In addition, the footprint has been set in from the side boundary of the site with Sibley Road by approximately 1.75m which will also reduce the possibility of the site taking on an overdeveloped appearance.

Crime and disorder Policy 13 (b) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy requires development to seek to design out antisocial behaviour, crime and reduce the fear of crime by applying the principles of the Secured by Design scheme. The above policy is predated by adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning Out Crime’ which gives detail to the intent of spatial strategy policy.

There are no pertinent crime and disorder issues to consider.

Biodiversity Policy 13 (o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, inter alia, states that development should conserve and enhance biodiversity.

Previous disturbance of wildlife at specific times could have been an offence under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but a Hedgerow Removal Notice is not required for a domestic property. No other material biodiversity issues have been identified within the scope of the application.

Drainage It is most unfortunate that Anglian Water Services Limited has not responded to its consultation. However, in response to planning consultations in the past relating to - 43 -

other applications with similar circumstances the company has stated that under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991, any residential developer has, at the present time, the right to communicate with the adopted public sewers. In addition, the agreement of the company would be required for any developer to build over, or within prescribed distances of its apparatus.

Conclusion The application site is located within the village policy line and the principle of residential development taking place on the site has previously been established. The proposed scheme is considered to be acceptable in all other respects.

The application is, therefore, recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Before development commences representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials. 3. The areas shown for off road parking on the approved plans shall be laid out and hard surfaced (not gravel) with a permeable material to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the dwelling is first occupied. The parking area shall be permanently set aside and reserved for the purpose of off road parking thereafter. 4. Before development commences a scheme for screen fencing/walling shall be submitted to the local planning authority and agreed in writing. The agreed scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the dwellinghouse is first occupied.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of visual amenity. 3. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway and sustainable drainage. 4. In the interests of visual amenity and privacy.

efficiency and sustainable construction) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: G4 (Development within the limited development and restricted infill villages). 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 10/046/03 20 October 2010 3. The Public Health Act 1875 and the Town Improvement Clauses Act 1847 at S.64. Prior to occupation of the newly created premises(s), the street numbering for this development must be agreed with the Street Naming and Numbering Officer. When issued, the number allocated must be clearly displayed on the outside of the property. Application forms for Street Naming and Numbering are available at www.wellingborough.gov.uk - 45 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 14th December 2010 at 1.30 p.m.)

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0478/F

PROPOSAL: Proposed reinstatement of a public house into two cottages involving external and internal alterations.

LOCATION: Prince of Wales, 25 Well Street, Finedon, Wellingborough. NN9 5JP

APPLICANT: Mr Paul Hourigan, Lisaleen Investments Limited.

This application is referred to Committee at the request of Finedon Parish Council, who have also asked for a site visit.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL: The application site lies on the northern side of Well Street in Finedon. It is occupied by a 2-storey building with various additions. The applicant claims that the building was originally constructed as 2 dwellinghouses, but was later converted to a public house. However, there is no record of this. There is a large open curtilage wrapping around the existing building to the side and rear. This provides parking spaces and outdoor drinking area for the public house.

Consent is sought to convert the building into 2 dwellings. The proposal also involves very minor alterations to the elevation consisting of a new doorway as the main entrance to one of the dwellings. The parking area and the open curtilage will be rationalised to provide 2 parking spaces for each house and the remaining area utilised to provide amenity space.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Consent for various extensions, alterations and signage dating back to 1979.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlements WP/2010/0478/F

ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Legend Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead This map is accurate 1:1,250 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. WP/2010/0478/F - Prince of Wales PH, 25 Well Street, Finedon ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) - 46 -

Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Development Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 – Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4 - Villages

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Finedon Parish Council - the Councillors of Finedon Parish Council would like to request a site viewing of the development as they are opposed to the loss of another amenity in the town.

2. Borough Planning Policy Manager - the site is an existing public house which serves the village of Finedon, one of the larger villages of Wellingborough. The public house is quite large and also has a function room which is utilised as a meeting place for the local community.

Loss of Public House. Pursuant to Policy EC13 of Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning for Economic Development, a change of use resulting in the loss of a public house needs to take into account the importance of the facility or service to the local community. The plans submitted with the application show that the public house has a meeting room on the first floor, which contributes as a community meeting place. Evidence from research on the internet shows that the meeting room has previously been used by amateur dramatic groups to hold rehearsals in the pub, at no cost.

Although evidence submitted with the application show that there are two other pubs located within walking distance, there are no comparisons made such as whether these two pubs also have function rooms which can be used as meeting places so that these pubs could take the displaced people who frequent this pub.

It would also be useful to understand how the community views the importance of this pub and whether there is a feeling that the loss would be detrimental to the local community.

3. The occupier of no. 15 Well Street – the loss of this facility would leave Finedon with effectively no pub. The facility should remain as a pub at the centre of the community.

ASSESSMENT: Principle The public house is vacant and has undergone active marketing for the last 6 months, seeking suitable re-occupation as a going concern. However, we are informed that this has attracted no interest. There is no specific policy objection to the loss of public houses in the development plan, but Policy 13 of the Core Spatial Strategy seeks to protect and improve accessible community facilities. It is not clear whether or not the public house, prior to its closure, provided any meaningful communal function. Generally, in rural areas, public houses provide valuable recreational resource, but the community impact argument will be weaker due to the proximity of and accessibility to other community facilities in the immediate area. In the vicinity of the site, there are 2 - 47 -

other operating public houses: The Bell Inn at Bell Hill and the Dolben Arms at Irthlingborough Road. The Finedon Conservative Club is also in close proximity at the junction of Well Street and High Street and it is believed that this has a function/meeting room.

The proposed development accords with the principles of sustainable development through the reuse of a brownfield land as contained in PPS1. In terms of Policy 1 of the Core Spatial Strategy, it directly accords with the objective of principally directing development towards the urban core as the site is located within the Village Policy Boundary. The Core Spatial Strategy anticipates the delivery of at least 30% of new housing on previously developed site. By definition, the application site is a previously developed site or brownfield land. The proposed development is appropriately sited – in a location offering a range of community facilities and with good access to key services and infrastructure. It is therefore consistent with the provisions in National guidance.

In view of the foregoing, the proposal is acceptable in principle and subject to satisfactory design and layout and non-detrimental impact on neighbouring amenities, ought to be given a favourable consideration.

Design and Layout The internal layout of the development and the disposition of the parking and amenity spaces are satisfactory. The proposed external alterations are also satisfactory.

Amenity Impact There are no extensions proposed to the existing building. Compared to the previous use as a drinking establishment, the proposed development is more environmentally compatible and would therefore enhance the amenity standards of the neighbouring occupiers.

Parking and Traffic There are 2 car parking spaces proposed for each of the residential unit. There is no change to the access arrangement and in the absence of any adverse comments from the highway authority, the proposal is acceptable in this regard.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the following condition:

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan - 48 -

policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 - Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 9 - Distribution and Location of Development Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4 - Villages. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: AB(66)_100 03/11/2010 - 49 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 14th December 2010 at 10.45 a.m.)

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0487/F

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing workshop and stables and erection of a dwelling house with detached double garage.

LOCATION: 96 Overstone Road, Sywell, Northampton. NN6 0AW

APPLICANT: Mr Carlo Lanza.

The proposal conflicts with the provisions in the prevailing development plan but nevertheless recommended for approval. In the circumstances, Committee consideration is required in accordance with the constitution.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL: The Application site comprises part of the extended garden of no. 96 Overstone Road and involves land to the rear of nos. 92 and 94 Overstone Road. The land is currently within the residential curtilage of no. 96 and used for a commercial operation for the repair and sale of motor vehicles. The proposed northern boundary of the application site is a continuation of the rear gardens of number 90 Overstone Road and 98 Overstone Road. No. 96 Overstone Road is a one and half storey property with substantial single storey rear extensions. The properties in the immediate vicinity of this site are also largely single storey or one and half storeys. The site falls outside the Sywell Village Policy Boundary.

It is proposed to demolish the existing car repair workshop and the stable and replace them with a chalet type bungalow with accommodation in the roof area and a detached double garage. Access to the proposed development would be from Overstone Road.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: The Committee considered and resolved to refuse planning permission in February 2007 for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 2 dwellings. The grounds of refusal are:

“The proposal represents an unacceptable development in the open countryside and in the absence of any very special circumstances, it would be contrary to Policies H3 and H5 of the County Structure Plan and Policies H3 and H4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.”

WP/2010/0487/F ")

") ") ")

") ")

") ") ")

") ") ") ")

") ") ") ") ")

") ") ")

") ")

") ") ")

") ") ") Legend

") WP/2010/0487/F - 96 Overstone Road, Sywell

Description ") ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the ") ") permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead Application Site ") This map is accurate 1:1,250 to prosecution or civil proceedings.") to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) Owners Property ± ") - 50 -

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1: Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 8: Delivering Economic Prosperity Policy 9: Distribution and Location of Development Policy 11: Distribution of Jobs Policy 13: General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14: Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G6: The Open Countryside

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. NCC Highways – no objection subject to the imposition of conditions.

2. Borough Environmental Protection Manager – imposition of condition requiring the submission of an Environmental Risk Assessment for approval prior to implementation.

3. Occupier, 94 Overstone Road, Sywell,

“Having viewed the application and the plans, I have no objection to the demolition of the existing workshop at 96, Overstone Road, Sywell, Wellingborough, and the construction of a residential dwelling. I believe that this will result in a dramatic reduction of vehicle movements in/out and within the premises, which will result in a general improvement to the general environment.”

4. Occupier, 82 Overstone Road, Sywell –

“I fully support the application and have no objections to it. I understand there will be a considerable reduction in vehicle movements resulting from the change of use.”

5. Letters of support from the occupiers of nos. 86, 95, 102, 104 and 108 Overstone Road and 1 Woodford Chase, Sywell.

ASSESSMENT: Principle There is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the open countryside in the prevailing development plans. This is reinforced by the national guidance in PPS 7, which refers to the need to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas through the promotion of sustainable growth and diversification that includes continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all. New development away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled.

- 51 -

The Government's overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty. However, PPS 7 and other national guidance support and give priority to the re-use of previously-developed ('brownfield') sites which are well located in rural areas. Although lying outside the Village boundary, there are mitigating circumstances which support a favourable consideration of this proposal.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 replaces section 54(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and states that if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination under the Planning Act, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The material considerations in this case are that: The application site is a brownfield land in the open countryside and is therefore suitable for redevelopment, which, given the past use and depending on the extent of the building, would not necessarily diminish the openness of the countryside.

CSS Policy 1 seeks to strengthen the network of settlements in North Northamptonshire, by concentrating development in the urban core. However in exceptional circumstances, development outside village boundaries is acceptable if it involves the re-use of buildings. Policy G6 of the Local Plan states that development in the open countryside will be resisted unless, amongst other matters, it involves a limited number of buildings and/or structures which are small scale, and it includes a landscape screening as appropriate and all buildings and structures are designed, sited in order to minimise adverse impact on the intrinsic character of the countryside. Unlike the previous application which proposed 2 bigger dwellings, the proposal under consideration is limited in scale and would have limited impact on the openness of the countryside.

Although greater in scale and appearance, the proposed development would have a similar footprint to the existing workshop and stable combined. However, unlike green belt situations/policies where there are restrictions in terms of extension of a dwelling house or comparison between existing and proposed in quantitative terms, such prescriptive guidance is lacking in relation to countryside policies. In order to prevent unfettered/incremental extension of the dwelling which would lead to a diminution of the open countryside, it is recommended that a condition be imposed to remove all permitted development rights for the approved dwellings.

Policy 11 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy seeks to safeguard employment sites in order to meet the needs of the increasing population partly as a result of the planned growth in housing. However, the policy concedes that the loss of employment sites is acceptable in exceptional circumstances, such as the need to resolve conflicts between land uses. The existing workshop is limited in scale and operated by its owner. Therefore its loss would not significantly affect the supply of employment land and jobs in the Borough. The proposed development conforms with the predominant land use in the surrounding area.

Design, Layout, Character and Appearance It should be noted that consent has been granted for similar backland developments in the area of recent. An example is the rear of nos. 76/80 Overstone Road where one dwelling was erected denoted to number 78 Overstone Road. Also attention would be - 52 - drawn to the to bungalows erected to the rear of the shops referred to as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Overstone Heights immediately to the north of the Sywell C of E Primary School.

The design concept is similar to that of the other houses in the area. It is considered that the proposed house would visually improve the appearance of the area, by replacing dilapidated structures and details of facing materials will be reserved by a condition.

On the south side of Overstone Road development is served off a series of short cul- de-sacs. The proposed development is therefore in keeping with the character and appearance of the area where the particular architectural form and character is of bungalows and properties that have been extended in the roof space to provide additional bedrooms. The proposed dwelling has therefore been designed to be of similar style and character being essentially a bungalow with dormer windows on the front elevation. There is landscape screening at the boundaries of the site as required by Policy G6 of the Local Plan.

Amenity Impact The proposed residential development would improve the amenity standards of the adjoining residents by replacing a non-conforming commercial use (with potential for nuisance) with residential. The applicant initially considered locating the proposed dwelling on the site of the existing workshop, but this was considered undesirable due to potential for overlooking and loss of privacy. The building is now located away from the common boundaries with the neighbouring properties, thereby minimising visual intrusion, overlooking, loss of privacy and light.

Parking Provision There is provision for a double garage and ample space for off-street parking within the development.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwelling is occupied or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), no alterations to or structures permissible under Classes A, B, C, D, E of the Order shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse hereby approved without the written - 53 -

consent of the local planning authority. 5. Before the development commences, an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) that to identify potential for contamination of the site shall be submitted to the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development. Should the ERA identify any contamination, it shall contain measures for its remediation that shall be approved in writing by the local planning authority. The site shall be remediated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the development. 6. As it is to serve 2 dwellings, the shared private drive of the vehicular access shall be widened to a minimum width of 4.5m over a length of 10m from the highway boundary. Vehicle to vehicle visibility of 2m x 43m and pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2m x 2m above a height of 0.6m shall be provided and maintained on both sides of the point of access. 7. The vehicular crossing shall be widened as necessary and all highway surfaces where disturbed by the proposals made good in accordance with the specification of the County Council and to an appropriate agreement. To prevent loose materials being carried onto the highway, at least the first 5m of the driveway from the highway boundary shall be hard-paved.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. In the interests of amenity. 4. To allow the local planning authority the opportunity to control future development of the site, having regard to the nature of the site and its location in the countryside, outside established settlements. 5. In the interest of health and safety of the occupiers of the development. 6. In the interest of highway safety. 7. In the interest of highway safety.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development has been considered in the light of the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1: Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 8: Delivering Economic Prosperity Policy 9: Distribution & Location of Development Policy 11: Distribution of Jobs Policy 13: General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14: Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G6: The Open Countryside. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: unnumbered drawing dated Oct 10 02/11/2010 - 54 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0431/F

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing offices/builders yard. Erection of 3 no. terraced properties - Amended plans and additional information.

LOCATION: Mineral Star Holdings, 30 Harrowick Lane, Earls Barton, Northampton. NN6 0HD

APPLICANT: Mineral Star Constructions Limited.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination due to the number of third party objections that have been received.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above.

The site is single storey commercial building that has a roof which comprises of flat elements and other sections that have a very low pitch. The highest part measures as 3.8m (not including the lighting lantern). To the front of the site is an area that is used for vehicle parking which is in close proximity to the windows of the dwellings that border that part of the site. The rest of the building is built up to the site boundaries beyond which are domestic garden areas. The access to the site is restricted and is shared with neighbouring residential properties.

At the junction of Harrowick Lane and West Street there is a road sign to indicate that the road is one way and a warning sign to indicate the presence of children. There are not however, any signs to indicate the restricted width of the road, suitability to accommodate heavy vehicles or lack of footpaths.

Amended plans and additional information were received on 9 November 2010.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WR/1958/0132 Builders store yard – approved. WR/1965/0087 Plant shed and petrol tank – approved. WR/1973/0190 Open ended plant or vehicle shed for builders plant - conditionally approved. WR/1973/0236 Open shed for vehicles, lorries and contractors plant – approved. WP/2010/0431/F

ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised Legend reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead This map is accurate 1:1,250 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. WP/2010/0431/F - Mineral Star Holdings, 30 Harrowick Lane, Earls Barton ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) - 55 -

BW/1975/0689 Proposed open storage shed – conditionally approved. BW/1977/0041 Single storey extension to existing workshop and offices to provide additional offices, mess room and storage facilities – conditionally approved. BW/1984/0992 Extension to reception area - conditionally approved. BW/1986/0419 Extension of 10m high communications aerial - conditionally approved. BW/1990/0888 Change of use to service and repair electronic controls and DC electric motors – withdrawn. WP/2008/0256 Remove front offices and re-roof removing part flat part pitched to all pitched – refused and appeal dismissed.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal for two reasons:

• loss of light for the occupiers residing at 26 and 27 Harrowick Lane, and • unsatisfactory means of access for the commercial use of the site.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: Regional Spatial Strategy 8 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy: 1 (Strengthening the network of Settlements) 13 (General sustainable development principles) and 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: G4 (Development within the limited development and restricted infill villages) Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3; Housing Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Statement 9; Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Planning Policy Statement 23; Planning and Pollution Control Supplementary Planning Documents: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime and Parking.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: Further information from the applicant is reproduced below.

“Further to your recent e-mails and letters, together with a copy of objection from the neighbour, we confirm the following:

The neighbour quite rightly noted that the original building line shown on our drawing no. 10/M194/10A was shown incorrectly.

