Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Committee Wednesday 13Th April 2011 at 7.00 Pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Committee Wednesday 13th April 2011 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

INDEX

Page No. SITE VIEWING GROUP

WP/2010/0451/F - Builders Yard, 3 Orchard Road, Finedon. 1 WP/2011/0070/F - 23 High Street, Great Doddington. 6 WP/2011/0071/CA - 23 High Street, Great Doddington. 12 WP/2011/0083/F - 33 Mackworth Drive, Finedon. 14 WP/2011/0089/F - 3 Fir Tree Grove, Bozeat. 23

DISTRICT

WP/2011/0050/TX - Sywell Aerodrome, Wellingborough Road, Sywell. 29 WP/2011/0059/F - Land rear of 113 Doddington Road, Earls Barton. 34 WP/20110069/RM - Land rear of 203 and 205 Wollaston Road, Irchester. 43 WP/2011/0073/FCOU - 3 Market Street, Wellingborough. 50 WP/2011/0087/C - Ruskin Infant School, Ruskin Avenue, Wellingborough. 60 WP/2011/0121/C - White Plant Recycling Centre, 301 Grendon Road, Earls Barton. 63

OTHER BOROUGH

WP/2011/0108/OB - Arable field at Cranford, Northamptonshire. 68

FOR INFORMATION

WP/2010/0475/C - Grendon Hall, 67 Main Road, Grendon. 72 WP/2010/0481/C - Sywell Range Gun Club, 300 Kettering Road, Sywell. 76

- 1 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 12th April 2011 at 12.20 p.m.)

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0451/F

PROPOSAL: Construction of 2 no. dwellings and associated parking.

LOCATION: Builders Yard, 3 Orchard Road, Finedon, Wellingborough. NN9 5JG

APPLICANT: Mr Brown, C/o Agent.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination because the Parish Council has requested a visit from the Site Viewing Group.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described.

The application site is located on part of the former gasworks site.

The submitted site layout plan illustrates a pair of semi-detached dwellings; however, the elevational plan depicts a single dwelling. The application site is defined by being edged in red, however, the status of the land to the rear of the proposed dwellings is not clear because it appears not be within the curtilage of either of the dwellings.

The above inaccuracies have been put to the applicant but no response to resolve the matters has been received.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2001/0635 2 no. adjoined town houses – refused.

The reason cited for the refusal is reproduced below –

“Sufficient information has not been supplied to the local planning authority to demonstrate that the contamination of the site can be adequately remediated to safeguard the future occupiers of the dwellinghouses.”

WP/2010/0451/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. when reproduced at A4 WP/2010/0451/F - Builders Yard, 3 Orchard Road, Finedon ± Licence No 100018694. (2010) - 2 -

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY, NATIONAL GUIDANCE AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy: 1 (Strengthening the network of Settlements) 9 (Distribution and location of development) 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 Annex 2: Development on Land Affected by Contamination 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 the road being very narrow and parking limited.

2. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority – returned the application with a pro forma sticker which refers this Council to its published highway standards. The Highway Authority also supplied a covering letter which made reference to aspects of the access design that need to be amended.

The County Highway Authority was notified of the concern expressed by the Parish Council and responded thus –

“I am still awaiting suitably amended plans to indicate the means of access and parking arrangements for this development and until then refusal is recommended on highway grounds as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not have a detrimental effect on highway safety and capacity. No doubt you will seek further details from the applicant when I shall be in a better position to consider the concerns of the Parish Council.”

3. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Protection Service –

“I write further to the previous comments upon the submitted Environmental Risk assessment for the site. The submitted report is inadequate in several respects including it sage and the fact that it does not specifically relate to the current proposal. Furthermore the standards required for risk assessment and the technical standards and methods have changed significantly since it was produced.

The previous use of the site as a gasworks has a significant potential for contamination and this matter needs to be addressed by the provision of an adequate environmental assessment prior to any approval being granted. As - 3 -

this information ha snot been forthcoming I would recommend that the application is refused.”

4. Neighbours – no comment received.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are:

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

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. And NNCSS policy 9 states that at least 30% of the overall housing requirements for North Northamptonshire are provided on previously developed land and buildings.

With regards to the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, Finedon is regarded 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 an adverse effect on the size, form character and setting of the village and its environs.

Upon the face of it, it can be seen from the above the general principle of residential development on the site could be acceptable; however, other more specific aspects of Policy G4 and other NNCSS policies with respect to its anticipated effects on highway safety, character and setting of the village, effect on neighbours and contamination 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.

The Highway Authority has been consulted and it clearly has concerns with the lack of detail that accompanies the application. The anxiety of the Highway Authority has been passed on to the applicant with a request that more information be supplied but to date no additional detail has been supplied.

It is suggested that this lack of detail to demonstrate how the proposal could be developed in a manner that would not be detrimental to highway safety be a reason for recommending the application for refusal.

- 4 -

Contamination There is no specific adopted core spatial strategy regarding sites that are known to be contaminated, so guidance on this issue has been sought from the Government’s Planning Policy Statement 23; Planning and Pollution Control Annex 2: Development on Land Affected by Contamination. It states in paragraph 2.60 that local planning authorities should refuse permission if it is not satisfied on the basis of the information provided by the applicant and that available from other sources, including the responses of those consulted, that the development would be appropriate.

The response of the Council’s Environmental Protection Service is unequivocal in its opinion that the proposed development should be refused due to the deficiencies in the submitted Environmental Risk Assessment which does not adequate address the issue of how this contaminated site can be safely remediated.

The site which was once a gasworks and the lack of information about how it could be safely developed is considered to be a reason for recommending the application for refusal.

Crime and disorder There are no pertinent crime and disorder issues to consider.

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

Effect on visual amenity and character of the area Effect on neighbours’ amenities The effect of the development on the visual amenity and character of the area and the effect on the neighbours’ amenities cannot be accurately judged due to the paucity of detail in the submitted plans.

Conclusion It can be seen from the above that the applicant has failed to supply adequate information to addresses a number of key issues and the proposal is therefore, recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the reasons set out below.

1. The proposal is contrary to Policies 13 (d) and (n) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy because the applicant has not supplied adequate information to indicate the means of access and parking arrangements for this development to demonstrate that it would not have a detrimental effect on highway safety and capacity. 2. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Planning Policy Statement 23; Planning and Pollution Control Annex 2: Development on Land Affected by Contamination because the submitted Environmental Risk Assessment is inadequate. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy because the applicant has not supplied adequate information to - 5 -

indicate how the proposed development would affect the character and appearance of the area. 4. The proposal is contrary to Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy because the applicant has not supplied adequate information to indicate how the proposed development would affect the standard of amenities currently enjoyed by the surrounding residential occupiers.

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:

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

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;

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

- 6 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 12th April 2011 at 11.00 a.m.)

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0070/F

PROPOSAL: Erection of a low level semi-subterranean two storey new build dwelling, including the demolition of two small outbuildings.

LOCATION: 23 High Street, Great Doddington, Wellingborough. NN29 7TQ

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Sam & Pete Cunningham.

Members’ Site Viewing requested by the Parish Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: It is proposed to build a single dwelling-house on vacant garden land in Great Doddington High Street. The site has been the subject of previous schemes, initially refused but latterly approved by Committee for two detached units.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2009/370/F Terrace of 3 houses - refused. WP/2009/387/CA Demolition of front wall - refused. WP/2009/497/CA Re-build front wall - approved. WP/2009/498/F 2 detached houses - approved. WP/2010/393/F Extension to no. 23 - approved. WP/2010/394/CA Part-demolition of front boundary wall - approved.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National PPS 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 3 - Housing PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS 5 – Planning for the Historic Environment PPG 13 – Transport North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 – Delivering Sustainable Development Principles Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan G4 – Development within limited development and restricted villages Supplementary Planning Guidance: Parking; Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire; Building Better Places WP/2011/0070/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. ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) WP/2011/0070/F - 23 High Street, Great Doddington - 7 -

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Parish Council. Objects on basis of overdevelopment of the site; loss of valley views from the High Street; architectural appearance, particularly the roof design and materials, would not be in keeping with the village Conservation Area Character Appraisal.

2. County Archaeologist - investigation/recording Condition to be attached to planning permission. 3. County Highways - no objections – standard ticket response.

4. OPUN, the Architecture and Built Environment Centre in the East Midlands (Summary of response) -

“The proposed use and amount of development of the site for one residential dwelling would appear acceptable and in line with the wider setting of the Great Doddington conservation area. The dwelling will impact on parts of the south- easterly views over the River Nene Valley.

The proposed design responds logically to the setting of the sloping site and the south-easterly long distance views, and the concept of a half-sunk house works well, as the dwelling has only a small visual presence in the street scene.”

5. Third Parties - 7 objections received relating to design out of keeping (5), visual intrusion (6), traffic hazard/access vision splay inadequate (2) and blocking of valley views from the High Street (3). [Figures in brackets give incidence of issue being raised by respondents].

One respondent suggested amending the garage position/design to increase valley views, saying that the low building design of the house itself is not overbearing in the street scene and also that the large expanse of wall will be beneficially broken up by judicious use of vegetation using zinc planters.

ASSESSMENT: Introduction Contemporary adverse reaction to novelty in the built environment is a truism which is shared by other art forms such as music and the performing arts. We now view historic radical changes in building tradition, such as the onset of Gothic at Canterbury in the 12th century, the importing of European classicism in the post-mediaeval period and the colourful rhythms of Victorianism in the 19th century with equanimity and indeed pleasure, whereas these developments at the time were often rejected by the public and somehow seen as “wrong”.

In the case of the present proposed development, therefore, it is important to properly differentiate between objective material planning considerations and other issues related to subjective taste and attitudes towards architectural style.

Material Considerations Relating to Design and Appearance These are as follows -

- 8 -

Design characteristics As the building is set back from the front boundary, on a slope and behind the (re- positioned) stone wall, it will present a restrained massing in the street scene and will not detract from the existing vernacular cottages opposite.

On a vertical plane the front elevation is consciously designed to break up the linearity of the building block to better reflect traditional unit-widths locally. This is complemented in plan by the expressing of “advancement and recession” (i.e. an irregular building line) which is noted as occurring locally in the Conservation Area Character Appraisal for the village, published/adopted in November 2002.

Materials The road elevation is to be traditional stone-faced and will create a barn-like appearance. In contrast, the rear elevation overlooking the valley will be glazed in a contemporary style in special anti-reflective glass. The roof is in a metal of dark matt- grey appearance, which will be light-absorbent rather than light-reflective.

Eco-Carbon Renewables The scheme aims at Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5. This would be achieved by use of various designed-in technologies such as a ground-source heat pump, fabric insulation, rainwater harvesting and low-energy lighting and ventilation systems.

Amendment to Garage Block The suggestion made by a local resident responding to consultation, noted above, that the garage block removed an important flank view of the Nene Valley has been accepted by officers and the applicant. Amended plans, which will show the garage removed or re-modelled to obviate this problem, are awaited at present and the results of the re-consultation exercise will be reported to Committee verbally as Late Letters. The amended plans will also show for the Committee’s consideration the extended no. 23 on the left-hand side, thereby giving a more realistic picture of the finally-intended street-scene.

Other Material Considerations The safety of the access has been questioned. However, the access design is similar to that of the previously approved scheme under reference WP/09/498/F and both were confirmed as acceptable by the Highway Authority.

Conclusion The Parish Council and the Third Party objectors are unhappy about the apparent incongruity of the scheme in this traditional environment. But the officer view is that if a more inclusive definition of conservation as “the management of change” (i.e. as opposed to a more preservationist approach) is taken, then additions or modifications to the built environment within conservation areas do not necessarily have to adopt the historicist style of the existing consent for this site (reference WP/2009/498/F). Provided it meets the normal parameters of scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and use as set out in Government guidance PPS5 Policy HE7.5, development can validly be in an architecturally contrasting style, as in the instant case.

In material terms, therefore, it is suggested that the proposed development is successful in achieving a respectful street-presence (i.e. low massing), its front - 9 -

elevational appearance creates visual interest and avoids excessive appearance of “linearity” through careful detailing of form, and the rear elevation, whilst clearly contrasting with the existing neighbouring built form, is restrained both in terms of height and reflectivity. Schemes like this using high-quality long-lasting modern materials are considered to form part of a new 21st century vernacular that will be viewed positively as a valid architectural response by future generations, rather in the manner of the examples given in the introduction to the Assessment, above. In particular, the building’s design is predicated on issues of responses to climate change and carbon-neutrality, and it is proper for this to be honestly expressed in contemporary architecture.

This conclusion is corroborated by OPUN the East Midlands Architectural Centre which was asked to make an independent appraisal of the scheme.

It is considered that the (pending) amendments to the garage positioning/design will allow retention of reasonable views into the Nene Valley from the High Street, thereby adequately addressing the issue raised in the Conservation Area Character Appraisal.