We have now been back to site and checked this and attach a copy of our drawing no. 10/M194/10B amended accordingly. If anything this actually illustrates that the development is some distance away from these properties. Also attached is a copy of our drawing no. 10/M194/11A which shows the existing building to be removed dotted. I think you will agree that the outlook - 56 -

from the properties nos. 26 and 27 as well as natural light is vastly improved with the new development.

Whilst, of course, there is an amount of overlooking towards the properties based on the fact that the windows to nos. 26 and 27 are on the boundary line of our client's site, we do feel that the privacy of these properties will be greatly reduced with a residential development on the site rather than the current situation as a builders yard/offices. We could, of course, set the development back further on the site if you wish. However, we feel that, bearing in mind the distance separating the properties already, it would be best if the amenity area to the rear is maintained for the development.

With regard to traffic movement, bearing in mind the existing offices/builders yard is currently only 50% occupied due to the recent relocation of Mineral Star Roofing, the traffic to and from this site could in fact double and we suggest would be significantly more than the traffic movements to three new dwellings.

We have now included on our drawing an area for bins to be sited for collection.

Regarding the land shown as a turning area, we confirm that our client has 'possessionary title' over this area and has done since they occupied the premises in 2001.

We would like to remind the planning department and the objectors that this site does have an HGV licence which can be utilised at all hours of the day.

Obviously if the residential development is approved, then the traffic movements and nuisance would, in our opinion, be greatly reduced. Again we feel that this is appropriate in relation to the with the highway officers comments. The fact that there is a property beyond the development, we presume that the fire and rescue services can get to this property in the case of fire and we could suggest that the residential development would offer a far less fire risk than the current timber framed offices and builders yard.”

1. Earls Barton Parish Council – has no objection to the application.

2. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority (dated 25 October 2010) –

“5.1 The application will result in more than five dwellings being served from a private road and does not comply with previously published policy of the Highway Authority. However the Manual for Streets now provides new advice on the length of cul-de-sacs or the number of dwellings served and may provide grounds whereby the proposal can be reconsidered. 5.2 In paragraph 6.7.3, Manual for Streets gives advice that the criteria for the length of cul-de-sacs and the number of dwellings served has now been largely overtaken by the needs of the emergency services including the response times of the Fire and Rescue Service. In order to permit the application to be considered in line with this more recent advice it will be necessary for the applicant to obtain the views and agreement of all the emergency services. - 57 -

5.3 It is a requirement of Northamptonshire County Council that ways serving more than one dwelling must be laid out to a width of no less than 4.5m over the first 10m from the highway boundary. Unfortunately, whilst this is generally available, it appears that a constriction occurs immediately opposite the point of access into the proposed development where the width of the driveway is reduced to some 3.5m. It has previously been suggested that negotiations be entered into with the adjoining occupier in order to achieve an acceptable width and the views of the applicant on this suggestion are invited. 5.4 In view of the above matters there may be grounds whereby an objection may be raised to the application on highway grounds. However, it is accepted that the proposed development is likely to generate fewer numbers and classes of vehicle movements than the present business use but before giving a definite view on the application the response of the applicant to the above matters is awaited.”

3. Northamptonshire Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor and Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service – the Police have no formal objection to the proposed scheme but offer advice regarding security and advise that the development should be built to obtain the Secured by Design accreditation and also suggests crime prevention conditions. The Fire and Rescue Service advice is reproduced below.

“The minimum access route specifications for Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service are as follows.

- Road width: 3.7m - Gateways: 3.7m - Minimum height clearance: 4.0m - Carrying capacity: 14.0 Tonnes - Aerial Appliances: 25.0 Tonnes

It is considered road bases built to withstand 14 tonnes will suffice. However bridges should have 25 tonne capacity.

There should be access for Fire Service appliances to small buildings up to 2000m² with a top storey up to 11m above ground to either:

- 15% of the perimeter; or within 45m of every point on the projected plan area; - Within blocks of flats this should be within 45m of all points within the dwelling.

Turning facilities should be provided where any dead end access route is more than 20m long. This can be a hammerhead or turning circle.

Minimum turning circle between kerbs should be 16.8m for a pump or 26.0m for High Reach appliance.”

4. East Midlands Ambulance Service - no comment received. - 58 -

5. Northamptonshire County Council, Highway Authority (dated 17th November 2010) -

“The views of Northamptonshire Police which incorporate the requirements of Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service are noted and subject to compliance with the informatives/conditions received on 15 November 2010 satisfy paragraph 5.2 of my notification of 25 October 2010. The proposals represent an acceptable alternative use for this site in terms of traffic numbers and movements and no objection to the development is raised on highway grounds.”

6. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Protection Service – comments that this industrial site lies on the Northamptonshire sand strata which may contain elevated levels of naturally occurring arsenic. Recommends a phase 2 Environmental Risk Assessment be carried out or be included as a condition on any approval.

7. Borough Council of Wellingborough Housing Strategy – no comment received.

8. Northamptonshire County Council Assistant Archaeological Advisor – identifies that there is a possibility for archaeological remains to survive on the application site and recommends a condition be imposed for an archaeological programme of works to be undertaken.

9. Neighbours – objections and concerns have been received from the occupiers of the following properties: 26 and 27 Harrowick Lane; 15 West Way; 22, 24 and 26 White Way. The writers cite the following reasons for opposing/commenting on the application:

• support for the principle of residential re-development of the site, subject to concerns • loss of daylight • loss of privacy, construction of single storey bungalow type properties would be more welcome. Recommendation of brick wall of 2.25m high be built on the boundary with the White Way properties and a security gate be placed alongside the front of dwelling no. 3 • concern regarding existing and proposed boundary treatment • loss of security and a number of gardens have been entered into in the past by intruders • overdevelopment of the site with potential for six cars, plus visitors using the narrow lane and parking and manoeuvring area where there are exiting difficulties • bin collection issues • loss of light • clarification of land ownership issues required • resurfacing of the yard would raise the level of the land in relation to the adjacent properties • submitted plans are inaccurate - 59 -

• requirement for private access rights onto drive and parking area are maintained • parking area would bring vehicles very close to the northern wall of the adjacent dwelling • essential for reasonable access for maintenance be provided • definite objection to the properties going to social housing with the possible implication in terms of noise and nuisance.

Subsequent to forwarding the concerns of the neighbours to the applicant, amended plans were received and a second round of publicity was undertaken. The occupiers of 26 White Way lodged the following comments:

• the amended plans indicate no changes to the design or layout other then being drawn accurately and to scale • objection to the proposed development still stand and would favour acceptably designed single storey dwellings • trust that the original objections still stand and the second wave of paperwork is not seen as any attempt, deliberately or otherwise, to wear down opposition to the application • with reference to agent’s letter, recognition that the company is entitled to its own opinions, but statements have been made which apparently have no data or evidence to support them and they serve only to mislead.

The occupiers of 27 Harrowick Lane refer to their previous correspondence, and in addition, lodge the following additional concerns/comments:

• no provision for rainwater run-off from the turning area or identification of difference in ground levels with adjacent 300 year sold property which is already causing damp problems • light pollution caused by security lights car headlights in the parking/turning area • noise pollution from manoeuvring cars coming close to adjacent property and extra vehicles may use the parking area when the proposed dwellings have visitors • general noise from children who could live in the three family sized dwellings playing in the turning area • vibration from movement of cars close to adjacent property • consideration to be given to the possibility of an accident occurring due to a slip on a car pedal which could cause a vehicle to drive at speed into an adjacent property damaging not only the house structure, but potentially, the people inside. At present there are only three to four vehicles that drive in and out so the number of vehicles and the risk would not be the same. The existing vehicles stay there for the working day and are not there during the evening and at weekends. With family dwellings there will potentially be movement of vehicles all day and night, and every day and night. The quite village location will be transformed to a street in a town • visual pollution due to parked vehicles being visible from overlooking windows - 60 -

• air pollution from car fumes due to the movement of vehicles at any time of the day or night • consideration to be given to visitors to the proposed dwellings parking on Harrowick Lane which is already full of vehicles in the evenings and at weekends because many people living in West Street park there now. Existing manoeuvring difficulties turning from the top of Harrowick Lane into West Way as Harrowick Lane is a one-way lane • gradual change in the activities taking place on the application site over a period of time with vehicles now being parked outside of the adjacent property that has not been agreed with. Just because the activities happen now it does not mean that needs to be emulated or exaggerated • development of the site needs to be carefully considered for the sake of the community and the adjacent residents • suggestion of alternative development schemes involving detached or semi- detached bungalows • request for a visit from the Site Viewing Group.

The occupiers of 26 Harrowick Lane have expressed a desire for their concerns to be recorded regarding their existing rights to access their dwelling from the application site for property maintenance purposes. The applicant and future residents should be informed or made aware of the land access issues involved. The turning circle on the revised plans appears to show sufficient space for maintenance access purposes. Parked cars belonging to residents and visitors, if parked too close to the adjacent property, could restrict reasonable access for maintenance.

The applicant on 17 November 2010 expressed a view that they have interpreted the comments of the fire brigade correctly and the access is compliant. Happy for suggested conditions be attached to the application if it is minded for approval.

ASSESSMENT Material planning considerations:

• Compliance with policy • Effect on the visual amenity and character of the area • Effect on neighbours’ amenities • Highways and traffic • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity

With regards to the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, Earls Barton is defined as a limited development village by Policy G4 and it states that development will be granted planning permission if it is within the policy line and if the development would not have - 61 -

an adverse effect on the size, form character and setting of the village and its environs. Upon the face of it, the general principle of residential development on brownfield land could be acceptable; however, other more specific aspects of policy are examined below.

Effect on visual amenity and character of the area The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (h) says that new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings. Meanwhile, Policy 15 (f) states that in order to deliver sustainable residential communities higher densities will be sought particularly in the locations most accessible on foot, cycle and public transport, although increases in density should not detract from the traditional streetscape and built form where this is worthy of safeguarding. With regards to Policy G4 of the local plan it states that development will be granted planning permission if it will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the size, form, character or setting of the village.

The requirement for designs that contribute positively to their surroundings and which are also appropriate to their context is mentioned in paragraph 34 of PPS 1 and this concept is also reflected in the guidance contained in PPS 3.

It is possible that the redevelopment of the site which is currently almost entirely covered with a commercial building to a terrace of dwellings could improve the visual quality of the area.

It accepted that the scheme indicates that the proposed building would result in a greater separation distance between the existing dwellings and the building intended for demolition. The proposed terrace is orientated so that its front elevation would face almost directly towards the rear elevation of nos. 26 and 27 Harrowick Lane and the intended separation distance between the existing and proposed dwellings measures from the plan as 12m at its nearest point and 14m at its furthest.

It would be the case that the proposed building would have more of an effect on the visual amenity of the area than the existing buildings due to the mass of its two storey design and relatively steeply pitched roof structure. This bulk, when combined with the inadequate separation distance between the proposal and nos. 26 and 27 Harrowick Lane, would present a cramped arrangement to the street scene.

It is considered that the redevelopment, as proposed, would be harmful to the character of the area by introducing a building that would be too close to nos. 26 and 27 Harrowick Lane thereby presenting a cramped aspect to the street scene. The proposal is, therefore, considered to be contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

Effect on neighbours’ amenities Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that new development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area by reason of loss of light or overlooking.

- 62 -

The Inspector in his decision letter identified that the intended roof structure of the previous scheme was redolent of an industrial building, but did not cite possible deleterious effects on the amenities of the White Way residents as a reason for dismissing the appeal. The occupiers of the dwellings in White Way have the benefit of rear gardens that have average length of approximately 16m and many of these garden areas have a variety of boundary treatments and landscaping growing in them which would go some way to breaking up the profile of the flank elevation of the proposed terrace. It is considered that the length of the rear gardens of the neigbouring dwellings in White Way result in an adequate separation distance from the proposed development which would allow for an acceptable level of light reception for the occupiers, despite the additional height of the building that will be created over and above the height of the existing building.

The Appeal Inspector opined that the dismissed scheme would unacceptably reduce the amount of light entering the rear windows of nos. 26 and 27 Harrowick Lane that face the application site, even though he concluded that these windows are north facing. Clearly, any shadow that is cast over the application site is generated by the building mass of nos. 26 and 27.

The concern of the neighbouring occupiers regarding the boundary treatment with respect to loss of privacy is acknowledged, but it is considered that this aspect of the proposed development could be adequately regulated by the imposition of an appropriately worded condition.

The comments regarding possible damage to adjacent vehicles from manoeuvring cars and vibrations are acknowledged and understood, as are the remarks that have been made relating to: light pollution, noise and activity from vehicles and children. It is considered, however, that insufficient weight should be accorded to these anxieties to warrant recommending the application for refusal on these grounds because it is suggested that normal domestic occupation of the three proposed dwellings will not result in intolerable levels of light pollution and noise that would cause an unendurable nuisance to the adjacent residential occupiers.

Notwithstanding the forgoing, and as identified above, the proposed terrace would sit at a distance of between 12m and 14m from the rear wall of nos. 26 and 27 Harrowick Lane. It is accepted that the residents of these two dwellings have no right to a view over the application site; however, the outlook from their rear windows would be severely affected, over and above how it is already influenced by the current building by the mass of the terraced block due to the inadequate separation distance. It is considered, therefore, that the height and mass of the proposed development would result in consigning the residents of no. 26 and 27 Harrowick Lane to an overly oppressive outlook.

With regards to the occupiers of no. 29 Harrowick Lane, there would be an intervening distance of approximately 14m at its nearest point between this dwelling and the proposed terraced block. It acknowledged that the backs of the proposed block and no. 29 do not directly face each other. However, it is considered that the illustrated separation distance would result in an unacceptable decrease in the standard of privacy that the existing occupiers at no. 29 currently enjoy which would be brought about by intended rearward facing first floor windows of the proposed scheme. - 63 -

The proposed development is, therefore, considered to be contrary to Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Highways and traffic Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that new development should provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards. Policy 13 (n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

With regards the previous appeal scheme, the Inspector conceded there was no evidence that the dismissed proposal would result in a noticeable change in traffic generated by the site. However, he concluded that the appeal should not succeed because the existing means of access was unsatisfactory for the commercial use of the site and the proposal was, therefore, contrary to policy. Clearly, in relation to highway safety the issues that have to be considered in relation to this application are the merits of a housing re-development scheme, but upon the face of it, a housing scheme would also be unlikely to ever meet modern-day highway lay-out standards as well. Unless, other land in the area that are in different ownerships are included in a scheme to improve the existing sub-standard public highway and private access arrangements.

The applicant has offered an opinion that the site could generate additional traffic movements because the building is only 50% occupied at the present time and the applicant also advises that a licence for HGV’s to use the site is extant. The applicant, although invited to do so, has not provided any material evidence of: the number of vehicular movements resulting from the current commercial activities on the site, number of vehicular movements that could be expected from three dwellings or details of an Operators Licence that would enable the site to be used as an operating base for Large Goods Vehicles. Because of the lack of detail discussed above the existing and proposed number of traffic movements cannot be accurately assessed, but it is clear that deletion of the commercials use would undoubtedly change the nature of the traffic to mainly cars as opposed to some use by goods vehicles and delivery vans.

With regards the pinch-point mentioned by the County Council in its letter dated 25 October; it would be adjacent to the proposed entrance to the newly enlarged parking and manoeuvring area. This entrance is a short distance from the junction of the private drive onto Harrowick Lane and it would give the opportunity for drivers of vehicles emerging from the parking and manoeuvring area to wait for a short length of time until any vehicles travelling further up the private drive or entering into the parking area associated with the proposed development to comfortably pass before leaving the site.

The Highway Authority, in response to the consultation comments received from the Fire and Rescue Service has raised no objection to the application on highway safety grounds.

It is accepted that the layout of the pubic highway and the private drive access to the site do not meet modern day standards and the proposed development could be considered as contrary to adopted development plan policies. However, it is - 64 -

considered that the influence that should be attached to this detracting factor is not sufficient to warrant recommending the application for refusal on highway safety grounds due to the other material beneficial factors associated with re-developing the site which could be accorded more weight. In the light of no objection being received from the Highway Authority it is considered that there are no substantive grounds to warrant recommending the application for refusal on the grounds of danger to highway safety.

Crime and disorder Policy 13 (b) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that development should seek to design out antisocial behaviour, crime and reduce the fear of crime by applying the principles of the Secured by Design scheme. The above policy is predated by adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning Out Crime’ which gives detail to the intent of spatial strategy policy.

The comments of the Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor and the concerns of the adjoining neighbours regarding security are noted. It is considered that the security and crime prevention issues could be dealt with by way of appropriately worded conditions.

Biodiversity Policy 13 (o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, inter alia, states that development should conserve and enhance biodiversity.

No biodiversity issues have been identified within the scope of this application.

None material considerations • private rights of way issues • private rights of access to adjoining land to enable property maintenance are governed by the provisions of The Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992.

Conclusion It is considered the principle of re-developing the site for residential use may be acceptable in general terms and there is demonstrable evidence of a groundswell of local opinion that single storey dwellings could be acceptable. However, it is recommended that this application is refused due to the overly detriment effect the proposed development would have on the street scene and harmful effect on the standard of amenities currently enjoyed by some of the neigbouring residential occupiers.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would be harmful to the character of the area by introducing a building that would be too close to nos. 26 and 27 Harrowick Lane thereby presenting a cramped aspect to the street scene contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The proposal by way of its proximity to no. 29 Harrowick Lane would result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the standard of privacy currently enjoyed by - 65 -

the occupiers of no. 29 Harrowick Lane and is contrary to Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. 3. The mass of the proposal by way of its height and close proximity to nos. 26 and 27 Harrowick Lane would detrimentally affect the outlook of the occupiers from their rear windows and would be contrary to Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

POLICY G4

IN THE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AND RESTRICTED INFILL VILLAGES DEVELOPMENT WILL BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION, SUBJECT TO MORE SPECIFIC POLICIES REGARDING INDIVIDUAL SITES AREAS OR USES, IF IT:

1. IS WITHIN THE VILLAGE POLICY LINES, AS DEFINED ON THE PROPOSALS MAP;

2. WILL NOT, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR CUMULATIVELY WITH OTHER PROPOSALS, HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SIZE, FORM, CHARACTER AND SETTING OF THE VILLAGE AND ITS ENVIRONS.

LIMITED DEVELOPMENT VILLAGES ARE: EARLS BARTON; FINEDON AND WOLLASTON

RESTRICTED INFILL VILLAGES ARE: BOZEAT; ECTON; GREAT DODDINGTON; GREAT HARROWDEN; GRENDON; HARDWICK; IRCHESTER; ISHAM; LITTLE HARROWDEN; LITTLE IRCHESTER; MEARS ASHBY; ORLINGBURY; SYWELL EXCLUDING THE OLD VILLAGE; AND WILBY

Limited development and restricted infill villages are mutually distinguished in other policies below, notably H2 and H3 (housing)

Policy 13

Development should meet the needs of residents and businesses without compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the same quality of life that the present generation aspires to. Development should:

Protect assets l) Not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking.

- 66 -

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 10/M194/9 30 September 2010 10/M194/10B and 10/M194/11A 9 November 2010

- 67 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0438/TX

PROPOSAL: Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation for WP/2007/0122/OM - Class A1/A3 retail and restaurant/fast food development, with customer parking and ancillary servicing facilities.

LOCATION: 2-10 Denington Road, Wellingborough. NN8 2QH

APPLICANT: Morbaine Limited.

Councillor Griffiths has referred this application to Committee. This is also a major development involving a Unilateral Planning Obligation covering the following heads of terms.

1. Financial contribution towards sustainable transport improvements; and

2. Financial contribution towards the provision/enhancement of art in the Borough.

BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSAL: In December 2007, the Committee considered and granted outline consent for this development subject to conditions. The consent remains unimplemented and is due to expire this month. This application seeks to renew the consent. Members should note that this is the same site that received their approval in September this year for a Class A1 foodstore with associated parking and servicing facilities (WP/2010/0237/OM). The applicants have been marketing the site with the benefit of the consent granted in December 2007. Marketing has so far been unsuccessful, to a large extent, due to the economic downturn which has seen the bottom fall out of this sector of the retail market in terms of new developments. The applicants claim that the only interest that has come forward during this period has been from foodstore operators, who have continued with their development programmes during this recession period. However there is interest from Lidl, they state that nothing is signed as yet and nothing can be assumed until a contract is in place. It is necessary, therefore, for us to continue with our marketing of the site for the non-food/restaurant uses permitted, alongside continued negotiations with Lidl for a foodstore.

WP/2010/0438/TX

ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Legend Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead This map is accurate 1:1,250 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) WP/2009/0438/TX - 2-10 Denington Road, Wellingborough - 68 -

The current proposal is also in outline, with all matters reserved for future consideration. Nevertheless, there are indicative plans that show a building comprising 3 retail units with a combined floor space of 1393 square metres, together with a fast food restaurant unit of 232 square metres. The retail units would be limited to the sale of comparison goods only and would be sited at the western end of the site. The restaurant unit occupies the north-eastern corner of the site, adjacent to London Road. There is provision for 63 car parking spaces accessible via Denington Road. Service access is also off Denington Road, leading to servicing bays at the rear and side of the retail building.

The application site (measuring 0.42 hectare) lies on the western side of London Road, at the intersection of Denington Road, some 800 metres south of the Wellingborough Town Centre boundary. It is the former Gloverall site, which is now cleared and all buildings demolished. The site is close to the Castlefields Retail Park and diagonally opposite the Knapp Tools site, which received consent from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for a non-food DIY retail development in 2007. The application site abuts the Wrenn School playing fields to the north. It has no specific designation in the Local Plan, but is within the defined boundaries of Denington Industrial Estate.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY. WP/2007/0122/OM Outline consent granted by the Committee in December 2007 for Class A1/A3 retail and restaurant fast food development with associated parking and servicing facilities.

WP/2010/0237/OM Outline consent granted by the Committee in September this year for Class A1 foodstore with associated parking and servicing facilities.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 11: Distribution of Jobs Policy 12: Distribution of Retail Development Policy 13: General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14: Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Wellingborough Local Plan Policies S1 and S2: Impact upon Town Centre

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS: 1. NCC Highways – subject to the conditions applied to the planning permission WP/2007/0122 and the applicant entering into an agreement including a contribution of £49000 in mitigation of the effect of the proposals on the highway network and the Town Centre, it is not intended to raise any objection to the proposal. It must be pointed out that it has been identified that highway rights extend over part of the application site and it will be necessary for this to be resolved prior to implementation.

- 69 -

2. NCC Archaeology – site is not in an archaeologically sensitive area, hence no objections.

3. Northamptonshire Police – Northamptonshire Police is unable to provide specific comment to the proposed application due to a lack of information regarding crime prevention at this time. In the interest of the security and quality life of future occupants of the development I would strongly suggest that the following informatives/conditions are included, which if implemented will reduce the likelihood of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour occurring. This is in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy.

The Design and Access Statement (DAS) submitted with this application does not demonstrate crime prevention/security measures and as such I am not in a position to make informed comment on this application. I do however have some general comments with reference to crime prevention and security.

Please can you approach the applicant for further information regarding crime prevention matters.

In addition to my previous comments reference to WP/2010/0237.

I have concerns regarding the rear 'service lay-by'. Is this area going to be secured over night or will this area be used as an 'overnight lorry stop'? If this area is left insecure it could also lead to issues of anti-social behaviour and crime as there is no surveillance on to this area.

Informatives:

'Secured By Design' (SBD) aims to introduce design features that facilitate natural surveillance, improve the physical security of the building, and create a sense of ownership and responsibility for every part of the development. Incorporating security measures during the design and build of a new development, combined with good management practices, is known to reduce levels of crime and disorder. The aim of the police service is to assist in the design process to achieve a safe and secure environment for students and staff, without creating a 'fortress'.

* The car park should be gated or have removable bollards to prevent unauthorized access out of hours. The gate will need to be sited in accordance with highways guidance. The gate should comply with LPS 1175. * Bollards should be installed to PAS 68/69. * As the car park will not have a fence I would recommend thick defensive planting 1m in height to prevent easy access for offenders to cars. It is preferable that this is planted and given time to mature to prevent desire- lines in to the car parking area. * Lighting should be installed that is compliant with BS5489 Part 1: 2003 for all external public areas including the car park and building shell. A careful decision has to be taken when considering whether to light an area that is not overlooked. Also, if CCTV is to be present, then lighting should - 70 -

be compatible with, and facilitate, the system. Lighting should be Low energy and where possible be operated as 'Dusk till dawn' operation by way of photosensitive cells. * External doors should comply with the Loss Prevention Certification Board (LPCB) security standard LPS1175 SR 2 or 3 and doors manufactured in accordance with the standard must be installed. * A warning facility or alarm for external doors should be fitted so that a signal on opening can be transmitted to a security or general office. These doors should also be signed to warn visitors of the alarm alert. Laminated glazing in doors is required to a minimum thickness of 6.4mm. * Emergency escape doors and frames should be manufactured from steel and designed without visible external ironmongery. Fire doors should be fitted with door contacts linked to a 24-hour audible alarm activated on opening and/or relayed to security and signed to prevent inadvertent or false signals. * Letterboxes should be installed 'through the wall' to discharge into a secure and fireproof chamber. Installation must comply with Post Office commendations. * Roller shutters must be certificated to LPS1175 SR 2 or 3 and have contacts fitted linking them to the burglar alarm system. * All ground floor and other accessible or vulnerable windows must be independently certificated to BS7950 (Windows of Enhanced Security), or the LPCB security standard LPS1175 SR 2 or 3. These same windows must also use laminated glazing of at least 6.4mm in thickness. In addition, the style and design of any opening window needs careful consideration. Higher risk locations will require greater protection commensurate with risk. Sills should be shallow and steeply angled to prevent them being used as climbing aids, seats, or litter points. * Low level glazing is particularly vulnerable to attack and is most commonly broken by kicking. For this reason, the use of extensive low level glazing must not be part of the design. * The building must have an intruder alarm system installed in compliance with Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Security Alarm Policy. This ensures that the technical aspects of the alarm specification will result in a police response to a confirmed activation on site. I would also suggest an internal alarm that can be zoned. This will allow areas that are not being used to be shut down and protected. While allowing other areas to be used. * Access should be restricted to the side and rear of the building. * Bin and Cycle storage should be secure.

Conditions:

I would like the some conditions added to the application should it be approved similar to the following:

line with the recommendations of Secured By Design. Reason: This is in the interest of the security and quality life of future occupants of the development in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy. * Full boundary treatment/landscape detailed drawings are supplied and approved by the LPA in consultation with the Police CPDA and inline with the recommendations of the SPG 'Planning out Crime in Northamptonshire'. The plan should include plant species/ growth height for landscape plan. Height and material details for boundary treatments. This is in the interest of the security of future occupants of the development in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy. * Full Lux plan should be supplied and approved by the LPA in consultation with the Police CPDA. This is in the interest of the security of future occupants of the development in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy. * The car park should be built to achieve the ACPO Safer Parking Award. Reason: This is in the interest of the security and quality life of future occupants of the development in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy. * Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme detailing security arrangements during the building works should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Police CPDA. Reason: Building materials and debris could be used as weapons or for the use in criminal damage to the adjacent buildings. Tools left on site could also be used to break in to the neighbouring properties. This is in the interest of the security and quality life of future and existing occupants of the development in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy.

All the points raised do comply with the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy in accordance with Policy 13 and I consider are commensurate with the risk. If you or the developer would like to discuss these points raised please do not hesitate to contact me. The future success and sustainability of this development can be critically influenced by crime, and Northamptonshire Police need to have a major impact on design issues.

4. The Ramblers Association - Public Footpath UL1 runs along the west boundary of the site. The footpath should be kept open during and after construction. It should not be obstructed by builder’s materials or vehicles.

We note that at the east boundary of the site the applicant proposes to remove the existing boundary wall and extend the site onto highway land. We consider that the existing boundary should be retained. The grass verge is at present useful to pedestrians. In addition, it may be required for future widening of the footway, or for provision of a pedestrian-cycleway. Further, relocation of the boundary would impair the pleasing sweep of the present highway boundary, and would impart a narrow confining aspect to the highway.

- 72 -

We object to this application on account of the proposed relocation of the eastern boundary.

5. The Headteacher of Wrenn School – I am writing on behalf of Wrenn School to object to the above planning application, details of which were contained in a letter from you dated 8th October 2010. We were extremely disappointed that our objection to another recent planning application on the same site (WP/2010/0237/OM, June 2010) was overruled by the Borough Council. *This letter makes some of the same points we made on that occasion. *I have been informed that, on that occasion, although Councillors were informed of the nature of our objections, my letter was not circulated to them. I therefore intend to write to all Borough Councillors this time, so that they are aware of the reasons for our objection.

1) Inappropriate to site a fast food outlet next door to a school - the previous government was, rightly, considering legislation banning fast food outlets near schools, on the grounds that they might persuade pupils to shun the healthy lunches provided by schools. As with all schools, our canteen has gone to great lengths to conform to the new nutritional requirements for school meals. *Having a fast food outlet next door to the school will effectively undermine our efforts to encourage youngsters to eat sensibly and follow active and healthy lifestyles. *I also question whether another such outlet is compatible with Wellingborough Borough Council’s aspiration for a healthy community generally.

2) Environmental factors arising from a fast food restaurant being sited next door to the school. A fast food outlet directly next to the school site would be detrimental to our environment. *We are concerned at the potential for unpleasant odours and other pollution emitting from the establishment. *In addition, the storage and disposal of foodstuffs give rise to health and hygiene issues: *Fast food outlets have a reputation for attracting vermin which, given the proximity to our playing field, gives me great cause for concern.

3) Supervision and safety of pupils. The proposed development would undoubtedly increase the traffic flow in the London Road and Broadway areas. *Our London Road site accommodates our youngest pupils (aged 11-13), and we have had concerns for some time over the traffic flow along these roads. *In particular, Broadway can become congested and dangerous at key times of the day. In addition, the school is anxious for its pupils to remain on site during lunch time. *The existence of such an obvious rival attraction next door will be an unwelcome magnet for us to contend with. *It will make supervision at lunchtimes more problematic.

4) Concern over the type of retail development involved. We are concerned that the nature of the retail development is not specified in the proposal. *There are clearly some types of shops which it would not be appropriate to position next door to a school.

5) Proposed Sports Centre Development. I would like to repeat the point made in my letter of 28th June 2010. *The Borough Council has indicated an interest in building a community Sports Centre at Wrenn School – see Evening - 73 -

Telegraph article of 19th April 2010. *The site in question would be a prime location for this. *It is right next to our Astro facility and is easily accessible to the public. *This option would, however, be removed if the proposed development were to go ahead.

The longer-term interests of the Borough would be far better served by purchasing the land from the developers. *We realise, of course, that money is tight at the moment, but if a Sports Centre is not affordable now, it will be in a few years’ time, and we would hate to think that the best option for its location had vanished.

6. Environmental Protection Officer - in respect of the above planning application my main concern is in regard to the lack of informative information included within the application. No specific premise plans are provided and no indication is made as to the description of the intended premise for the site. From an environmental health perspective the close proximity of the site to a local secondary school should be carefully considered in any decision making and if necessary approval should be subject of restrictive and specific opening times.

ASSESSMENT: Principle of development The merits of the proposed development have been established following the grant of outline consent in December 2007 and more recently by the Committee approval for Class A1 retail facility last September. These notwithstanding, there are material considerations which warrant the proposal being given a favourable consideration. The application site has been vacant for a lengthy period of time and active marketing has failed to secure suitable industrial re-occupation. In the circumstances, a proposal which would be bring the site into productive use provided it does not adversely impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre, ought to be given a favourable consideration. In any case, the employment figure and number of jobs that would be generated by the proposed uses, compare more favourably to industrial/factory use.

The proposal is in effect an extension of the time limit taken to implement the December 2007 consented scheme. Extension of time limit is now made possible by recent Government Guidance which states that ‘Except in cases where there is a need to comply with a statutory requirement in connection with the submission of the application, or relevant change of policy or material considerations which post-date the original application, it is not anticipated that any additional information is required for the purposes of determining the new application’.

There have been no significant material changes in circumstances since the scheme was approved in December 2007. The new policies in the Core Spatial Strategy have carried forward the objectives of the superseded policies in the Wellingborough Local Plan. In the circumstances, there are no reasons why consent should be withheld.

Impact on the vitality and viability of Wellingborough Town Centre The key issues for consideration are to determine whether or not an increase in retail provision in this out of centre location is acceptable in the light of the provisions in Government guidance, development plan policies and other material considerations, having regard to the impact on the Borough’s established town centres. - 74 -

As a matter of principle and in order to promote sustainable patterns of developments and movements, both the Government Guidance and the development plan oppose the creation of new retail floorspace/facility outside established town centres.

The applicants submitted a Retail Impact Study with the consented application. This was the subject of an independent verification by a retail consultant, who concluded that the study is robust and that the conclusions arising from the study are correctly made. The study contains population projections for the area as well as expenditure projection for comparison goods and concludes that the proposed development passes the test set out in national guidance PPS6. The conclusions are not contradicted by the Secretary of State’s decision in relation to the Knapp Tools site.

In assessing the impact of the proposed development, consideration should also be given to the North Northamptonshire Town Centres – Roles and Relationships Study (NNTCRRS), which is a key material consideration. The document was published in 2005 on behalf of the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, in order to establish the current roles of the principal centres in the North Northamptonshire Growth Area (NNGA) and to provide an assessment of the need for additional retail floorspace required across these centres to serve the anticipated growth in population (equating to an increase in excess of 50% up to 2031). The NNTCRRS, the RSS and the emerging LDF all recognise a scope for additional comparison floorspace in Wellingborough.

The proposal would help to plug the expenditure leakage for comparison goods from Wellingborough and given that there is spare capacity for additional comparison goods floorspace, due largely to the planned growth in housing and the consequent increase in expenditure, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely impact on the vitality and viability of the main Town Centre. Rather, it would complement the retail services already provided.

The applicants have agreed to the imposition of a condition that excludes the sale of food and those comparison goods which would compete with those readily available in the town centre. The permitted development rights of the restaurant, which would normally allow a change of use to retail without permission, has also been removed by condition.

Layout and design – Effect on the character and appearance of the area There is no doubt that the layout of the development could be improved by confining the car park to the rear of the site and bringing the buildings forward, towards London Road. However, for operational reasons and in the interest of achieving a satisfactory access arrangement, the proposed layout is acceptable.