On the basis, therefore, that the proposed development in fact makes a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the village conservation area, thereby passing the test in PPS5, and that there are no other prejudicial material planning considerations which impact upon the scheme, it is duly recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant full conditional planning permission.

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 for the written consent of the local planning authority. 3. Full details of the following items shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development and thereafter implemented accordingly: (i) a sample panel of the stonework to be erected on site; (ii) hard-surfacing/circulation space - permeable system required; (iii) doors/windows; (iv) boundary screening. 4. The stonework shall be laid in level courses to match the local vernacular with a mortar mix comprising hydraulic lime and well-graded sharp sand to a ratio of 1:3 by volume and with the mortar brushed back to the back arrises of the stonework whilst still green. 5. The driveway shall be 4.5m wide for a distance of 10m from the highway boundary and at least the first 5m from the public highway shall be hard-paved. 6. The vehicular crossing shall be widened, all highway surfaces over the frontage of the site made good and the footway widened and dedicated as highway maintainable at public expense subject to an appropriate agreement, all in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council. 7. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance - 10 -

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 or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (or as amended), no garages, sheds or other buildings shall be erected without express planning permission. 9. A scheme for the assessment of possible archaeological remains within the site, incorporating all necessary observational and investigative procedures, shall be submitted for the written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall meet the requirements of the Northamptonshire County Council Archaeological Service in full.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. To preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 3. To preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area; in the interests of environmental sustainability; and to safeguard neighbours' amenities. 4. To preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 5. In the interests of highway safety. 6. In the interests of highway safety. 7. In the interests of amenity. 8. In the interests of amenity. 9. To protect and record any archaeological remains in the site.

Drawing Numbers Date Received: 1398.02.11 - 18 24.02.2011 4. Public Health Act 1875 Town Improvement Clauses Act 1847, S64. Prior to occupation of the premises the street number shall be agreed with the Council. Once issued, the number must be clearly displayed on the outside of the property. Application forms for this purpose are available at www.wellingborough.gov.uk 5. The applicant is advised that there are likely to be close subsoils immediately below the surface of the site which may impinge on the functioning of soakaways with regard to peripheral flooding to the south. It is therefore recommended that the Environment Agency's Standing Advice on good practice, principles and standards (PPS25 FRSA (national) version 2.0) is fully adhered to in the design, construction and ongoing maintenance of the development. - 12 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 12th April 2011 at 11.00 a.m.)

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0071/CA

PROPOSAL: Alterations to front wall demolition and reconstruction with original stone (Application for Conservation Area Consent).

LOCATION: 23 High Street, Great Doddington, Wellingborough. NN29 7TQ

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Sam & Pete Cunningham.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: In order to provide convenient and safe vehicular access to a proposed development site in Great Doddington High Street, it is proposed to take down the frontage stone wall and rebuild it using the same materials on an improved alignment. Whilst the substantive development scheme is dealt with in the concurrent report on this Agenda, reference WP/2011/0071/F, separate Conservation Area Consent is required for the alteration of a conservation area wall over 1 metre in height.

A similar scheme to alter this wall was approved by Committee in 2009 in respect of the previously approved development scheme at this site (reference WP/09/497/CA).

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2009/0370/F Terrace of 3 houses - refused. WP/2009/0387/CA Demolition of front wall - refused. WP/2009/0497/CA Re-build front wall - approved. WP/2009/0498/F 2 detached houses - approved. WP/2010/0393/F Extension to no. 23 - approved. WP/2010/0394/CA Part-demolition of front boundary wall - approved.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13. PPS5.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: None.

WP/2011/0071/CA

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. ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) WP/2011/0071/CA - 23 High Street, Great Doddington - 13 -

ASSESSMENT: The stretch of wall at issue appears to have been subject to episodes of rebuilding latterly, possibly around the turn of the 20th century or perhaps a little earlier. In these circumstances, it appears appropriate to agree a careful re-alignment of the wall and the enlargement of the existing access. The proposed works would facilitate a development scheme which will itself serve to reinforce the character and appearance of the village conservation area. Also, on a functional level, the widened footway will be of benefit to pedestrians.

The overall conservation assessment, therefore, is that as a part of the development scheme the alterations to the walling are in fact beneficial to the street scene and can be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conservation Area Consent.

1. The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent. 2. The quantum of stone comprising the existing wall shall be carefully dismantled and stored for re-use in building the re-aligned wall. 3. A specification for coursing, pointing and capping shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority prior to the commencement of work.

Reasons: 1. In order to comply with Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 2. To protect the character of the designated conservation area. 3. To protect the character of the designated conservation area.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: Drawings no. 254-P2-SK1; 02 24.02.2011 - 14 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 12th April 2011 at 12.00 noon)

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0083/F

PROPOSAL: Extension and conversion of garage to a play/utility room - re-submission following withdrawn application WP/2010/0442/F.

LOCATION: 33 Mackworth Drive, Finedon, Wellingborough. NN9 5NL

APPLICANT: Mr M Patrick.

This application has been brought before the Planning Committee at the request of the Parish Council due to overdevelopment and the proximity of the development to the Conservation Area. The Parish Council has requested a site visit.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The scheme entails two interdependent parts. The first part consists of extending the roof and front elevation of the existing garage/utility room at the side of the property into a two storey extension with the ground floor and first floor becoming habitable rooms. The second part is the erection of a single storey detached double garage, positioned forward of the principal, highway facing, elevation of the main house. To compensate for the loss of on-site parking, this proposal also includes the provision of a hard surfaced parking area on the site’s front garden.

The site is located at the end of Mackworth Drive at a point where Mackworth Drive continues, around a bend, into Dolben Close. 33 Mackworth Drive is situated in the western most area of the Limited Development Village of Finedon and is on the outer boundary of the designated Conservation Area. Immediately to the west and east of the site are the Grade II listed buildings of the Ice House Tower, Finedon Hall and Museum/Bell Tower.

The development site is part of an established residential development constructed circa 1970s whose character is of large detached chalet style homes, with garages not forward of the principle forward building line, set within generous curtilages which provide open front gardens. The stretch of Mackworth Drive from, and including, the application site to no. 24 Mackworth Drive has a predominate appearance of a open and spacious road with aspects on either side of large open front gardens relatively uncluttered by mature trees. The layout of the development with such expansive front WP/2011/0083/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 Licence No 100018694. (2010) WP/2011/0083/F - 33 Mackworth Drive, Finedon - 15 -

gardens creates a vista down along Mackworth Drive to the application site of an open view devoid of buildings intruding into the field of view.