The proposed development would sit in an industrial area with neither a coherent pattern of layout, nor a common theme in terms of architecture. The proposed retail building comprises composite metal cladding with red brick on the side and rear elevations, whilst there is a generous allocation of glazing on the front (London Road) elevation. This pattern is repeated for the restaurant building. It is considered that in design terms, the proposed buildings would be an improvement in aesthetic terms when compared to the existing building on the site. In the circumstances, the proposed development would enhance the appearance of the surrounding area. - 75 -

Parking and Highway Issues There are 63 car parking spaces provided within the development. Having regard to the adopted Parking SPG, a total of 71 spaces is required (55 for retail and 16 for the restaurant). Nevertheless, the provision is acceptable, given the location of the site within walking distance of the town centre and its accessibility to public transport.

The application is also accompanied by a transport assessment which demonstrates that the additional traffic could be absorbed by the surrounding road network. It should be borne in mind that the site has authorised industrial use and its redevelopment for retail and restaurant uses would not be expected to generate a significantly higher traffic volume than an industrial use at full capacity.

The Highway Authority have considered the proposed access arrangements to be satisfactory subject to the imposition of conditions dealing with other matters. The applicants have also agreed to pay the requisite amount towards improvements to the strategic road network.

Response to Representations The objection received from the Headteacher of Wrenn School is noted, but the grounds are similar to the matters put forward by the school on the previous application for this development. In respect of siting a fast food outlet next to a school, the Courts have decided that health can be treated as a material planning consideration. In the decision - R vs London Borough of Tower Hamlets (2010), the opponents of a hot food take-away very close to a school entrance had urged that the grant of permission would be wholly inconsistent with the school’s healthy eating policy. The Council as it turned out, refused to treat this objection as a material planning consideration, but the Court disagreed. Nevertheless, the issue of health as a material planning consideration is still one which many Local Authorities apply the ‘Precautionary Principle’. Whilst acknowledging that this is a material consideration, every case should be dealt with on its own merits and it should be borne in mind that this is a renewal of consent that was previously granted by the Committee. The proposed Sports Centre point is not a matter that should have any relevance to the determination of this planning application since there are no proposals to develop a sports centre on the application site.

The objection from the Rambles Association relates to extension of the development onto highway land. This was a matter raised on the other foodstore application, when the applicants indicated to the Committee’s satisfaction that no such encroachment will take place. Northamptonshire Police have raised several concerns and recommended conditions and informatives. It should be borne in mind however that this is an outline proposal with no reserve matter being determined at this stage.

Conclusion For reasons set out in the report as a whole above, the proposal is on balance, considered acceptable and recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant outline permission subject to the following conditions:

- 76 -

1. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates: (a) the expiration of three years from the date of this permission; or (b) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. 2. Before any development is commenced, detailed plans, drawings and particulars of the access design (including new/enhanced access and removal of existing/redundant access(s) to the site), layout, scale, external appearance, together with landscaping and screen walls/fences shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance therewith. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other Order revoking or re-enacting this Order), the Class A1 retail development hereby permitted shall not be used for the retail sale of any of the following goods within the retail units hereby approved: - Food; - Alcoholic drinks; - Tobacco; - Games and toys; - Fashion accessories including jewellery; - Watches; - Cosmetics; - Toiletries and pharmaceutical products (excluding dispensing chemists). 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other Order revoking or re-enacting this Order), the Class A3 restaurant building hereby approved shall not be used for retail purposes falling within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order without written consent of the local planning authority.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. To secure a satisfactorily planned development. 3. In the interest of the vitality and viability of the Wellingborough Town Centre. 4. In the interest of the vitality and viability of the Wellingborough Town Centre.

Policy 13: General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14: Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Wellingborough Local Plan Policies S1 and S2: Impact upon Town Centre. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawings received on the date shown. Drawing numbers: Receipt date: Site location plan, 100A, 101, 102 21 February 2007 3. The applicant/developer is advised that consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations would be required for any signage on the approved buildings.

- 78 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0448/FCOU

PROPOSAL: Removal of two raised planting beds to create 9 new parking spaces.

LOCATION: Land to side of 188 and rear of 191-193 Kilnway, Wellingborough. NN8 3TL

APPLICANT: Wellingborough Homes.

The application comes before the Planning Committee for determination as the site is owned by the Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site consists of 2 banks of raised planting beds full of various types of shrubs and are to be replaced with 9 (3 and 6) side by side parking areas. Also proposed are a number of metalled bollards to the rear of the parking areas and the replacement of a raised planting bed with ground level planting and additional planting including a tree to the corners at the access to the garage to the south. The development will also involve close board fencing to replace existing missed-board fencing to the rear of no. 192 Kilnway.

The site forms part of a housing estate designed on the Radburn principles.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Regional Spatial Strategy 8 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 9; Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport Supplementary Planning Documents: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime and Parking WP/2010/0448/FCOU

ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised Legend reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead This map is accurate 1:1,250 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. WP/2010/0448/FCOU - Land to side of 188 and rear of 191-193 Kilnway, Wellingborough ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) - 79 -

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: Highways Authority - Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority – advises that the applicant needs to enter into a suitable agreement with the County Council as Highway Authority because the proposed works are likely to interfere with the public highway.

ASSESSMENT: Effect on residential amenity It is considered that the proposed works will not significantly impact on the standard of amenity of nearby residential occupiers.

The raised planting beds that will be replaced by parking spaces are starting to show signs of degradation with the side retention slabs crumbling in places; this gives a scruffy appearance to the beds. Although it is undoubted the beds give colour and vibrancy to the area during the growing season the beds are to be replaced to a comparative level with planting to the areas that are currently hard-standing either side of the garage access, therefore in this instance given the state of repair of the existing and the replacements the loss of the raised beds is acceptable.

The type of materials to be used to pave the parking area however could be better in adding to the areas visual amenity therefore a condition to require further approval of surface materials is attached with a view to the proposed block-paving being replaced with grass-crete or similar. The details of the bollards proposed are also to be agreed. Therefore in view of the attached conditions and the proposed mitigating planting there is not considered to be any harm to the local environ.

Highways and parking Although 9 spaces are proposed, in reality as on-road parking will not be possible in front of the parking spaces this only results in the creation of 4 spaces in addition to the existing.

At the time of the Officers site inspection at 10.30 a.m. there were a number of cars parked haphazardly; including 2 that were parked illegally on the path at the access to the garages, although the area could not be considered congested with the use of on- street parking not representing harm to the convenience of the highway. It is acknowledged that at the time of the inspection the number of parked vehicles is likely to be lower than at other times with the residency of the garages unknown. Nevertheless in light of the ill-legal parking representing harm to the safety and convenience of the local road network and the parking being as a result of congestion later in the day the additional parking together with the deterrents proposed to corner parking the additional 4 spaces is justified in increasing the safety and convenience of the highway despite evidence not being forthcoming.

- 80 -

Crime and disorder The Radburn principles of design are considered to be flawed with one of the deficiencies being the permeability of the estates with a proliferation of rat-runs throughout. Therefore to take advantage of the environmental and situational alterations, despite not being included in the submitted plans a condition is attached to continue to the proposed planting to close off the path to the rear of 220 Kilnway. This would result in a reduction of exposed boundary as well as reduce the permeability and a potential hiding corner. In addition the use of block paving is not considered wise for municipal areas as they represent materials that could be used for hurling and an aid to breaking and entry the inclusion of the materials condition deals with this issue.

The proposed close-boarded fencing and bollards are seen as a crime and disorder benefit to the area, therefore the proposal together with attached conditions represents an improvement to the area in terms of crime and disorder.

Other Considerations The biodiversity is unaffected given the replacement planting and the principles of non- discrimination have been followed through-out.

Conclusion On balance, the development is considered to improve the existing situation in terms of crime and disorder, be neutral in terms of visual amenity and ease any parking problems; it is therefore recommended for approval with a number of attached conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The proposed operations involve works within and immediately adjacent to the public highway and, to control the way in which the works are undertaken, it is considered appropriate for the applicant to enter into a Section 278, Highways Act 1980 agreement with Northamptonshire County Council as Highway Authority. 3. The proposed car parking re-surfacing materials (concrete block paving) as included in drawing number 4637/32/01 are not hereby approved as part of the consent, details of the re-surfacing materials and the bollards are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development. 4. The proposed planting bed shall be extended to abut the rear fence of 220 Kilnway. 5. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by - 81 -

trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of the safety and convenience of the highway. 3. In the interests of visual amenity. 4. In the interest of visual amenity and crime prevention. 5. In the interests of visual amenity.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0449/FCOU

PROPOSAL: Removal of planting area to create 4 new parking spaces.

LOCATION: Land to side of 56 Kilnway, Wellingborough. NN8 3TH

APPLICANT: Wellingborough Homes.

The application comes before the Planning Committee for determination as the site is owned by the Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site consists of an area of planting comprising shrubs and also a mature and well established Sycamore; all of which are to be removed and replaced with concrete block paving to accommodate 4 parking spaces; 3 of which are side by side and the 4th at an angle. In addition the proposed development involves the insertion of a number of metalled bollards bounding a rear path and also the continuation of a wall with additional planting fronting Kilnway.

Fronting the site is a bank of 6 garages that are due to be repaired as part of the works. The site forms part of a housing estate designed on the Radburn principles.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None.

WP/2010/0449/FCOU

ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Legend Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead This map is accurate 1:1,250 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. when reproduced at A4 WP/2010/0449/FCOU - Land to side of 56 Kilnway, Wellingborough ± Licence No 100018694. (2010) - 83 -

ASSESSMENT: Effect on residential amenity It is considered that the proposed works will not significantly impact on the standard of amenity of nearby residential occupiers.

The proposal involves the loss of a mature sycamore tree. Although the tree is set slightly further back than most it forms an integral part of a row of trees that flank either side of the main Kilnway access road contributing to the avenue type appearance of the street especially when the trees are in leaf and is therefore considered to represent significant amenity value. Any erosion therefore of the row of trees is considered harmful to the existing street appearance in softening the built form of the development and creating a pleasant environment particularly upon entering the estate; any loss should therefore be resisted.

It is acknowledged that the trees do not enjoy special protection under a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) however as the trees fall under the ownership of the Borough Council of Wellingborough the general acceptance is that TPO’s will not be necessary as a responsible Council will not fell trees that are perceived to be of value. Whilst it is considered that the loss of the shrubs may be acceptable especially considering replacement screen planting to the highway boundary the loss of the tree to be replaced with hard-standing is not considered acceptable. As the scheme involves environmental alterations as well as car parking it is considered that more could be have done to introduce planting to soften the existing built form such as to the rear garage elevations.

It is considered that the loss of the tree which is intended to be replaced by a concrete block hard surfaced car parking area will not result in a high standard of landscaping or enhance the character of the surroundings. The application is therefore, considered to be contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Highways and parking At the time of the Officers site inspection at 10.30 a.m. there were a number of cars haphazardly but not illegally parked, although the area could not be considered congested with the use of on-street parking not representing harm to the convenience of the highway. It is acknowledged that at the time of the inspection the number of parked vehicles is likely to be lower than at other times. The spaces are a true creation of 4 spaces and may make a small contribution in easing local congestion; however the applicant has failed to demonstrate that parking is problem in the area.

- 84 -

Crime and disorder The Radburn principles of design are considered to be flawed with one of the deficiencies being the permeability of the estates with a proliferation of rat-runs throughout, whilst the proposal goes someway to reduce the permeability, it should be considered whether the path to the side of no. 56 Kilnway could be closed-off.

Other Considerations The biodiversity is unaffected, aside from the loss of the tree, and the principles of non- discrimination have been followed through-out.

Conclusion The development would result in the loss of a tree that singularly and as part of a row represents significant amenity value to the streets pleasing visual appearance and character. The creation of 4 vehicles spaces, whether needed or otherwise is not considered to justify the loss of the visual resource the tree brings to the area. The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The loss of the tree which has high visual amenity value in the street scene is contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Policy 13

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 4637/34/01, 4637/34/02 & SCH 34 26 October 2010

- 85 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0455/FCOU

PROPOSAL: Environmental improvements including the provision of 9 new parking spaces off Bell Street. Change of use of highway to enclosed communal garden area between 43 and 59 Bell Court - amended description.

LOCATION: Land between 37 and 59 Bell Court and land to rear of 43- 53 Bell Court, Wellingborough. NN8 4RH

APPLICANT: Wellingborough Homes.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination because the applicant is a partner organisation of the Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described.

The application falls into two distinct elements. The first part is the intended creation of a communal garden area between the two blocks by erecting walls/secure gates, stopping up the footpath and implementing a landscaping scheme. The second component involves the creation of nine car parking spaces on land that is currently a grassed area that runs up to the back edge of the footway. Growing in the grassed area are two trees which form an integral part of a longer line of trees that runs along that side of Bell Court.

The applicant has served a Notice No. 1 on Northamptonshire County Council as owner of the adopted highway.

The application form indicates that no pre-application advice has been sought from the Council.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY, NATIONAL GUIDANCE AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: Regional Spatial Strategy 8 WP/2010/0455/FCOU

WP/2010/0455/FCOU - Land between 37 & 59 Bell Court and land to rear of 43-53 Bell Court, Wellingborough - 86 -

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 9; Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport Supplementary Planning Documents: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime and Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority –

“I refer to your letter of 3 November 2010 and, because of the minor nature of the proposals, return the application with a sticker.

The proposed operations involve works immediately adjacent to and likely to interfere with the public highway including the creation of vehicular access. To control, the way in which the works are undertaken it is considered appropriate for the applicant to enter into a suitable agreement with Northamptonshire County Council as Highway Authority.

The existing footpath that passes through the area between block 37-42/54-59 and block 43-53 Bell Court comprises highway maintainable at the public expense. In order that the enclosure of the area can take place it will be necessary for highway rights over this way to be extinguished and the applicant must be advised to take appropriate steps to undertake the necessary procedures before the works take place.”

2. Northamptonshire County Council Public Rights of Way Officer – no comment received.

3. Borough Council of Wellingborough Landscape Officer –

“I do consider the tree reports for these WH applications to be a bit lacking. There should be some indication of retention value rather than a bald statement that the trees will have to be removed if development takes place.

The proposal to enclose the amenity area between the two blocks and give the area some sense of design and security is commendable. The tree which is scheduled to be removed is the most substantial specimen, a maple. As it is internal to the space it could not really be said to have high amenity value, but it is still a pity to remove it. The two trees nearest to it are yellow fruiting crab apple trees. I hope that the fruit dropping on the proposed paving will not become an issue.

The loss of two trees from the road is much more of a problem. The sense of this being a tree lined road will be eroded. If the proposal is accepted at the very least there should be a condition requiring good hedge planting between the parking spaces and the proposed close boarded fence. I noted when I visited - 87 -

the site that a large car was parked beneath the sycamore tree parallel with the road. As I have remarked to WH before it should be possible to retain trees with reinforced grass to allow car parking. This appears to be a case in point. The birch tree is a fine looking specimen, but I would be interested to know how it has been assessed by Steve Benamore because it is not a single stemmed specimen and there is reactive growth around a major fork. It really should have been assessed in the tree report accompanying the planning application.

I am concerned at the slow and steady reduction of the tree stock associated with WH’s new parking provision. If these three trees are to be removed I believe there should be some replacement planting. It would appear that there are manholes providing evidence of a service run parallel with the path off Bell Street. Which limits the opportunity to plant on the near side.”

4. Borough Council of Wellingborough Facilities and Property Services Manager - no comment received.

5. Northamptonshire Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor -

“Northamptonshire Police has no objection to the principle of the planning application, however I have some reservations regarding the boundary treatment plan.

I have not been consulted with reference to this application.

This area suffers with graffiti and incidence of crime and anti-social behaviour (I have photos taken yesterday if required) and adding solid boundaries will only exasperate the issues. It will also reduce surveillance on to the footpath and on to the car parking area.

It is my recommendation that a new boundary plan is submitted and recommend the following:

* Garden boundary wall; this should not be a solid construction and should allow surveillance on to the foot path. * Front fencing (abutting new car parking spaces); this should not be a solid construction and should allow surveillance on to the car parking area.

Additional information regarding the construction and locking mechanism of the 'secure gates' is needed before I can comment on this.

I hope that this will open the channels of communication between Northamptonshire Police and the applicants to help achieve a holistic approach to the development that will enhance the lives of the existing and future residents of the area. This approach is particularly important at this time of huge public sector change.

not hesitate to contact me. The future success and sustainability of this development can be critically influenced by crime, and Northamptonshire Police need to have a major impact on design issues.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on this application it goes a long way to show that community safety will be taken in to account and that the planning department recognise that anti-social behaviour and crime is not only a police issue but a partnership responsibility.

Please note that any future changes to the planning application should be advised to Northamptonshire Police for consideration and response as they arise.”

6. Neighbours – no comment received.

ASSESSMENT: Main Issues and Material Planning Considerations:

• effect on residential amenity • effect on visual amenity • highways and parking • crime and disorder • biodiversity

Effect on residential amenity It is considered that the proposed works cold improve the standard of amenity of the residents living in the blocks who would have access to the enclosed garden area.

With regards the part of the scheme that involves the creation of the communal garden, the plan illustrates one short section and three longer sections of brick wall indicated as being 2m high. It is considered that these expanses of blank, featureless new walls, even though they are illustrated as being curved, could have a negative effect on the visual amenity of the area. It could be recommended that to lessen the visual impact of the walling a condition might be applied to a consent which would require its materials and appearance be reserved for subsequent approval so that features such as railings could be inserted into the design.

The part of the development that proposes the creation of the off road car parking spaces involves the loss of two trees and the Council’s Landscape Officer has identified them as having visual amenity value as a component part of a longer line of trees. The Landscape Officer has, however, not taken the opportunity to make a Tree Preservation Order.

The comments of the Landscape Officer regarding alternative forms of development are noted, but they are not matters that form part of this planning application. - 89 -

It is considered that the loss of the grassed area and the trees, which are intended to be replaced by hard surfaced car parking areas, will not result in a high standard of landscaping or enhance the character of the surroundings. The application is therefore, contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Highways and parking It is accepted that the proposed development would provide additional off-road car parking spaces for the nearby residents.

It is considered that the stopping up of the highway will not result in overly increased journey times for pedestrians in the area because there are nearby alternative routes around the blocks which could offer comparable utility.

The comments and graffiti evidence base of the Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor are noted. It is perhaps unfortunate that the applicant has not sought any pre- application discussion with the Force which could have prevented the Police from having concerns with the proposed development thereby resulting in an acceptable submission at this stage.

One of the key principles of the Planning Out Crime SPG is that boundary treatment should allow transparency of enclosures to ensure views into and out of application sites and allow for surveillance of the street and public places.

The curved design of the walls, although perhaps beneficial in visual amenity terms, could be problematic in relation to crime and disorder matters as identified by the Police. The walls could offer semi secluded areas for potential nefarious activities to take place, and in addition, the proposed large bare areas seemingly could also act as a blank canvas for graffiti. Whilst it is accepted that residents when using of the communal garden area could reasonably expect some degree of privacy, it is clear that visibility is necessary both into and out of the site. It is considered, therefore, that the use of sections of railings, as suggested in the visual amenity section, would also suffice to assuage any crime and disorder concerns by allowing for a degree of natural surveillance and reducing the area of walling that could attract unwelcome attention from graffiti artists.

Biodiversity Policy 13 (o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, inter alia, states that development should conserve and enhance biodiversity.

A landscaping scheme that includes some indigenous species of plants could be of benefit to native fauna by providing food and habitat.

- 90 -

Conclusion It is clear that the communal garden part of the proposed development could be acceptable. However, the part of the application that relates to the off road car parking spaces is not satisfactory, and as a result of this detracting element, the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following reasons.

1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. This is because construction of the off road car parking areas would result in the loss of a pleasant grassed area and cause a visually disruptive break in the tree line along Bell Court that would detrimentally harm the visual amenity of the street scene.

Policy 13

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: SCH25, 4637/25/01 and 4637/25/02 26 October 2010

- 91 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0475/C

PROPOSAL: It is proposed to install a yurt village providing additional sleeping accommodation within the grounds at Grendon Hall. To provide adequate welfare facilities for the yurt village it is also proposed to; replace the existing modular WC block, convert a garage/store to a changing room/shower block, convert an existing shower block to also incorporate a changing area and convert an existing modular timber constructed outbuilding pavilion into a cooking/dining area.

LOCATION: Grendon Hall, 67 Main Road, Grendon, Northampton. NN7 1JW

APPLICANT: Mr Ralph Beresford, Northamptonshire County Council.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for comment because it is a County Council application.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: Grendon Hall is an outdoor education centre in a rural area of Northamptonshire. Grendon Hall offers both day and residential facilities to children and young people. Unfortunately, residential provision at Grendon Hall for children and young people with disabilities is woefully inadequate. As a result of this, current facilities allow for perhaps one or two children with a disability to attend with, (for example), a main stream school. However, residential use of the facility is completely unavailable to school groups that have more than two disabled children, to special school groups and to specialist groups of children and young people with disabilities. It will be clear that to continue to operate a facility which affords one level of opportunity and access to children and young people without disabilities and no such facility to those with disabilities is unfair, inequitable and completely contravenes the Duties of Northamptonshire County Council under the Equality Act 2010.

In addition to the above, the innovative decision of procuring Yurts was made as a result of two very critical considerations. As Grendon Hall is a listed building, the construction or adaptation of existing buildings would be likely to be beyond tolerance of both budget and time. This therefore led to consideration of alternatives. In this regard, WP/2010/0475/C

Legend WP/2010/0475/C - Grendon Hall, 67 Main Road, Grendon

ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Description permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead Application Site This map is accurate 1:2,500 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. when reproduced at A4 Owners Property ± Licence No 100018694. (2010) - 92 -

separate consultation with disabled children and young people with disabilities revealed that camping opportunities were not available and were widely missed. Camping is usually seen as an inexpensive break and highly suitable for families. It is also often seen as a healthy activity that generations of children and young people have enjoyed for the opportunity it allows to experience a different kind of overnight break. Regrettably, camping for many children and young people is not a possibility due to constrictions of tent space, limited adequate toilet facilities and the fact that other families may react negatively to behaviours which seem to them unusual but which may be part of a child or young person’s condition. Therefore, the siting of a ‘yurt camping village’ at Grendon Hall would represent the ideal opportunity to overcome disadvantage and discrimination whilst offering play, leisure and development opportunities to some of the most vulnerable children and young people in Northamptonshire.

The proposed yurt village will also meet the needs of Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy as it will enhance the usability for residents and businesses to allow future generations to enjoy the outdoor education centre. The location of the Yurt village will be not be visible from the main road which will reduce the likelihood of antisocial behaviour and crime.

Use The existing site accommodates Grendon Hall which is an outdoor education centre in a rural area of Northamptonshire. Grendon Hall is accessed off Main Road to a tarmaced carpark which has a total of 82 spaces, 9 of which are designated by staff as disabled spaces. The proposal is to construct a new yurt village and a WC block and refurbish existing welfare facilities and a timber pavilion in order to provide accessible sleeping accommodation to disabled users as part of the Equality Act 2010.

The proposed yurt village will be sited to the south west of the Grendon Hall Queen Anne House adjacent to the playing fields running along the south west side of the stone wall with the front of the yurts facing out to the playing fields. The existing shower block, pavilion and garage are to the west of the house. The proposed yurt village will provide sleeping accommodation allowing groups of disabled visitors and there carers to stay over night at the outdoor education centre.

The centre will provide accessible disabled friendly services that respond to the needs of the local community and all those using the facilities at Grendon Hall.

Amount The new yurt village development will have a total floor space of 124m². The associated yurt village welfare facilities consisting of a new modular WC building with 20 m² of floor space and the conversion of an existing garage, existing shower block and a timber pavilion into 2 no. shower blocks/changing rooms and a cooking/dining area which will have an approximate total floor space of 88m². Therefore there is a total of 144m² new floor space and 88m² of the existing floor space to be refurbished. There is an existing modular toilet block in poor condition to be removed from site which is 24m².

- 93 -

Layout The location of the new yurt village is fundamental in providing accessible sleeping accommodation for all able and non-able bodied users of Grendon Hall with associated welfare facilities in close proximity. The position of the yurt village and new modular WC is such to avoid any issues with regards to flooding and fire implications with surrounding buildings. Access to the yurt village will be via an extended level paved pathway which will be accessible from the carpark, reception areas and also lead directly to the welfare facilities. The timber pavilion being converted to a kitchen/dining area will remain in its present location. The new modular WC accessed off the pathway and will be located in line with the pavilion to the south and to comply with building regulations, the yurt village will be located 12.5m to the south of the WC block directly in front of the existing stone wall.

The existing car park has adequate parking to support additional visitors to Grendon Hall using the new yurt village. Typically the car park is used as a drop off point as a majority of the vehicles do not remain on site.

Scale The yurt village will consist of 4 no joined single storey canvas covered timber framed yurts. The 2 no. yurts either side of the living area will be able to sleep 10 people and the yurt to the rear will be able to sleep the carer’s. The yurts will level floor throughout and will be easily accessed off the new pathways. The modular WC block will house a disabled WC, and male and female WC’s each with 2 no. cubicles and urinals within the male. The external walls will be timber clad to match the pavilion.

Landscaping Landscaping is an integral part of the design. There will be additional smooth and level footpath (utilising paving slabs to match the existing) providing access to the yurt village and new welfare facilities and where existing paving is in poor condition, it will be replaced. The ground beneath the yurts will be made level to provide easy access for all disabled users with small ramps introduced as necessary.

Appearance The proposed yurt village will be constructed with a timber trellis supporting structure with a canvas covering. The new modular WC block will have timber shiplap cladding to match the existing timber pavilion. The existing shower block will have 1 no. doors blocked up to match the existing stonework, and the existing garage which is to be converted to a changing room/shower block will have an opening created for a door located near to the existing shower block and the garage door is again to be in-filled with stone to match the surrounding stonework.

Access The yurt village and associated welfare facilities are designed to create a welcoming and accessible environment. Grendon Hall is accessed off the High Street within Grendon which has good links to the A45 dual carriageway and the A509 to Milton Keynes. The yurt village is not likely to cause additional congestion to the village of Grendon or the surrounding road links although it will improve the usability of the outdoor adventure centre to a wider audience but in particular disabled persons. The majority of the visitors are likely to travel by either coach or minibus which will provide a drop off and pick up service will park on site where stays maybe of a short duration. - 94 -

Hard surfaces are continuous from the car park and reception area to the yurt village giving obvious easy access for all visitors. There is currently adequate disabled parking in place to accommodate the new yurt village scheme with 9 no. spaces. The yurt village will have an accessible entrance/living area and accessible single sex sleeping accommodation either side of the living area and sleeping accommodation to the rear for teachers, etc.

Impact The Yurt village has been carefully located at the rear of the site as viewed from Main Road to minimise the visual impact upon the existing listed buildings. The Yurt village will face onto the playing fields and is well screened by the existing stone wall from Queen Anne House and will be mainly visible from the Western boundary of the site. The new toilet block is designed to visually match the adjacent existing pavilion building.

Justification The yurt village development is part of Grendon Hall’s cultural and future business ambitions to enhance the usability of the site, in particular for disabled users and those with special needs. Disabled users will benefit as they will be able to enjoy the facilities and grounds that Grendon Hall offers and will also be able to stay over night as it provides accessible ground level sleeping accommodation. Previously, the nature of the main building and its various listings put limitations on the amount of service and sleeping accommodation available to disabled users using the facilities at Grendon Hall. This development provides a sustainable solution which will enhance the experience of all users and allow Grendon Hall to give a high level of service providing exciting outdoor activities to all users. Improving the accessibility of Grendon Hall will assist in conserving the listed buildings on the site and allowing future generations to appreciate the beauty and architectural history of this site.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Extensive (10 entries) - See planning history file for further details.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National and Regional Policy As this application is being determined by the County Council then compliance with national, regional and local policies rests with the County Council however, the pertinent policies, whilst not exhaustive, are considered to be: • Planning Policy Statement 1 – Sustainable Development & Climate Change. • Planning Policy Statement 5 – Planning for the Historic Environment. • Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. • Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk. Local Policy The relevant local planning policies with which this consultation response report concerns itself with are detailed below. Wellingborough Local Plan (including Alteration 2004) 1999 - policies: • G2 – Flood Protection. • G6 – Development in the Open Countryside. North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008 – policies: • Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles. • Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction. - 95 -

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Planning Policy - no comment received at the time of writing this report.

2. Environmental Protection - no comment received at the time of writing this report.

3. Landscape Officer - no comment received at the time of writing this report.

4. Design and Conservation Officer – responded as follows -

“I have had comprehensive pre-application discussions with the applicants and confirm that I whole-heartedly support the scheme. This is a valid and inoffensive development of the organization's core values which will not negatively impact upon the architectural or historic character of the listed hall.”

5. A single representation was received by telephone to raise the following points -

• No elevation plans of the development have been submitted • Have Wellingborough Council’s Conservation and Landscape Officers offered any comments.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are:

• Compliance with policy • Effect on setting of listed buildings • Other material planning matters

Compliance with policy The pertinent local plan policy issues are cantered around the proposals impact upon the character of the open countryside (Policy G6) and of flood risk (Policy G2). In the absence of any Planning Policy or Landscape Officer advice it is not therefore considered that the development would not have any detrimental impact upon the open countryside or pose any enhanced flood risk. However, the County Council have the opportunity to consult the Environment Agency to satisfy themselves that the issue of flood risk is properly explored prior to determining the application.

It is therefore concluded that the proposal is not contrary to Local Plan policies and no objection to planning permission being granted can be sustained in this instance.

Effect on setting of listed buildings This Council’s Design and Conservation Officer has considered the proposal in consultation with the County Council and the applicant, and has drawn the conclusion that this is a valid and inoffensive development of the organization's core values which will not negatively impact upon the architectural or historic character of the listed hall.

Other material planning matters Other material planning matters that the County Council should endeavour to explore during their consultation exercise with the relevant consultees prior to determining this application are considered to be: - 96 -

• Effect on landscape character • Effect on setting of listed buildings • Highway safety and parking • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity • Flood Risk

Conclusion Subject to adequate and appropriate use of planning conditions and obligations, where considered necessary, to mitigate any perceived issues outlined under the section Other material planning matters above, there are considered to be no substantive reasons to object to the grant of planning permission for the development as proposed.

RECOMMENDATION: That no objection is raised subject to adequate and appropriate use of planning conditions, where considered necessary, to mitigate any perceived issues such as flood risk and landscape character.

- 97 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0481/C

PROPOSAL: Creation of recycling facility for inert material and to allow the exportation of material off site for a period expiring on 30 April 2014.

LOCATION: Sywell Range Gun Club, 300 Kettering Road, Sywell, Northampton.

APPLICANT: Mr Ben Muttock.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: Applicant describes application as follows:-

“The application is for an extension to the existing permitted use for the temporary siting of a mobile crusher and screen to separate soils and recycled aggregates and allow them to be taken off-site.

The site already benefits from a consent which involves the importation of waste material for the construction of other parts of the shooting grounds. The imported material is screened and material crushed. This provides suitable material to be used in the construction of the permitted go-kart track and also subject to consent being granted the handling, storage and processing of inert material which will, once processed, go off-site again.

Amount The amount of development proposed in relation to the extension to the shooting ground is 1.39 hectares. In terms of volume, if permitted the amount of material to be processed will not exceed 50,000 tonnes per annum.

This proposal allows for the recovery of inert material which will be carries out on the above area. This screening and crushing of material is already permitted on this part of the site under reference 10/00005/WAS and dated 21 April 2010.

The area will comprise both the machinery and stockpiles inert material awaiting processing and material that has been processed, waiting collection.

The site is located behind the existing mounding around the edge of the applicant’s land. WP/2010/0481/C

Legend WP/2010/0481/C - Sywell Range Gun Club, 300 Kettering Road, Sywell ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised Description reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead This map is accurate 1:10,000 to prosecution or civil proceedings. Applicants Property to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. when reproduced at A4 ± Licence No 100018694. (2010) Application Site - 98 -

This will mean the development will not be seen from any public vantage points and within the site will assimilate into the larger boundary mounds.

Layout The principal access routes are already in place onto the site and as such will remain as existing so as to cause minimum disruption to other users on the site.

The site is within a 15 minute drive time of Northampton and is well located on the A43, Northampton to Kettering road.

In terms of crime prevention, as this is an entirely private site we do not consider this as an issue.

The wider site has only one access from the A43 which is kept locked out of hours and when open staff are on site.

Scale The scale of the storage and recovery area is on average 205 metres long by 65 metres wide.

The material will be stockpiled depending on material, grade and quality and should not exceed 2 metres in height and in event will be protected from public view by the mounding around the site perimeter.

Landscaping Landscaping was discussed at length with the County Council as part of the previous application with a condition applied to the permission. As such it is considered there is no further condition required for this application.

Appearance The appearance of the existing area is already large mounds surrounding the shooting ground. The proposal will mean there will be stockpiles of material that will be transient in nature. The general appearance will therefore change throughout the lifetime of the consent.

There is no lighting proposed with this application.

Access Direct access to the wider site is from the A43, Northampton to Kettering Road. Although the speed limit along this part of the road is 60 mph there is still good visibility in each direction.

The site already benefits from a good number of off road parking spaces and more than adequate turning areas.

Within the site there is an existing haul road of approximately 700 metres which will serve this development.

- 99 -

A level pathway approach from the parking spaces will ensure easy access for all people including those with disabilities.

Hardcore will form the base of the recycling area and will be generated from inert material brought onto site.”

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that no objection be raised.

- 100 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0484/F

PROPOSAL: New dwelling and garage plus associated new driveway, landscaping and alterations to existing dwelling.

LOCATION: Rear of 19 North Street, Mears Ashby, Northampton. NN6 0DW

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Paul Meigh.

The application comes before the Planning Committee for determination due to a request by Councillor Bass and is subject of a Site Viewing Group request.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The development site comprises the rear garden area to 19 North Street and runs to the rear gardens of Slope House and 15-21 Manor Road with access to be from the existing and the driveway running to the side/eastern boundary.

The proposal comprises of a single dwelling set over 2 floors with a flat-roofed contemporary design although making use of the contours of the site with the main part of the house at entrance level being single storey, with a basement element below cut into the existing site. In addition, there is a double garage and store situated to the side of the house with a turning area.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None relevant.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: North Northants CSS: 13 Wellingborough Local Plan: G4 – Development within the Limited Development and Restricted Infill Villages. SPG: II, IV and V Design SPD National: PPS 1, 3.

WP/2010/0484/F

Legend WP/2010/0484/F - Rear of 19 North Street, Mears Ashby ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Description permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead This map is accurate Applicants Property 1:1,250 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. when reproduced at A4 ± Licence No 100018694. (2010) Application Site - 101 -

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. NCC (Highways) -

“The proposal will result in the siting of a dwelling in excess of 45m from the highway boundary which has implications for emergency vehicles and for refuse collection. The application must be referred to the Building Regulation Authority or Approved Inspector in respect of access for emergency vehicles and to the appropriate officer of the Borough Council of Wellingborough in respect to refuse collection.