It should be noted that an earlier scheme (planning reference: WP/2010/0442/F) was withdrawn on officer advice. This latest proposal only differs from the withdrawn scheme by the proposed double garage being one storey as opposed to a one-and-half storey, dormered double garage with a play room above.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WU/1971/0160 Change of use to Residential Country Club with ancillary garaging etc – approved. WU/1972/0219 Site for residential development, use of hall as arts centre and conversion of stables into 4 dwellings – refused. BW/1974/0284 Site for the erection of detached dwellinghouse – non-determination. BW/1974/0285 Site for the erection of detached dwellinghouse – non-determination. BW/1974/0286 Site for the erection of detached dwellinghouse – non-determination. BW/1974/0287 Site for the erection of detached dwellinghouse – non-determination. BW/1974/0288 Site for the erection of detached dwellinghouse – non-determination. BW/1974/0289 Site for the erection of detached dwellinghouse – non-determination. BW/1976/0077 Demolition of entire hall and outbuildings – refused. BW/1976/0078 Conversion of the existing hall and outbuildings into 30 flats and the erection of 40 flats in the grounds including the demolition of the listed gateway arch and its re-erection – approved. BW/1976/0079 Proposed demolition of the entire hall and the outbuildings and the erection of 70 houses and flats – refused. BW/1976/0952 Conversion of Hall to Antiques Centre with 3 flats and Stable Block into 8 houses. Erection of 25 houses in grounds and conversion of Ice Tower into house including alterations to existing access to Station Road affecting the listed gateway arch. (Section 52 Agreement) – approved. BW/1977/0950 Residential development comprising of 25 detached houses with double garages – withdrawn. BW/1978/0424 Residential development comprising of 25 chalet bungalows with double garages together with roads and foul/surface water drainage arrangements within grounds – approved. WP/1999/0361 Convert existing garage to study and build new garage – withdrawn. WP/2010/0442/F Extension and garage – withdrawn.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Regional Spatial Strategy 8 – East Midlands 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) - 16 -

Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: G4 (Development within the limited development and restricted infill villages) Supplementary Planning Guidance II: Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance IV: Planning Out Crime Supplementary Planning Document: Sustainable Design

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Neighbours – one letter of objection was received expressing the following views:

“I must admit when I received your earlier letter relating to the proposed planning I was delighted. Thinking it would mean they proposed to use the garage to park their cars. Alas, the new proposal will probably mean more cars (the visitors etc., to play table tennis). So I am not very happy.

Not wanting to cause neighbourly troubles – I suppose I will have to put up with it, unhappy though I am.”

A second and independent, neighbour responded with no objection, providing there is no window to the side of the property that would overlook their property.

2. Northamptonshire County Council Highways Authority - has returned the application with a pro forma sticker which advises “To ensure that highway safety is maintained, this authority recommends to the planning authority that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document ‘Highway Authority Standing Advice’ be applied to this planning application.”

3. Wellingborough Council Design and Conservation Officer – “As my main issue with the earlier scheme was the two-storey garage block, I confirm that I have no objection on conservation grounds to the present submitted scheme.”

4. Finedon Parish Council – The Clerk to the Parish Council has spoken with the [Parish] Councillors and they [the Parish Councillors] would like to request a site viewing of the property. They are requesting the site viewing due to overdevelopment and the location being near to a conservation area.

5. English Heritage – “Our specialist staff have considered the information received and we do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion. Recommendation – The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.”

ASSESSMENT: Main Issues and Material Planning Considerations:

• Policy issues and SPG/SPD • Highway safety, access and parking • Impact on Neighbour’s Amenities • Impact on the Street Scene, Character and Appearance of the area • Impact on Conservation Area and Listed Buildings • Crime and Disorder - 17 -

• Other considerations

Policy issues and SPG/SPD Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and SPD on Sustainable Design require new development to be of a high standard of design, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings, and conserve and enhance the historic landscape designated built environmental assets and their settings. Planning Policy Statement 7 (Rural Areas) places emphasis upon planning authorities (paragraph 12) to ensure that development, in villages of considerable historic and architectural value, respects and, where possible, enhances these particular qualities. Planning Policy Statement 5 (Historic Environment) sets out the national government’s stance with regards to the impact new development may have upon the historic environment and the heritage assets (which includes conservation areas and listed buildings) of a locality. It states (paragraph HE7.5) that local planning authorities should take into account the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment. The consideration of design should include scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and use.

With regards to the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, Wollaston 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.

With specific reference to Policy G4, it is considered that the development proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character and setting of the village or its wider environs by virtue of the fact that the scheme for a one storey double garage, forward of the prevailing front building line, is sympathetically designed in appearance, layout and massing to complement the principle building, is partially set below existing ground levels and forms an end of street feature which is opined to augment the estate’s natural development boundary as observed towards the end of Holly Walk.

It is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the street scene and the settings of the conservation area and listed building, this proposition and relationship to the prevailing policies is discussed in more depth in the following material matters sections of this report.

Highway safety, access and parking Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that new development should provide a satisfactory means of access and 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 comments received from the Highway Authority regarding the means of access and parking situation suggest that the proposed means of access and parking arrangements do not pose an adverse impact providing that appropriate conditions are included with any planning permission that may be forthcoming if the application were to be recommended for approval.

- 18 -

Consequently, there are no highway safety, access or parking reasons why this development proposal should be refused.

Impact 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.

As stated above the scheme entails two interdependent parts. The first part consists of extending the roof and front elevation of the existing garage/utility room at the side of the property into a two storey extension with the ground floor and first floor becoming habitable rooms. No windows are proposed in the extension’s first floor flank wall. The second part is the erection of a single storey detached double garage, with associated on-site parking, positioned forward of the principle, highway facing, elevation of the main house. The two principle neighbours whose amenities may be affected by this development is the property to the (southern) side of the application site, known as no. 2 Finedon Hall, Mackworth Drive, and the property known as no. 30 Mackworth Drive which is directly to the front of the application site. As stated above the occupier of no.30 objects to the scheme, whereas the occupier of no. 2 supports the scheme, providing there are no windows to the side.

The proposed development would be, at its closest point, in excess of 20m from the side elevation of no. 2 Finedon Hall. The property boundary between this property and the application site consists of a substantial mature hedge and wooden fence which is estimated to be at least 2 metres in height. The separation distance and the existing screening effect of the boundary hedge/wall between the development proposal and the affected neighbour are deemed to be of such depth and size to more than adequately prevent any impact on the neighbour’s amenities. Furthermore, the proposed side extension does not include any windows in its flank wall, thereby alleviating any concerns with regard to privacy or overlooking.

With regard to the proposed single storey detached double garage positioned prominently beyond the front building line the outlook afforded to no. 30 Mackworth Drive will undoubtedly be affected. The occupier of this affected property has objected to the application, expressing the view that the development will cause an increase in traffic and parked vehicles. There is no evidence submitted with the application to support this cavil claim. Whilst this response is noted and a small degree of weight is attached to this material consideration, it is opined that the scheme would not be detrimental to the neighbour’s amenities. Equally, some weight should also be apportioned to the fact that the north-west elevation, facing out onto the public highway, of the proposed garage will be brick faced with no fenestration. The impact, from the perspective of the public interest, of this elevation on the street scene will be addressed in more detail later in this report. At this conjecture, the impact of the development is assessed from a private interest perspective. Whether this development harms the amenities (outlook) of a neighbour can often be a subjective matter dependant upon the disposition of the affected party. In this instance private amenity harm is judged to be slight due to the distance between the proposal and the neighbouring property.

The proposed development is, therefore, considered not to be contrary to Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. - 19 -

Impact on the Street Scene, Character and Appearance of the Area The proposed roof and front wall extension to the principle building, when considered in isolation to the proposed garage to the front, does not present a detrimental impact to the prevailing street scene, as its design is adjudged to be sympathetic to and assimilates well into the existing built form. However, the proposed double garage is judged to be an alien and incongruous built form, protruding into the street scene. The prevailing character and appearance of Mackworth Drive and the wider development (Dolben Close and Holly Walk) of which it is inherently apart, is of large chalet style detached two storey dwelling houses predominately including attached garages, set in large curtilages with generous front gardens. With the sole exception of no. 12 Holly Walk, all properties have been laid out to ensure that there are no buildings forward of the front elevation building lines. The resultant effect of these characteristics is to create a residential area of an open and expansive nature with a preponderance of front garden space.

The proposed double garage represents a highly visible intrusion into the prevailing street scene by virtue of the fact that it would be the only feature of its kind (along Mackworth Drive) and is located along a stretch of road where views along it have a wide angle of view. It would also be noticeably forward of the well established and preserved building line and impacts upon the local setting of the area from a public interest perspective. Reference was made early to no. 12 Holly Walk. At this property there is a detached double garage forward of the front elevation of the dwelling house. However, this garage was planned as a part of the whole development which gained consent in the late 1970s and is of single storey flat roof design. It is also positioned at the very end of the Holly Walk cul-de-sac, and does not protrude into the street scene in such a dramatic fashion as this proposal does because the views onto it from along Holly Walk are largely screened by the mature avenue of trees which run along both sides of Holly Walk. The proposed garage is more visible in the street scene due to its more open street views and because the road it is situated on runs on into Dolben Close and is therefore not hidden at the end of a cul-de-sac.

Worthy of note is that a near identical scheme for 33 Mackworth Drive was submitted in 1999 (reference WP/1999/0361), however, this scheme was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant and the planning history does not provide any correspondence as to the reasons why. An assumption is drawn by the author that the scheme was withdrawn because it is likely that it was being deemed to be unacceptable in planning terms, as it is reasonable to assume that this is the most plausible reason why planning applications are withdrawn.

In contrast to the preceding comments, weight is also given to the facts that this is a revised scheme to the one which was withdrawn (WP/2010/0442/F) and its siting is considered to augment the estate’s natural development boundary as in the case of the detached garage, forward of the building line observed towards the end of Holly Walk. The revised scheme has reduced the ridge height from 6.3m to 5m, when measured from ground level on the south-west elevation. The scheme has also removed the upper floor and dormer from the north-west elevation. Whilst the proposed garage would still be clearly visible in the street scene, its reduced height and massing are judged to be respectful of the wider appearance and character of the area. The views (looking in a south east direction) along Mackworth Drive onto the north-west (front) - 20 - elevation are partially constrained be the trees within the front gardens. The location of the proposed garage is such that it would serve as an ‘end-stop’ to the row of properties along this stretch of public highway, which is currently what the boundary hedge between the application site and no. 2 Finedon Hall appears to provide. The sense of a natural end to the built form along Mackworth Drive, before the road turns sharp right into Dolben Close, would be punctuated by this scheme and not to be an incongruous form or addition.

The blank wall of the proposed garage’s south-west elevation is thought to be wanting in architectural detail, and it is considered reasonable to request by way of planning condition, if approved, that details be submitted which would include the introduction of some fenestration to this wall to improve its appearance from a public vantage point.

For the reasons set out above the proposed scheme is held to be a well proportioned which is in keeping with the character and appearance of the wider area, in scale with the principle building and not injurious to the street scene and, therefore, is not considered to be contrary to Policy 13 (h) and (l) of the Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy G4 of the Wellingborough Local Plan.

Impact on Conservation Area and Listed Buildings The proposed development site adjoins the Conservation Area boundary of the village and is in close proximity of the following Grade II listed buildings:

• Ice House Tower (7/30) • Finedon Hall (7/35) • Museum Tower, Bell Tower and attached buildings and wall and The Old Chapel, Finedon Hall, and attached wall (7/36)

To ascertain whether the settings of these heritage assets would be harmed by the development proposal, consultations were carried out with English Heritage and Wellingborough Council’s Design and Conservation Officer.

English Heritage did not object and advised that their specialist staff have considered the information received and do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion. Their recommendation being; the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your [Wellingborough’s] specialist conservation advice.

The in-house expert advice of this Council’s Design and Conservation Officer was sought, in accordance with the guidance contained in PPS5, and the conclusion offered was that the submitted scheme evidence was not found to have a detrimental impact on the setting of the conservation area or listed buildings.

Policy 13 (o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that development should conserve and enhance the designated built environment assets and their settings. Based upon the reasons set out above, then this development is not found to be contrary to Policy 13 (o).

- 21 -

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.

No pertinent crime and disorder issues have been identified within the scope of the application.

Other Considerations The biodiversity is unaffected and the development does not result in an increased potential for crime and the principles of non-discrimination have been followed throughout.

Conclusion The application is approved subject to appropriate 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 external walls and roof of the extension shall be constructed with materials of the same type, texture and colour as the external walls and roof of the existing building. 3. The areas shown for parking and turning on the approved plans shall be laid out and surfaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the premises are occupied and shall be permanently set aside and reserved for the purpose. 4. Before the development commences details of the appearance of the south-west elevation of the permitted garage shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The development shall be carried out in accord with the approved details. 5. The hard standing area set aside for parking and turning on the development site shall be drained such that surface water is not discharged onto the public highway or into storm water drains. The outfall from such drainage shall be contained within the curtilage boundary of the property and shall be permanently maintained as such.