As the proposal will result in a shared private drive the means of vehicular access must be widened to a minimum width of 4.5m for the first 10m from the highway boundary. Vehicle to vehicle visibility of 2m x 43m and pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2m x 2m above a height of 6m must be provided and maintained on both sides of the point of access. To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway at least the first 5m of the driveway must be hard-paved.

It should be recalled that I gave advice on draft proposals relating to this application on 29 July 2009 and a copy of my response is attached. It will be noted that particular concern was raised with regard to the nature of North Street and the proximity of the site to the village school, and improvements to improve access arrangements and visibility to the entrance of the site were urged. In spite of my comments no action appears to have been taken to address these matters and, on inspection, it is doubtful that even the reduced visibility, as noted on the plan, can be met.

In their present form and without alteration the proposals do not appear to comply with the requirements of the highway authority and may give grounds for an objection to be raised on highway grounds. You may wish to seek the views of the applicant on way in which an acceptable scheme can be achieved.”

2. Councillor Bass -

“I have had a significant number of objectors to the above application and formally request the application be put to the Planning Committee following full site reviews and discussions with the Parish Council.”

3. Mears Ashby Parish Council -

“The Parish Council unanimously objected to this application for the following reasons:

It is in a designated environmentally important open space which is also in the conservation area and therefore nothing should be built within this area. It is in contravention of policies G4, G12, G19, and H1 despite claims to the contrary in the design and access statement. There are highway issues with cars and access to the property.

- 102 -

The Parish Council had 25 members of the public present at the meeting and all but one person objected to this application. Three other objections were received from residents who could not attend the meeting. The Parish Council therefore requests that this application be put before the Planning Committee following a full site visit and discussions with the Parish Council.

Although site viewings usually occur in the morning we think that in order to fully appreciate the volume of traffic using North Street it would be of benefit to members/officers if time could be taken between 3.15 and 3.45pm during term time in order to see at first hand the full extent of the traffic using North Street. Also, the existing electric gates to the property do not allow vehicles to pull off the road to await the gates opening and no mention of these being removed is made in the application.”

4. Design and Conservation Officer - Mears Ashby Case Conservation/Urban Design Comments -

“Members will be aware that the Council has a statutory duty to ensure that development in a conservation area preserves or enhances its recognized character/appearance. The present proposal is located in what could be described as the topographical centre-piece of Mears Ashby, being an attractive and relatively un-spoilt natural river valley. This sense of openness complements the vernacular stone cottages and medieval street-plan, as the valley is glimpsed from various vantage-points around the village.

The essential conservation/planning test, therefore, is to ask what material effect the proposed dwelling-house would have on the valley’s aesthetic qualities. Or, to put it another way, to ask; what harm would be caused by the development? If it can be shown that the proposal succeeds in preserving the conservation area’s character thereby causing no harm, then the application must be considered acceptable in conservation terms.

In my opinion the proposed dwelling-house does indeed successfully achieves these things. In the first place, it is only readily visible in the village landscape when viewed from the west in the colder months when the adjacent dense deciduous trees are not in leaf. Secondly, the building works with the contours, being partially cut into the valley slope (so that some of the living space is subterranean), and the colour and texture of its facing materials are designed to mellow with age and blend with the natural environment. Finally, with regard to wider design factors, I feel that the modern architectural vocabulary used is of positive benefit to the scheme in that its low-lying “horizontality” lends itself to the landscape setting in a way that a conventional pitched-roofed dwelling-house would not, and the laudably high “eco-carbon” performance of the proposed building is honestly expressed in that architectural form.

It is for these reasons that I am supportive of the development and recommend it to Members as not injurious to the conservation area.”

5. Third party letters –

- 103 -

1 Dale Close, Mears Ashby –

“I write to object to the above my reasons being:-

1) Infilling on private land could create a precedent for other land owners in that area.

2) The area in question is a natural valley with stream, and forms a geographical part of the village.

3) It has been suggested that development of private gardens may become subject to law.”

4 Church Street, Mears Ashby –

“We wish to strongly oppose the planning application of Mr and Mrs Meigh 19 North Street Mears Ashby – concerning a supposedly ‘eco friendly’ house in the valley, in the centre of Mears Ashby.

Our reasons are as follows:-

1) Ever since we’ve lived in Mears Ashby (48 years) the valley has been designated as an Environmentally Important Open Space i.e. Conservation Area – How dare the Meighs after only 3 years in Mears Ashby begin the undoing of this open space!!

2) Their plans call for the destruction of their existing garage to create a long narrow driveway to their new proposed building.

This will result in totally inadequate ‘off road’ parking for both properties – hence more cares in North Street an already ‘problem road’ as far as parking is concerned!

3) The new house proposed may be partly ‘eco friendly’ but in no way is it visually friendly. It clashes badly with existing Mears Ashby properties!! Frankly its no more than a 21st century pre-fab!! – Its appearance is awful – 99% of Mears Ashby people voice this opinion!!

Please please let common sense prevail, do not allow the village to implode. Please conserve what is special.”

Carlton, Mears Ashby –

“Quoting the words of my late husband, who was born and bred in Mears Ashby ‘The valley in the centre of the village must remain forever green’, I have lived here since 1958 and both my husband and myself always took pride and admired the beauty of the village which I would hate to see destroyed.

I feel that the eco-house which has been proposed, is not in keeping with the village.” - 104 -

19 Manor Road –

“My wife and I have inspected the above plans and would like to make the following comments.

1. We thought that this valley was a conservation area and so it would be impossible to build here. A new property in this location would make a severe impact on the area and spoil its look forever.

2. The position of the proposed new property as shown on the ground plan puts it fairly close to the rear of the existing property. With a short stretch of the imagination it would be quite feasible to see the proposed new access road extended past this property and into the garden beyond, so that at a later date another planning application would be put in for an additional property. If this current application get the approval it would set a precedent and so be very difficult to refuse another application, which would further detract from the appearance of the valley.

3. Site access – the Highways Authority say that there has been no reported accidents concerning this access. Just a few weeks ago my wife had a narrow miss with a vehicle exiting from this access. If as the plans show, the existing garage is to be demolished to make a driveway to the proposed new property, it will mean that all the top section of the current driveway will have to be kept clear of vehicles to allow free passage to the proposed new property. This will only allow a small parking area for any vehicles for the existing property, which will mean that more vehicles will be parked on North Street, as they are sometimes now. North Street is not a very wide street so extra vehicles parked on it and extra vehicle movement in and out of this restricted access could easily mean more accidents.

In conclusion my wife and I would strongly opposed this proposed development as stated in the three items above and consider it to be unnecessary in a beautiful conservation area.”

12 Vicarage Lane –

“We would like you to accept this letter as our objection to the above application. In support of our objection we wish to raise the following points.

Policy H1 states that planning permission will be granted for residential development in residential areas except where: The proposal is for a form of tandem development (involving the construction of one dwelling immediately behind another and sharing the same access). In this application the access to the proposed new property is be extending the existing driveway and demolishing the existing garage.

The existing entrance is directly off North Street, which is a narrow road in close proximity to the school. Cars are already parked on the road opposite the current property at all times during the day narrowing it to a single car width. - 105 -

There are currently electric gates to the property that slide to the left but that cannot be operated without the vehicle wishing to gain access stopping in the road to open the gates via a pad on the post. This causes further congestion on a narrow road, and we have grave concerns regarding the safety aspect of two properties being accessed via the existing entrance. With the existing garage being demolished, where will the cars be parked when the two plots are divided, that service the existing property?

Policy G19 also states that planning permission will not be granted for development which will result in the loss of areas designated as environmentally important open space. The proposed site for development is in the conservation area and is an environmentally important open space and therefore the proposal should be refused. The proposed development is totally out of character with any other property within the village, and previous applications have has to be in keeping with the surrounding properties, the majority of which are built of stone or brick with some rendering in existence. The supporting design and access statement states that 19 North Street was formerly two separate dwellings, we do not believe this is correct. Further we do no believe it is relevant as the applicant bought the property as one dwelling, they were therefore aware of the size of the plot at the time of purchase. If they now state that the garden is too large then surely this would have been obvious at the time of purchase. One has to therefore question why the property was purchased in the first place.”

24 Manor Road –

“I am the owner of the two paddocks adjoining the proposed development site and am writing to OBJECT to the above planning application.

Primarily, this is because I believe that development in the location proposed would be seriously detrimental to the character of the conservation area and wider village.

Principle of development on the site Saved Local Plan policy G4 (criteria 2) states that development in the limited infill villages will be granted planning permission, subject to more specific policies regarding individual site areas or uses, if it does not effect upon the form, character and setting of the village and its environs.

Saved policy G19 also states that planning permission will not be granted if a development results in the loss of designated Environmentally Important Open Space (EIOS).

The text which accompanies policy G19 in the Local Plan states: “Both the town and the villages derive a large part of their character from open spaces retained within them. It is considered to be of local importance to exclude development from some sites so that this open character is not significantly eroded. Consequently, specified sites which are most important to the visual or physical character and structure of the settlements are identified”

- 106 -

It goes on to say that “These open spaces need not be publicly accessible or of a formal nature”.

In this instance the site lies within the Conservation Area and EIOS. The designation of the EIOS reflects the fact that, save for a limited amount of development fronting directly onto North Street, there is basically no development whatsoever (either dwellings or outbuildings) within the central ‘valley’ that runs through the heart of the village. This is demonstrated clearly on the ‘inset map’ for the village, contained in your Local Plan. This openness provides a clear separation between the ‘top end’ and ‘bottom end’ of the village and is a key aspect of the village’s character and the character of the Conservation Area. Indeed it is retained in Wellingborough’s proposed plans for the village. Site Specific DPD - Preferred Options Background Report – Methodology for designating Sites as Environmentally Important Open Space (EIOS) August 2010 which eloquently states the case for the preservation of such areas in villages throughout the borough.

The applicant in their design and access statement tries to argue that the footprint of the dwelling would cover a negligible area of the EIOS. They seem to drastically miss the point that any development within this area can constitute a significant intrusion. A dozen dwellings spread through the entire EIOS could also be argued to cover a negligible area in terms of footprint, but would have a catastrophic impact. The proposal is for a substantial dwelling which would have a substantial visual impact upon the EIOS, thereby resulting in the loss of its intrinsic ‘openness’. The wording of policy G19 with regard to such proposals is quite emphatic and should be upheld.

Backland development Not only is the area EIOS, but the site also constitutes ‘backland’ tandem development where the proposed dwelling is set behind existing properties and has no direct frontage onto the road. This form of development is totally incongruous to the over-riding character and grain of the surround area, where all development fronts directly onto the roads. To allow this backland development to significantly undermine the form of development in the village would set a dangerously undesirable precedent for similar development elsewhere, particularly through the village’s central valley area.

It would make it very difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist future applications for similar development elsewhere, thereby leading to a gradual and significant cumulative impact upon the EIOS.

Harm to the Conservation Area Overall, the points made above only confirm that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Although not readily visible from the public realm, the openness and undeveloped nature of the site is a key aspect of the area’s character (hence why it was included in the conservation area in the first place) and the separation between the two ‘halves’ of the village. the development also does not respect the ‘grain’ of development within the Conservation Area.

- 107 -

PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment requires that planning authorities should take into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of designated heritage assets for this and future generations and of new development making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment. In this instance the proposed development would not sustain the significance of the site as an undeveloped space and its contribution towards character of the wider village having two distinct and separate ‘halves’. Consequently, it would cause serious harm to the character of the designated heritage asset, and so would be contrary to PPS5.

Design of the proposed dwelling PPS1 states that is it is only “proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness” (para.38).

With regard to the design, I have no objection per se with a contemporary approach to design. However, in this instance I believe the propose design fails to in any way respect or reflect the character or distinctiveness of the area. As a result, I believe the proposal further fails to preserve the character of the conservation area and is contrary to PPS5.

In particular, the proposal does not appear to in any way reflect any aspect of the local vernacular, either in terms of form, detailing or materials. That is not to say that a pastiche cottage style approach would be more appropriate (it may appear even more incongruous). However, the use of white render and stain larch boarding, for example, are in no way reflective of local traditional materials. The failure to make any reference back to the established character of the conservation area only further emphasises how the proposal conflicts with PPS5 (HE7.5).

In addition, I would like to highlight that the large glazed elevation would be exposed across the valley towards the church. With such large glazed areas (as well as any additional external lighting), it could appear particularly intrusive to an otherwise unlit and very dark area during the hours of darkness. The fact that the area is completely unlit goes hand in hand with its present rural context, undeveloped character and status as part of the EIOS and Conservation Area. There is no way of conditioning and effectively monitoring that curtains or blinds will always be drawn by future occupants during all hours of darkness. However, the light spill from such a large area of ‘open’ glazing would have a seriously intrusive visual impact and draw additional undue attention to the development.

Impact upon the TPO’d sycamore Although not directly affecting the large preserved sycamore, the proposed dwelling would stand in close proximity immediately to the north of it. The main glazed elevation would face directly the tree, which would therefore dominate the outlook and likely cause significant overshadowing. Consequently, I strong concerns that the tree may significantly affect the light into the dwelling, as well as the effectiveness of its eco-friendly credentials. The result of which could lead to significant future pressure from occupants of the proposed dwelling to heavily prune or thin the tree, or even cut it down. - 108 -

Access The applicant claims that the house was previously two houses. Having lived in the village for the past 60 years I am certain this was never the case. The planning history on your website appears to confirm this. Instead, the site has always been a single dwelling, but was extended and informally subdivided to provide a ‘granny annexe’. Consequently the applicant is incorrect in suggesting that the existing access previously served two dwellings. In any event, the planning application should consider the proposal in light of current policy and guidance.

NCC Highway’s current guidance (the working draft of the Standing Advice to Local Planning Authorities, July 2008) requires all shared driveway access to be at least 4.5m wide for the first 10m from the highway boundary. Visibility splays of 2m by 43m in either direction are also required, with all areas within those splays being clear of obstructions above 0.6m above ground level. The applicant’s plan (Drawing No. P005) does not conform with these current standards and also appears to confirm that compliance would not be possible. There is also no mention of removing the existing electric gate. Consequently, increasing the traffic levels using this inadequate access would only be detrimental to highway safety.

There are many reasons why this development should be refused, indeed I could add more personal objections to those listed above but feel that this letter is of sufficient length already. In short this is the wrong place for any dwelling to be built. I request that the plans are refused to secure the conservation of the essential character of Mears Ashby.”

NOTE: At the time of writing this report the publicity period had yet to expire therefore any further representations received will be reported to the Committee by way of the Late Letters package.

ASSESSMENT: In light of the highway comments as above and despite the non-committal wording of the comments there is considered to be significant objection to the proposal on highway grounds. Irrespective, therefore of the environmental and situation merits the proposed development may or may not have they could not be afforded sufficient enough weight to be able to disregard the adverse impact the access arrangements would have on the safety and convenience of the local highway network. For that reason it is recommended that the planning application should fail on highway grounds and for the reason given below.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The proposed development by virtue of its arrangements to access the highway and its resulting intensification and proximity to a village school do not comply with the requirements of the highway authority and are therefore considered to be detrimental to the safety and convenience of the local highway network. The - 109 -

development is considered to be contradictory with Policy 13 (d and n): General Sustainable Development Principles and inconsistent with the advice contained with PPS3. 2. The proposed development would as a result of its appearance, siting and location result in the visual erosion of an Environmentally Important Open Space (EIOS), conflicting with the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policy: G19 (Environmentally Important Open Space).

Policy 13

Meet needs d) Have a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards; and

n) Not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

POLICY G19

PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT BE GRANTED FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF AREAS DESIGNATED AS ENVIRONMENTALLY IMPORTANT OPEN SPACE.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: P-001, P-002, P-003, P-004, P-005 & P-006 08 November 2010 - 110 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0507/FCOU

PROPOSAL: Change of use from B1 and B8 planning consent to car servicing and MOT testing centre (B2).

LOCATION: Unit 127 Turnells Mill Lane, Wellingborough. NN8 2RN

APPLICANT: Mr Graham Gibson, Nationwide Autocentres trading as Halfords Autocentre.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of a Councillor.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described.

The application site is a vacant n industrial unit located at end of a block of four such units. The units have the benefit of a large carking area. The site is set back from the road behind a fast food outlet and at the time of Officer Inspection the site was tidy and litter free.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: No recorded planning history since construction.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: Regional Spatial Strategy 8 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 1 (Strengthening the network of Settlements) 8 (Delivering economic prosperity) 11 (Distribution of jobs) 13 (General sustainable development principles) and 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: E2 (Support services and retail facilities within industrial estates) Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 4; Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth Planning Policy Statement 9; Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Supplementary Planning Document; Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design WP/2010/0507/FCOU

Legend WP/2010/0507/FCOU - Unit 1, 27 Turnells Mill Lane, Wellingborough ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Description Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead This map is accurate Applicants Property 1:2,500 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) Application Site - 111 -

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime and Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority – has returned the application with a pro forma sticker which counsels this Council to seeks its highways advice from the County Council’s’ published highway standards

2. Environment Agency – no comment received at time of writing the report.

3. Wellingborough Council Strategic Growth and Development Manager - no comment received at time of writing the report.

4. Neighbours/third parties - no comment received at time of writing the report.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are: • Compliance with policy • Effect on visual amenity • Highway safety • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity

Compliance with policy Policy 1 of North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy requires greater self- sufficiency for North Northamptonshire as a whole and development will be principally directed towards the urban core, focused on the three growth Towns of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. Meanwhile, Policy 11 sets out the principles for the distribution of jobs within the borough.