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 users of the adjoining highway/s. 4. In the interest of visual amenity - 22 -

5. In the interest of highway safety and to mitigate against additional storm water being discharged into controlled waters.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 12th April 2011 at 10.15 a.m.)

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0089/F

PROPOSAL: First floor side extension over existing garage.

LOCATION: 3 Fir Tree Grove, Bozeat, Wellingborough. NN29 7NQ

APPLICANT: Mr Les Jennings.

This planning application comes before the planning committee for determination because Bozeat Parish Council have requested a Members site visit.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above.

Planning permission is being sought to extend the property to the side with a first floor extension over the existing garage. The proposal also includes the replacement of the flat roof of the front porch with a two-sloped pitched roof. An earlier scheme (planning reference: WP/2011/0005/F) was submitted and subsequently withdrawn on officer recommendation.

The semi-detached property forms part of an established development of detached and semi-detached residential dwellings, constructed circa 1960/70s, which are non-uniform in appearance. The properties along Fir Tree Grove are two storeys, with the exception of nos. 1 and 2 Fir Tree Grove, which are semi-detached bungalows. It is located on the northern side of Fir Tree Grove, situated in the southern area of the village. The site is generally flat with a very slight rise in levels up towards the highway.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2011/0005 1st floor extension over existing garage involving alterations to the roof of the existing rear extension - withdrawn BW/1981/0809 Front porch - approved WR/1970/0101 Extension to Southfield Estate - approved WR/1967/0205 Residential development – approved

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas WP/2011/0089/F

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy: Policy 13: General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14: Energy efficiency and sustainable construction Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4: Limited Development and Restricted Infill Villages Supplementary Planning Guidance II: Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance IV: Planning Out Crime Supplementary Planning Document: Sustainable Design

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Bozeat Parish Council –

“The Parish Council has reviewed the revised plans for this extension (dated 8 March 2011). We note and welcome that fact that the side window has been removed from the revised plan. However, the plans still do not reflect the fact that there is a conservatory built onto 2 Fir Tree Grove which is less than nine metres from the boundary of the proposed extension. We would also like to suggest that the extension has a hip-end roof to reduce the impact of the extension in the neighbouring property. I believe that the Parish Council would still welcome a site visit.”

3. Neighbours – the occupiers of nos. 2, 4 and 6 Fir Tree Grove have objected to the proposal and cite the following reasons:

No. 2 Fir Tree Grove -

“We have just received notification of the above planned works to No. 3 Fir Tree Grove and having seen the revised plans, we are still somewhat concerned about the impact thereof. The property concerned is at the back of our bungalow, at the end of our garden. We would like to re-register our objections for the following reasons.

• The plans are not correct; there is an omission. We have a conservatory on the back of our house built on to the room we use as the living room. The conservatory was already in existence when we moved in. This is NOT shown on the plans. The distance of the proposed extension from our conservatory is less than 9 Metres. • It would dominate the rear garden and thus impact on leisure activities imparting a claustrophobic feeling to the area by restricting the available light. • We are also somewhat concerned about the possible detrimental effect on the parking congestion in this small cul-de-sac that the resultant extra on street parking of a four bedroom house could cause. Cars are habitually - 25 -

parked with one side on the pavement and at the weekend there is a possibility of restricted access to emergency vehicles. • Could this possibly be over-development of our small close?”

No. 4 Fir Tree Grove -

“We would like to object to the planning application. It is not in keeping with the area and will probably encourage more on-street parking.”

No. 6 Fir Tree Grove -

“We would like to object to the planning application. It would spoil our view and is out of character with the immediate area.”

ASSESSMENT: Main Issues and Material Planning Considerations:

• Compliance with policy and SPG/SPD • Highway safety, access and parking • Impact on Neighbour’s Amenities • Impact on the character and appearance of the area • Crime and Disorder • Biodiversity • Other considerations

Compliance with policy and SPG/SPD With regards to the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, Bozeat 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. Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) echoes the thrust of Policy G4 as it requires development should NOT result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties by reason of loss of light or overlooking. Whilst the scheme is not considered to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the village taken as a whole, the scheme is opined to be detrimental to its local setting and the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Whilst the proposal appears to meet the guidance criteria for front and side extensions set and the 45 and 60 degree line tests (under the ‘Effects on Neighbours’ section) set out in this Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance II (Residential Extensions), by reason that the walls and roof slopes are set back and steeped down from the principle building’s walls and roof slopes, it is contested that the proposal fails to meet the guiding principals of SPG II. Primarily, the separation gap between nos. 2 and 3 Fir Tree Grove will be greatly enforced by the upper floor extension, whilst not creating a terracing effect; it would adversely affect the neighbour’s outlook.

It is therefore thought that this proposal is contrary to Policy 13 of the NNCSS and Policy G4 of the Local Plan. However, other more specific aspects of policy in relation to the current application are examined below. - 26 -

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 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 thought to be at least one off road car parking space in the proposed scheme, which upon the face of it, is not contrary to the content of the Parking SPG.

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.

Impact on neighbour’s 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,

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 extension is for a first storey above an existing garage to the property’s western side. The proposal does not include any windows in the first floor side elevation, thereby eliminating any loss of privacy to the occupiers of nos. 1 and 2 Fir Tree Grove. The scheme does include a first floor window on its rear wall, however, this window is to be obscurely glazed and to serve light to the proposed bathroom. Consequently, no privacy issues, in relation to neighbouring properties, are indentified.

The side elevation of 3 Fir Tree Grove faces the rear elevation of the single storey property known as 2 Fir Tree Grove. The distance from the habitable ground floor window of no. 2 Fir Tree Grove’ rear elevation to the proposed extension’s side elevation is approximated to be less than 9.5m at its closest point. Whilst a rear garden depth of 10m is commonly held to be sufficient to provide adequate amenity space and - 27 -

to litigate against loss of light and overbearing impacts of developments, the site specific characteristics are opined to be of sufficient weight to refuse planning permission. These site specific characteristics which are of importance are discussed in more depth below.