It is considered the principle of a change of use from B1/B8 to B2 on an industrial estate that is designated in the local pan is in general accord with policy. However, an unrestricted B2 use could be a potential source of pollution and nuisance for neighbouring occupiers due to the wide variety of industrial operations that fall under its aegis. It is recommended, therefore, that a condition be imposed that would tie the permission to the requested use only to prevent the site reverting to an unneighbourly use without having to gain the benefit of planning permission.

Effect on visual amenity The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, Policy 13 (h) says that new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings.

It is considered that this change of an industrial use class on an industrial estate will not materially affect the visual amenity of the area.

If the proposed use results in a littering issue, this is seen as a site management function unconnected to the determination of the application. However, if litter does become a concern on the public highway there are powers vested in the Council under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005) to serve a Street Litter Control Notice to tackle the problem. In - 112 -

the event of private land becoming defaced by litter and refuse, the Council is also empowered under the same legislation to serve a Litter Clearing Notice requiring the occupier to clear the land, and where appropriate, take steps to prevent it becoming heavily defaced again.

Highway safety Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that new development should provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards. Policy 13 (n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

The County Highway Authority has returned the application with a pro forma sticker which counsels that advice be sought from its published highway standards.

There is ample off-road parking available to staff and customers and no material highway safety considerations have been advanced or identified to prevent recommending the application for approval on these grounds.

There are no pertinent crime and disorder issues to consider.

Biodiversity Policy 13 (o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states amongst other things that development should conserve and enhance biodiversity.

No biodiversity issues have been identified within the scope of the application.

Conclusion There are no identifiable reasons why the application cannot be granted planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The premises shall be used for car servicing and MOT testing and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class B2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

- 113 -

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. To prevent the use of the building reverting to another use within the same use class which may be inappropriate in this location.

- 114 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

OTHER BOROUGH

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0200/OB

PROPOSAL: Development of wind farm comprising nine wind turbines, five of which are located within the district of East Northamptonshire, each 125m high to blade tip, one anemometer mast 80m high, construction of access tracks, underground cabling, visitor car park and viewing area at Chelveston Renewable Energy Park, The Airfield, Chelveston, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN9 6AU.

LOCATION: Chelveston Renewable Energy Park, Chelveston Airfield, Chelveston. NN9 6AU

APPLICANT: Chelveston Renewable Energy Limited.

The proposal is an East Northamptonshire Council matter and the application is referred to the Planning Committee as a consultee.

NOTE: This other borough application was considered at the 11th August 2010 Committee where amendments to the original planning application were presented. It was resolved at this Committee that Wellingborough Council offer no objection to the scheme subject to East Northamptonshire Council satisfying themselves that there would be no cumulative landscape and visual impacts when considering this proposal in connection with the proposed wind farm at Bozeat (planning application reference: WP/2008/0603/OEIA).

The applicant subsequently submitted an Addendum to the Environmental Statement to address:-

1) Cultural Heritage. 2) Landscape and Visual Impact. 3) Combined Wind Farm and Anaerobic Digestion and Biofuel Plants. 4) Ecology.

Also the applicant has submitted an appeal statement and made available the raw noise and wind data.

WP/2010/0200/OB - 115 -

Therefore, a resolution is required from Committee to enable officers to forward the Council’s consultation response to East Northamptonshire Council.

SUBMITTED ADDENDUM DETAILS: Cultural heritage In the light of the publication of Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning and the Historic Environment and its practice Guide in April 2010, after the application was submitted, the applicant has undertaken an additional assessment of heritage features 7 – 10 Km out from the application site.

ENC also asked for clarification in relation to the assessment methodology used in the cultural heritage section of the Environmental Statement. The applicant responded thus:-

“The methodology used was based on work done by Headland Archaeology and a report they produced titled 'Environmental Impact Assessment of Windfarms: Cultural Heritage and the Problem of Setting'. The principles set out in this report are used in the assessment of effects on the setting of cultural heritage features, used as part of Stephen Carter's (Headland Archaeology) evidence provided for Wadlow Windfarm Inquiry in 2009. He also makes reference to a research paper produced by Colcutt in 1999, which introduces the terminology of 'complementarity', which he incorporated into his methodology. Our methodology builds upon the categories and principles that were used at the Wadlow Windfarm Inquiry, and thus in this sense have been tested through the appeal process. The main difference is that we introduced, to give greater clarity and more objectivity to the process, sub-categories for each of the core categories and the use of a scoring system, so that it could more easily be determined how the judgement of the assessors had been reached.”

Landscape and visual This addendum to chapter 5 includes the additional work requested by ENC’s landscape consultants, Land Use Consultants (LUC), in relation to landscape character appraisal and the additional viewpoints requested by LUC and agreed with East Northamptonshire District Council. No further view-point work was required to be commissioned within Bedford Borough.

Combined air quality Chapter 8 of the Environmental Statement assesses the issue of combined air quality impacts of the proposed wind farm and the approved anaerobic digestion and biofuel plants. This addendum addresses the issues raised by Chelveston cum Caldecott Parish Council as requested by East Northamptonshire District Council.

Ecology The applicant has an ongoing programme of ecological survey work being carried out on the site. This addendum to Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement includes the results of further up to date ecological survey work of the site in relation to the following:

(a) Wintering bird survey 2009/2010 (b) Breeding bird survey spring 2010-10-20 (c) Great crested newt survey 2010 - 116 -

(d) Transect and remote surveys of bat activity (including at elevation on the 70m high Boxer mast) early summer, late summer and early autumn 2010 as requested by Natural England.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Wellingborough Council Environmental Protection Services – no comments received at the time this report was written.

2. Wellingborough Council Planning Policy Services – no comments received at the time this report was written.

RECOMMENDATION: Offer no objection to the proposal subject to East Northamptonshire Council satisfying themselves that there would be no cumulative landscape and visual impacts when considering this proposal in connection with the proposed wind farm at Bozeat (planning application reference: WP/2008/0603/OEIA).

- 117 -

O R I G I N A L R E P O R T

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 11/08/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0200/OB

LOCATION: Chelveston Renewable Energy Park, Chelveston Airfield, Chelveston.

APPLICANT: Chelveston Renewable Energy Limited.

The proposal is a East Northamptonshire Council matter and the application is referred to the Planning Committee as a consultee.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above.

The proposed wind farm development is to be located at the former Chelveston Airfield near Yelden in Bedfordshire. The Chelveston airfield site straddles the Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire borders and the two relevant local planning authorities are Bedford Borough Council and East Northamptonshire District Council. This proposal is for nine wind turbines to be constructed and operated upon the site, 4 (four) of the turbines are proposed to be constructed within Bedford Borough Council jurisdiction, and 5 (five) of the turbines are proposed to be constructed within East Northamptonshire District Council jurisdiction, each 125m high to blade tip.

The site is approximately 10km due east of Wellingborough town, 9km due south-east of Finedon and 12km due north-east of Bozeat. The site is open, flat and featureless on the highest ground between the Midlands and the East Coast, alleged to be ideal both for its former and proposed uses. Whilst the site is in a rural setting it is not in any designated landscape areas.

- 118 -

The applicant is Chelveston Renewable Energy Limited, a locally based firm, which is seeking to further develop the airfield as an integrated renewable energy park. Planning permission has recently been granted (circa December 2008) by Northamptonshire County Council for a biomass anaerobic digestion plant located within the central portion of the airfield. Planning permission has also recently been granted by the Planning Inspectorate following appeal for the change of use of some of the existing buildings within the site for renewable electricity generation produced from engines powered by bio-oils, and for the conversion of another existing building to provide an electricity switch room and upgraded grid connection.

The proposed development will consist of:

The proposal is to install 9 (nine) wind turbines of 2.5 MW individual capacity within the airfield, 4 (four) within the Bedfordshire part of the site and 5 (five) in the Northamptonshire part. Each turbine will be 125m in height with a 90m diameter rotor mounted on a tapered tubular steel tower 80m tall. The windfarm will generate over 59,000 MWh of renewable electricity per annum, providing sufficient electricity to supply more than 12,500 households and saving in excess of 25,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions. The primary goal of the project is to develop a viable energy site while ensuring that the design process produced a visually sympathetic and sustainable scheme within its surroundings.

Since the writing of this report, the applicant has submitted various amendments to the Environmental Statement. The amendments are outlined below.

Highways The tracking information for the trunk and local highway network illustrating how the turbine blades will be delivered to site have been revised and sent to the Highways Agency and Highways Authority for approval.

Ecology Survey results for 2009/2010 of overwintering birds and 2010 breeding birds has been completed and submitted. In consultation with Natural England an additional bat survey is being conducted to assist in their ability to assess the deficiency in the data on the effects of windfarms on bats. Results for June 2010 have been lodged and further work will continue until September 2010, following which a further report will be presented to ENC assessing the impacts. In light of the above, Turbine EN5 has been re-sited 50m to the West to ensure its blade tips are more than 50m away from the closest trees, following a comment made by the Environment Agency.

Noise The addendum to the noise chapter of the ES now takes into account the small change in location of Turbine EN5 and it confirms that the predicted noise levels of the turbines modelled meet the ETSU-R-97 noise limits at all times.

Cultural Heritage Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning and the Historic Environment was issued by the government after this planning application was submitted. Accordingly, a supplement has been submitted to the cultural heritage chapter to address these aspects and - 119 -

explains the methodology used to assess the impacts on the setting of cultural heritage assets.

The applicant has also submitted further information to clarify points raised by ENC, these are outlined below.

Height of existing boxer mast 70m is the correct height to consider as a frame of reference for visual purposes. The mast has been surveyed and the top is at an elevation of 154.60m, the base at 86.41m and adjacent ground approximately 86.0m. The main steel work is therefore 68.19m above its base which stands proud of the land by about 0.4m. Additionally, the communications dish, warning lights and railing on top extend between 1 and 2 m above the framework. The applicant considers 70m as a fair visual reference.

Construction of towers The applicant intends to construct towers on site. Should the phasing of construction permit, it is proposed to use the consented anaerobic digestion waste reception building for this purpose before it becomes operational. Should it be operational by the time wind farm construction work is due to start, then the applicant proposes to use a temporary building on site, which will be removed when the towers are complete.

Landscape and visual impacts Additional landscape work will be considered by the applicant if deemed necessary by ENC.

Combined are quality effects: wind farm, Anaerobic Digestion plant and biofuel facility Some local parish councils and local objectors raised concerns that the wind turbines will cause harm by affecting the emissions of harmful bacteria and pathogens from the anaerobic digestion plant and boifuel facility. This is refuted by Chelveston Renewable Energy Ltd on tow accounts. Firstly, the facilities will not be discharging harmful bacteria/pathogens and this will be fully licensed and monitored by the Environment Agency. Secondly, the accusation that the wind turbine will propagate the bacteria/pathogens by a fanning action into the atmosphere is fundamentally flawed as the turbines operate on air flow and furthermore, any turbulence that they create will aid mixing and dispersion rather than concentrating it.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None as this site lies outside the administrative boundary of Wellingborough Borough Council.

NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National and Regional Policy. As this application is being determined by East Northamptonshire Council (ENC) then compliance with national and regional policies rests with ENC. The applicant has indicated that the proposal accords with the following policies: Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 1 – Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to PPS1 Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas - 120 -

Planning Policy Statement 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Planning Policy Statement 22 – Renewable Energy Regional Policy East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 (replacing RSS8) – Policies 31, 39 and 40. Local Policy The relevant local planning policies with which this consultation response report concerns itself with are detailed below. North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008: Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles; Policy 14 – Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: No consultations undertaken as this is another borough planning application consultation only.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are: • Compliance with policy; • Other material planning matters.

Compliance with policy It is considered that the principle of the development which proposes to construct a renewable energy source within the open countryside is sound and in accord with Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) development plan policy. For clarity, this conclusion is elaborated as follows.

CSS, Policy 13. The general sustainable development principles cited in Policy 13, whilst no specific reference is made to wind farms, would support this type of proposal in so far as it would not result in an unacceptable impact of the amenities of properties in the wider area; be constructed and operated using a minimum amount of non- renewable resources; not have an adverse impact on highway network; would not have an adverse impact on the landscape character; would not sterilise known mineral reserves; would not cause a risk to water resources or increase the risk of flooding.

CSS, Policy 14. Whilst the policy does not specifically refer to wind farm proposals, the concept of development meeting viable standards of resource and energy efficiency and reduction of carbon emissions can be reasonably inferred to be applicable to this proposal. Indeed, paragraph 4.14 of the CSS, which provides the background commentary to Policy 14, supports the notion that “It has been established that in…a generally rural area, there are some opportunities for wind energy development…it is anticipated that new wind energy development proposals…will, in principle, be considered favourably in North Northamptonshire.”

Other aspects of the scheme are, however, highlighted below.

Other material planning matters Other material planning matters that ENC should endeavour to explore during their consultation exercise with the relevant consultees prior to determining this application are considered to be:

- 121 -

• Noise; • Shadow flicker; • Land use considerations; • Landscape and Visual Impact (including the cumulative visual impact); • Ecology and Nature Conservation; • Historic Environment: • Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology: • Air Quality; • Access and Highway Safety; and • Air Traffic Control.

Conclusion Subject to adequate and appropriate use of planning conditions and obligations to mitigate any perceived issues outlined under the section Other material planning matters above, there are considered to be no substantive reasons to object to the grant of planning permission for the development as proposed.

- 122 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

OTHER BOROUGH

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0508/OB

PROPOSAL: Central grain storate facility and ancillary works including drainage proposals, landscaping and highway improvements.

LOCATION: Newton Road (North of)/Rockingham Road (East of), Kettering.

APPLICANT: Camgrain Stores Limited.

The proposal is a Kettering Borough Council matter and the application is referred to the Planning Committee as a consultee.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above.

The proposed use is the establishment of a new central grain storage facility inextricably linked to the operation of the rural economy. The use of the site for the centralised storage close to the main highway network ensures the impact of traffic on surrounding roads is possible minimised. Centralising storage facilities in the manner suggested reflects the increasing demand for farmers to have safe, secure storage for their product.

The proposal is to provide storage capacity for 90,000 tonnes of grain on the application site. The site provides for an “in and out” weighbridge together with an accompanying office incorporating a laboratory. The need to provide a 90,000 tonne facility reflects the need to meet growing demand and especially in an area where no similar facility exists. It is opined by the applicant that this development comes forward to meet such demand.

The application site extends to some 20.34 hectares on the northern edge of Newton Road on the eastern side of Rockingham Road, north of Kettering. A new access point will be created at the western end of Newton Road and will restrict traffic movements to right turn only when exiting the site. An access road will lead from Newton Road into the site and to a weighbridge/laboratory building where lorries entering and leaving the operation site will be weighed, tested and recorded. Grain will be stored in the large flat store and in the ten storage silos. WP/2010/0508/OB - 123 -

The flat store on the western side of the site is 60m in width and is orientated on a north south axis with the gable end facing Newton Road. The building is 240m long with its longest edge running back to the northern part of the site. The height of the flat store will be 22.6m to ridge height. The highest structure within the site is the plant house which will be some 34m in height and contains the critical plant required for the operation. The storage facilities are supported by:

• An intake facility • 3 screening bins • A plant house • 12 holding bins • 10 bulk out loading bins • Dryers • Electrical power distribution compound • Fuel tanks • Quality control centre/laboratory • Rest room

The vehicle circulation pattern around the site is on the basis of the clockwise movement. A new drainage feature is planned in the south eastern corner of the site as a result of drainage analysis and provided attenuation for surface water run off. Details of the drainage proposals are contained in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. Mitigating landscaping is proposed and it is anticipated that landscaping will be the subject of suitably worded conditions.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None as this site lies outside the administrative boundary of Wellingborough Borough Council.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National and Regional Policy As this application is being determined by the Kettering Borough Council (KBC) then compliance with national and regional policies rests with KBC. Policies that should be considered in KBC’s judgement are opined to include the following (non-exhaustive):

• Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) – Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) • Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate (Supplement to PPS 1) – (2007) • Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) – Sustainable Economic Growth (2009) • Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004) • PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation • PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management • Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) - Transport (2001) • PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control • PPG24 Planning for Noise

Local Policy The relevant local planning policies with which this consultation response report concerns itself with are detailed below. - 124 -

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) 2008:

• Policy 6: Infrastructure delivery and developer contributions; • Policy 8: Delivering Economic Prosperity: • Policy 9: Distribution and Location of Development; • Policy 11: Distribution of Jobs: • Policy 13: General Sustainable Development Principles; • Policy 14: Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: No consultations undertaken as this is an ‘other borough’ planning application consultation only.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are:

• Compliance with policy; • Other material planning matters.

Compliance with (local) policy The CSS policies 6, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 are considered to be appropriate for this proposed type of development and the determining planning authority should have regard to them. Whilst the development is outside this Council’s jurisdiction, detailed consideration of how the development complies with these policies is hindered by the limitation of performing comprehensive consultation. However, the submitted details are considered to comply with the general principles of the policies.

Other material planning matters Other material planning matters that KBC should endeavour to explore during their consultation exercise with the relevant consultees prior to determining this application are considered to be:

• Effect on amenities of the residents of in the immediate vicinity of the site • Effect on visual amenity and character of the area • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity • Traffic, Access and Highway Safety

RECOMMENDATION: Offer no objection to the proposal.