The sense of enclosure and the harmful impact upon the outlook of the residents is caused by the overbearing presence of the proposed first floor side wall which will be at a distance of 9.5m from the affected property’s rear wall. The eaves of the extension’s wall will extend to a height of 5.2m, which is approximately 2.9m higher than the existing garage’s roof height. The final roof ridge height of this gable end will be in the order of 7.2m above ground level. The sense of enclosure and overbearing presence of the extension is compounded by the fact that no. 2 Fir Tree Grove is a single storey dwelling, with a rear conservatory and single detached garage within its rear garden, which is between the development and no. 2 Fir Tree Grove’s rear elevation.

It is therefore considered that the living conditions of the occupiers of no. 2 Fir Tree Grove will be detrimentally harmed by this proposal and the application be reused as it is found to be contrary to Policies G4 and 13 (l) cited above.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Property and the Street scene 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. Local Plan Policy G4 also requires new development to respect the surrounding style. 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.

The proposed side extension is a subservient addition to the original building by way of its front/rear elevations being stepped back from the existing elevations and its roof slopes being at a lower height to the original roof slopes. Whilst an extension of this nature will create a new addition to the street scene, consideration is apportioned to the fact that two other properties along Fir Tree Grove (nos. 8 and 14) were granted planning permission for a three storey side/rear and a two storey side extension. Due to the proposal’s massing, layout and stepped wall and roof design, it is considered that it is in accordance with the assailant criteria found within SPG II pertinent to a development’s impact upon the street scene. It is not considered that the proposal would harm the street scene of Fir Tree Grove.

In light of the above environmental and situational factors the proposed extension is acceptable in this particular case and therefore is not considered harmful to the character and appearance of the street.

extension is thought to enhance the rear security of the property, and those to its rear, as this would increase the level of natural surveillance.

No pertinent crime and disorder issues have been identified within the scope of the application.

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

Response to letters of representation Issues relating to light, parking and character have been addressed earlier in this report. With regard to loss of view, it is not considered that this matter is relevant to the occupiers of no. 6 Fir Tree Grove due to their distance from the proposal. Matters relating to outlook, have been considered above.

Conclusion On balance the proposal has a harmful effect on neighbours’ amenities. The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following reasons:

1. The proposed side extension would, by reason of its siting, layout, massing and close proximity to no. 2 Fir Tree Grove, detrimentally affect the outlook of the occupiers from their rear windows and rear amenity space and would be contrary to Policy 13 (l) 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: B 159 / A 2nd March 2011

- 29 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0050/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/2008/0053/FM - Erection of two linked aviation buildings including aviation HQ, exhibition blister hangar, access road, gate/walling, car park and landscaping.

LOCATION: Sywell Aerodrome, Wellingborough Road, Sywell, Northampton. NN6 0BT

APPLICANT: Sywell Aerodrome Limited.

Application is to be considered by Committee because of objection from Sywell Parish Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described. The proposal is for a series of linked ‘aviation buildings’ with a gross internal floor space totalling 1247m2. Adjoining the proposed Blister Hangar that has already been granted planning permission (WP/2002/0673/F), development will be linked by a covered pedestrian corridor to the existing museum and proposed museum extension. The different elements of the proposal include a 2 storey office block with associated hangar and a separate Blister Hangar – with similar dimensions to that already approved at the adjacent site (WP/2002/0673/F). A car park, landscaping elements and the construction of a new access point and road are also proposed.

The application site forms part of the periphery of the existing open grassland landing strip. A substantial hedge divides the application site from Wellingborough Road along the south-eastern boundary. A number of aviation related and light industrial buildings are located to the south of the development site, while open countryside dominates in all other directions.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/95/284 Car park and general viewing area for public use – approved with conditions. WP/99/0195 Museum exhibiting Aviation Memorabilia – approved with conditions. WP/2011/0050/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 1:3,000 to prosecution or civil proceedings. to the scale specified Borough Council of Wellingborough. WP/2011/0050/TX - Sywell Aerodrome, Wellingborough Road, Sywell ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) - 30 -

WP/2002/0673/F Extension to existing museum building including Blister Hangar and extended car park (60 spaces approx.) – approved with conditions. WP/2007/0631/F Extension to existing museum building – approved with conditions. WP/2008/0053/FM Erection of two linked aviation buildings including aviation HQ, exhibition blister hangar, access road, gate/walling, car park and landscaping.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development. Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Planning Policy Guidance 4: Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms. Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport. Wellingborough Local Plan Policies G6: Open Countryside. SY1: Sywell Aerodrome.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northants County Council, Highways – no objection.

2. Civil Aviation Authority – no objection.

3. Sywell Parish Council objection – on grounds of visual amenity, outside policy area and drainage.

4. Daventry District Council – no objection.

ASSESSMENT: The primary planning policy that concerns development at Sywell Aerodrome is the site specific policy: SY1, of the Adopted Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

POLICY SY1

1. WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT AT SYWELL AERODROME AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSALS MAP, PLANNING PERMISSION WILL ONLY BE GRANTED FOR:

A. NEW BUILDINGS, CHANGES OF USE OR EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS FOR USES DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH FLYING ACTIVITIES OR PROPOSALS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES FOR PASSENGER AND FREIGHT AIR TRAFFIC;

B. EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN 1A ABOVE, WHERE THEY ARE TO MEET SPECIFIC ANCILLARY AND ASSOCIATED USES; AND

C. NEW BUILDINGS, CHANGES OF USE OR REDEVELOPMENT FOR LIGHT INDUSTRY OR WAREHOUSE USE PROVIDED THAT THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED REQUIREMENT FOR THE USE OF THE LAND OR BUILDINGS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED OR REDEVELOPED FOR FLYING ACTIVITIES. - 31 -

2. IN ALL CASES, DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD BE LIKELY TO LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN ROAD TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS WILL BE CONDITIONAL UPON ANY NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS APPROPRIATE TO THE HIGHWAY NETWORK.

Policy SY1 both sets the development limits for the Sywell Aerodrome and sets out what forms of development are to be permitted within the stated development area. The proposals put forward by the applicant for a series of aviation related buildings are located outside of the aforementioned area of permitted development relating to Sywell Aerodrome. As a result the development is located within an area defined by the Local Plan as open countryside. Within the Borough such land is controlled by Policy G6 of the Adopted Local Plan. This saved policy restricts development in the open countryside, in line with national policy set out in Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, unless proposals meet a number of strict criteria relating to scale, location, land use, landscaping and the need for development.

The applicant, while accepting that proposals fall outside of the policy SY1, argue that a more flexible interpretation of local policy is required in recognition of other policy frameworks.