- 125 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

FOR INFORMATION

Planning Committee 15/12/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0341/C

PROPOSAL: Proposed is a single storey gym and sport science tuition rooms block with ancillary and associated external alterations including additional car parking spaces.

LOCATION: Friars School, Friars Close, Wellingborough. NN8 2LA

APPLICANT: Mrs Lynne Thompson.

NOTE: Approved by Northamptonshire County Council on 18th October 2010 subject to the following condition/s:-

Time Limit

1. The development to which this relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To conform with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Scope of Permission

2. Except as otherwise required by conditions attached to this planning permission the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted application: i.e. Application Form, received 3rd August 2010; Planning Support Statement and Design and Access Statement, received 26th July 2010; Traffic Management Plan, received 15th October 2010; Site Location Plan Drawing No. 4531/106A Ref A, dated 30th July 2010; Site Plan Drawing No. 4531/107, received 26th July 2010; Scheme Plan Drawing No 4531/102 Rev C, received 14th October 2010; Traffic Management Drawing No. 4531/HSP101, received 14th October 2010.

Reason: To define the scope of the permission and in the interest of clarity.

WP/2010/0341/C

Legend WP/2010/0341/C - Friars School, Friars Close, Wellingborough

ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Description Scale: Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead This map is accurate Application Site 1:1,250 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) Owners Property - 126 -

Hours of Construction Works

3. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority all construction works shall be confined to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays, with no works on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby occupiers of property from noise and other disturbance and in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

Access and Highway Safety

4. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority all construction delivery vehicles shall not arrive at, enter or leave the site during the hours of 8.00am to 9.30am and 2.30pm to 4.00pm Mondays to Fridays during term time.

Reason: To safeguard the pupils and parents at Friars School and reduce congestion in the area in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

Materials

5. All materials and finishes on the proposed extension shall be carried out as proposed in the submitted application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

REASONS FOR APPROVAL The proposed works, in conjunction with the conditions of consent, are considered to be acceptable and adequately reflect the character and appearance of the local area while minimising amenity impacts on neighbouring properties. Issues raised relating to parking and amenity disturbance can be overcome through implementation of the traffic management plan and restricted hours of working. With regard to the development plan, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

- 127 -

15th December 2010

PLANNING COMMITTEE

The following applications dealt with under the terms of the Chief Executive’s delegated powers.

Application No. Location of Proposal Decision Applicant’s Name Description of Proposal

WP/2010/0258/F Mr A Gibson Land between 152 and 158 AC London Road, Wollaston. Erection of a 2-storey dwellinghouse.

WP/2010/0379/F Mr Fred Swailes 53 Wilby Road, Mears Ashby. AC Change of outbuilding to form habitable dwelling - resubmission following refusal of WP/2009/0522/F.

WP/2010/0385/LB Mr Andy Teague The Worlds End, REFUSED Enterprise Inns Northampton Road, Ecton. Replacing existing signage with that of new design, in existing position, sizes and materials (Application for Listed Building Consent).

WP/2010/0392/AV Mr Robert Nash 109 Finedon Road, REFUSED Wellingborough. Externally illuminated advertising billboard fixed at high level to the east side of 109 Finedon Road, Wellingborough.

WP/2010/0404/LB Mr Keith Banham Orient House, Church Way, APPROVED BCAL Consulting Wellingborough. Demolition of some internal walls to create an open plan office environment whilst maintaining all the period features of the building (Application for Listed Building Consent).

WP/2010/0405/F Mr Campbell 24 Norlinton Close, AC Orlingbury. Detached double garage with storage loft.

- 128 -

Application No. Location of Proposal Decision Applicant’s Name Description of Proposal

WP/2010/0408/F Mr John Penn 39 Ecton Lane, Sywell. AC First floor side extension above the existing garage. Fill in walls between existing columns to form a porch. Existing timber/glass conservatory remove and part brick (dwarf wall) and part double glazed windows and doors.

WP/2010/0413/F Mr and Mrs T Robinson 3 Yorke Close, Finedon. AC Proposed two-storey kitchen/bedroom extension.

WP/2010/0416/F Bedford Properties Limited Land adjacent 67 Harvey AC Road, Wellingborough. Erection of one detached single storey dwelling with two parking spaces.

WP/2010/0417/TX Mr and Mrs J Davis All Saints House, AC 26 Middle Street, Isham. Application for new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation for WP/2007/0460/F - Erection of detached garage and formation of new access involving partial demolition of the existing boundary wall.

WP/2010/0418/TX Mr and Mrs J Davis All Saints House, AC 26 Middle Street, Isham. Application for new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation for WP/2007/0461/F - Erection of three detached dwellings and access.

- 129 -

Application No. Location of Proposal Decision Applicant’s Name Description of Proposal

WP/2010/0419/TXLB Mr and Mrs J Davis All Saints House, AC 26 Middle Street, Isham. Application for new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation for WP/2007/0462/LB - Part demolition of boundary wall to provide for new access (Listed Building Consent Application).

WP/2010/0420/F Mr Neil Tyson 22 Church Street, Isham. AC Erection of two storey rear and side extension and extension of existing building together with provision of two site parking spaces.

WP/2010/0424/F Mr Tim Walsh 68 Arkwright Road, Irchester. AC Proposed roof extension over the existing 2-storey rear addition.

WP/2010/0425/LB Mr Jason Miller 15 Church Way, Grendon. AC Internal and external alterations to the building. (Application for Listed Building Consent).

WP/2010/0433/F Mr and Mrs Mason 86 Northampton Road, AC Earls Barton. Single storey extension to side/rear, together with new pitched roof over existing garage/porch, continued over lounge window.

WP/2010/0434/F Mrs Gayle O'Sullivan Oak House Hotel, AC 8-11 Broad Green, Wellingborough. Revised application to planning permission WP/2010/0194/F - rebuild and extend utility room to rear of property with W/C and store room.

- 130 -

Application No. Location of Proposal Decision Applicant’s Name Description of Proposal

WP/2010/0436/F Mr Scott Davis 9 Dale Close, AC Wellingborough. First floor side extension over existing kitchen and garage - revised application following withdrawal of WP/2010/0249/F and WP/2010/0360/F.

WP/2010/0437/F Mr Sanjay Patel 30 Pearmain Avenue, AC Wellingborough. Single storey extension to rear and erection of a front porch.

WP/2010/0440/F Mr George Groves 38 Harvey Road, AC Wellingborough. Single storey side extension to bungalow.

WP/2010/0446/RVC Mr Mark Robinson 27 The Square, Earls Barton. APPROVED Market Harborough Building Details submitted to remove Society condition 5 of planning permission WP/2010/0086/AV (The signage hereby permitted does not include approval of the signs (red) colour of the materials. Details of the colour and materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

WP/2010/0454/F Mr Sean Purcell 101 Dulley Avenue, AC Wellingborough. Three bedroom terraced property in the side garden of 101 Dulley Avenue (Re- submission).

WP/2010/0468/F Mr Patel 2 Jersey Close, AC Wellingborough. Building on top of an existing storey to the side to create additional space at first floor level and minor internal works.

- 131 -

Application No. Location of Proposal Decision Applicant’s Name Description of Proposal

WP/2010/0483/NMA Mr Jason Borrell 1 Hornby Road, Earls Barton. APPROVED Application for Non-Material Amendment following approval of WP/2010/0186/F - internal alterations in extension to form a study. Relocation of side door and insertion of 1 no. 1200mm wide window in side elevation.

WP/2010/0489/NMA Mr Kevin Shooter 15 Bush Close, APPROVED Wellingborough. Non-material amendment to planning permission WP/2010/0354/F - insertion of high line rosewood uPVC window in east side elevation and elongation of the roof.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

The background papers for the planning and building applications contained in this report form part of the relevant files appertaining to individual applications as referenced.

Borough Council of Wellingborough, Built Environment, Croyland Abbey, Tithe Barn Road, Wellingborough.

- 132 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/11/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description PS/2005/2979/ B Northampton Borough Council Construction of 1 no detached Cliftonville House house. APPROVED C Bedford Road

FP/2010/0955/ Mr Tom Daw Erection of a pair of semi-detached 77 Northampton Road houses. REJECTED Kettering Northants

PS/2010/1587/ A Northants County Council Single storey domestic extension. County Hall APPROVED PO Box 128 Northampton

FP/2010/1722/ A Mr and Mrs A Mason Proposed extension to existing 86 Northampton Road dwelling. APPROVED Earls Barton Northants

PS/2010/1747/ A South Northants Council First floor extension over garage. Springfields APPROVED C Towcester Northants - 133 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/11/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2010/1903/ Mr D Hobson Single storey rear extension. 109 Compton Way APPROVED C Earls Barton Northants

FP/2010/1945/ Mr and Mrs D Pettit Alterations and extensions. St Marys Road APPROVED Bozeat Wellingborough

PS/2010/1946/ Kettering Borough Council New School Hall with associated Municipal Offices store rooms, toilets, kitchen, plant APPROVED C Bowling Green Road room, circulation and external Kettering works. Conversion of existing small hall into classroom with store. Removal of temporary mobile classroom from playground and making good works.

FP/2010/1961/ Mr G Groves Single storey, pitched roof, side 38 Harvey Road extension to bungalow. APPROVED Wellingborough Northants

PS/2010/1962/ Northampton Borough Council The creation of two self contained The Guildhall flats. Flat 1 to span the ground floor APPROVED C St Giles Square and basement, Flat 3 to occupy the Northampton second floor with access at the first floor. A self contained flat already existing and has been passed on the first floor. - 134 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/11/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description PS/2010/1977/ East Northamptonshire Single storey rear extension. Council APPROVED Cedar Road Thrapston

PS/2010/1997/ Canterbury City Council First floor extension to bungalow. Military Road APPROVED Canterbury Kent

FP/2010/2032/ Print Data Solutions Limited Proposed internal alterations. 12 Regent Park APPROVED Booth Drive Park Farm Industrial Estate

PS/2010/2033/ Daventry District Council Two storey extension. Lodge Road APPROVED Daventry Northamptonshire

DI/2010/2036/ Lovell Partnerships Limited Disabled adaptations to existing Unit 10 Brunel Close bathroom to create shower room. ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants - 135 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/11/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description DI/2010/2037/ Lovell Partnerships Limited Disabled adaptations to existing Unit 10 Brunel Close bathroom to create shower room. ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

DI/2010/2040/ Lovell Partnerships Limited Disabled adaptations to existing Unit 10 Brunel Close bathroom to create shower room. ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

WI/2010/2041/ Marcin Bieda Domestic external door and window 17 Kenney Close replacement. ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

BN/2010/2042/ Sean L M Karley Insulate roof etc. 30 Harrowden Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

PS/2010/2043/ Corby Borough Council Foundations to evaporator D Grosvenor House building. APPROVED George Street Corby - 136 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/11/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2010/2056/ Mr J Walia Single storey flat roofed rear 38 Hardwick Road extension to bungalow. APPROVED Wellingborough

BN/2010/2058/ Mr R Speed Re-roofing of dwelling - like for like. 13 Leys Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2010/2059/ Ms P Merriman Knock through from lounge to 11 Shoemakers Close attached garage and conversion to ACCEPTED Earls Barton living accommodation.

FP/2010/2061/ Mr Ryan Samson Double storey rear extension with 37A Newcomen Road warm flat roof. Block and render. APPROVED Wellingborough

BN/2010/2063/ Hanif McIntosh Re-roofing. 77 Croyland Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough - 137 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/11/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2010/2064/ Mr W F Walker Installation of en-suite bathroom 6 Wellingborough Road within master bedroom. ACCEPTED Mears Ashby Wellingborough

BN/2010/2065/ Mr Edward Cushing Replacement rainwater gutter, 20 Dowthorpe End downpipe with soak-away, ACCEPTED Earls Barton courtyard manhole/gully, hollow and Wellingborough earth floors made solid with insulation. Gable repaired and painted. Additional w/c and shower on ground floor (Disabled adaptation).

BN/2010/2067/ Ajmal Khan Removing chimney breast at 7 Stanley Road address. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

DI/2010/2068/ Mr Pete Doran Modifications to bathroom. 2 Chaucer Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough

PS/2010/2069/ South Oxford District Council Alterations and extension. Benson Lane APPROVED Crowmarsh Gifford Wallingford - 138 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/11/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description DI/2010/2070/ Lovells Partnership Limited Disabled adaption's to existing Unit 10 bathroom to create 'shower room'. ACCEPTED Brunel Close Wellingborough

DI/2010/2071/ Lovells Partnership Limited Disabled adaption's to existing Unit 10 bathroom to create 'shower room'. ACCEPTED Brunel Close Wellingborough

DI/2010/2072/ Lovells Partnership Limited Disabled adaption's to existing Unit 10 bathroom to create 'shower room'. ACCEPTED Brunel Close Wellingborough

DI/2010/2073/ Lovells Partnership Limited Disabled adaption's to existing Unit 10 bathroom to create 'shower room'. ACCEPTED Brunel Close Wellingborough

DI/2010/2074/ Lovells Partnership Limited Disabled adaption's to existing Unit 10 bathroom to create 'shower room'. ACCEPTED Brunel Close Wellingborough - 139 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/11/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description DI/2010/2075/ Lovells Partnership Limited Disabled adaption's to existing Unit 10 bathroom to create 'shower room'. ACCEPTED Brunel Close Wellingborough

DI/2010/2077/ Mr J Wells L/A bathroom adaptation. 23 Hornby Road ACCEPTED Earls Barton Northants

DI/2010/2078/ Mr T Glasham L/A bathroom adaptation. 15 Roses Close ACCEPTED Wollaston Northants

BN/2010/2084/ Mr K A Rahman Rendering incl. thermal upgrade. 78 Stanley Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

BN/2010/2085/ Mr K A Rahman Rendering incl. thermal upgrade. 78 Stanley Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants - 140 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/11/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description WI/2010/2087/ Kate Jessup Replacement windows. 40a Fieldside ACCEPTED Wellingborough Road Mears Ashby

BN/2010/2088/ Stuart Hendry Conversion of existing commercial 67 - 69 High Street premises to dwelling. ACCEPTED Finedon Northants

BN/2010/2098/ M and L Stocker Proposed WC being installed into 20 Campbell Road present study room at the front of ACCEPTED Wellingborough the house. Northants

BN/2010/2104/ Garry Bonsall Smith Garage conversion from garage to 109 Station Road dining room. ACCEPTED Earls Barton Northants

BN/2010/2105/ Mrs Rebecca Parr To install a new double glazed 8 Northampton Road window into the side elevation of ACCEPTED Wellingborough the property. Northants - 141 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/11/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description WI/2010/2111/ Holmere Developments Patio doors installed to rear of Limited property. ACCEPTED Balmoral House Kettering Venture Park Kettering

BN/2010/2114/ Mr G Relph Fit two UPVC windows to offices. 2 Lyton Avenue ACCEPTED Northampton Northants

BN/2010/2115/ Mr W Alexander Removal of existing 330 Pier + 1 Stow Close INST of steel beams. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2010/2116/ Mr Jason Redding Creation of a direction connection 47 Mears Ashby Road of the house's foul drainage to the ACCEPTED Earls Barton Anglian Water sewer which runs approximately 5 metres beyond the rear boundary, in a farm field.

BN/2010/2118/ Mr Maloney Garage conversion. 22 Fosse Close ACCEPTED Wellingborough - 142 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/11/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2010/2119/ Adrian Powell Take out internal wall between 42 Gills Way kitchen and dining room. ACCEPTED Kingsthorpe Northampton

DI/2010/2121/ Mrs Annie Simpson L/A shower room conversion. 115 Stanwell Way ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

DI/2010/2130/ Mrs Walton Disabled adaptation (wet room). 40 Baker Crescent ACCEPTED Irchester Wellingborough

BN/2010/2132/ Mr George Shipman Strip roof, remove and rebatten, felt 29 Harrowden Road and retile roof, insulate roof space. ACCEPTED Wellingborough - 143 -

Received Appeals Appeal Site Ref. No. Date Status Received

R/o 60 Senwick Road, WP/2010/0090/OM 19/07/2010 Hearing set for 10am Wellingborough. 30/11/2010 at Swanspool House - Decision pending 1 Harrowick Lane, WP/2010/0092/O 29/06/2010 Appeal Site Visit made Earls Barton. 28/09/2010 – Decision pending

Garden land at WP/2010/0112/F 15/07/2010 Statement of case sent – 57 Hayden Avenue, Decision pending Finedon. 36 Compton Way, WP/2010/0041/F 17/08/2010 Appeal Site Visit made Earls Barton. 08/11/2010 – Decision pending

The Boot, WP/2010/0190/F 26/08/2010 Appeal Site Visit made 38 West Street, 12/11/2010 – Decision Earls Barton. pending

Land adj. 86 WP/2010/0217/F 08/09/2010 Statement of case sent – Northampton Road, Decision pending Earls Barton.

32 Thrift Street, WP/2009/0508/TX 22/09/2010 Statement of case sent – Irchester. Decision pending

Duke of York PH, WP/2010/0143/FM 24/09/2010 Statement of case sent – 159 Northampton Road, Awaiting Hearing Date Wellingborough.

46a Hatton Park Road, WP/2010/0333/F 29/09/2010 Statement of case sent – Wellingborough. Decision pending

27 Knox Road, WP/2010/0067/FM 11/11/2010 Awaiting Statement of (The Royal), case – Decision pending Wellingborough.

39 Brickhill Road, WP/2010/0314/F 24/11/2010 Awaiting Statement of Wellingborough. case – Decision pending