It is important to understand that the proposed development is indivisible, and must be sited so as to provide easy access for aeroplanes within the security cordon (i.e. airside) and for staff and visitors who would access the site from the Wellingborough Road (on the public side of the security fencing). The HQ building contains space for one or perhaps two aircraft which need to be near to the staff located in the same building because they would be engaged upon an inspection/evaluation regime involving the particular aircraft or its engine, propeller or other component parts of the airframe. Staff need to be able to walk from the aircraft to their particular office where the paper records and technical library is kept and where computers are available to provide access to telephones and on line services, including the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the European Aviation Society Agency (EASA), which is taking over much of the responsibility of the CAA in the aircraft certification process. The link to the proposed blister hangar would provide access for the same staff to easily reach historic aircraft, either associated with the museum or with the HQ building which are used in the training of aircraft inspectors who are based at the proposed HQ building. The historic aircraft provide a record of past engineering practices which may be contrasted with new and evolving designs under evaluation in the proposed HQ building.

The proposed HQ building and the extension to the Sywell Museum therefore cannot be separated. As the Museum is already located at the eastern end of the Aerodrome next to the Wellingborough Road it is imperative that the buildings are on a contiguous site.

The proposed development is specifically designed to offer a ‘centre of excellence’ which is important to the future of GA in the UK. It is an indisputable fact that many aeronautical skills have been lost in the Midlands in recent years, because of short- sighted policies and under-investment in the industry. On this occasion the funds are available to provide a first class aeronautical facility on an historic, lawfully used aerodrome, which is the subject of a fully funded investment programme including the - 32 -

provision of the new all weather paved runway which was granted planning permission, on appeal by the Secretaries of State in November 2007.

The material planning considerations relevant to the determination of the application have been summarised below:- a) The proposed development (including inter alia the HQ building, the associated hangar for one or two aircraft, the propose blister hangar and the car parks is indivisible. (see above) b) It must be located (airside) for aircraft access and easily reached ‘on foot’ from the public car park and museum. c) Occupiers of the HQ building must be able to easily reach the museum and the museum must be able to easily reach its new building. d) The site lies outwith the defined extent of Policy SY1 but then so does other aerodrome development and recently permitted extensions thereto. e) The defined extent of Policy SY1 in this location follows the line of historic aerodrome buildings, which front the operations flying site, and which have been in aviation use long before the policy was created. f) The buildings and potential undeveloped spaces within the ‘development limits’, not fronting the flying area cannot be used because of lack of airside access. g) Other ‘undeveloped’ spaces within the ‘development limits’ which front the flying areas are either too small, poorly located, invisible from the control tower, or within the aerodrome security fence making them wholly unsuitable for a proposed development which requires public access. h) The HQ building needs to be closely related to the Aviator restaurant, the conference centre and hotel for the efficient running of the organisation concerned, and for the interchange of facilities when required. i) Policy SY1 does not place any embargo on aviation related developments which need airside access (see Inspector Keith Smiths report to the Secretaries of State dated 21st November 2007 paragraph 13.30).

RECOMMENDATION: Approve full planning permission with 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. 3. 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. 4. The measures contained in the submitted and approved Travel Plan shall be - 33 -

implemented immediately following occupation of the new buildings unless otherwise agreed 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 visual amenity. 4. To encourage alternative and more sustainable means of access to the site.

INFORMATIVE/S: 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: G6 and SY1 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. - 34 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0059/F

PROPOSAL: 2 bedroom bungalow with double garage - amended design and access statement.

LOCATION: Land rear of 113 Doddington Road, Earls Barton, Northampton.

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs T Fletcher.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination due to the number of third party objections that have been received. In addition, the Parish Council has objected to the application.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described.

The application site currently forms part of the large garden area associated with no. 113 Doddington Road. Access to the site is by way of a private drive that also serves numbers 105 and 107 Doddington Road which are set back further from the highway. There is also an access that serves the gas governor close to its junction with Doddington Road. There appears to be sufficient space at the point of access onto Doddington Road for two cars to pass each other. The application site already has the benefit of an access onto the private drive. Along the rear boundaries of the properties that front onto St. Crispin Road is a maturing hedge and other trees and shrubs.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2006/0301 Outline application for one dwelling – withdrawn WP/2008/0419 Three bedroom bungalow and double garage – withdrawn WP/2009/0253/F 3 bedroom dormer bungalow and double garage (Re-submission following withdrawal of planning application WP/2008/0419/F) refused and Appeal dismissed

Below is an extract from the Inspector’s decision letter which sets out the reasons why the appeal was dismissed.

“5. The appeal site in this case, towards the village’s eastern edge, is currently part of no. 113’s rear garden. The existing bungalow sits behind no. 111 which WP/2011/0059/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/2011/0059/F - Land rear of 113 Doddington Road, Earls Barton ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) - 35 -

fronts onto Doddington Road. Access is via a track which bends sharply around the appeal site, leading to properties in very spacious plots at nos. 105 and 107. The plots of nos. 105, 107 and 113, together with the large rear gardens of nos. 115 and 117, create a distinctive, open and spacious character in this particular backland area behind the frontage houses. This spaciousness, which generally characterises the area eastwards to the edge of the village, on the north side of the road, differs appreciably from that of the more tightly knit suburban housing on St Crispin Road to the west and other roads to the south.

6. In this context, quite different from that of no. 91 Doddington Road, a sizeable area of open garden would be replaced by a substantial L-shaped building and associated hardstanding, up to or very close to three of the site boundaries. That, to my mind, would create an unduly cramped effect in this corner position, harmful to this area’s distinctive spacious character. Given also the need to provide for adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site, there would be very little scope for effective new planting to soften the appearance of the built form in such close proximity to the access track on two frontages.

7. Therefore, notwithstanding the proposed design of the building itself, the lower height relative to no. 105, and the limited extent to which it would be seen in public views, I consider the development would fail to integrate harmoniously into its setting. It would have a harmful visual impact, neither respecting nor enhancing the character of its surroundings. Thus I conclude that it would conflict in this respect with CSS Policy 13 and with national policy guidance in PPS1 and PPS3.”

The current application mainly differs from the previously dismissed scheme in the following ways:

• deletion of dormer windows and reduction of main roof height by 0.7m • footprint proposed to be further back into the site and closer to the northern boundary • position of the garage changed to be towards the north-western corner of the site • a car parking space inserted between the southern wall of the building and the boundary with no. 113 Doddington Road

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 - 36 -

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. Earls Barton Parish Council – objects to the application on the following grounds:

• overdevelopment of the site • loss of privacy to dwellings in St Crispins Road • flooding on St Crispins Road • contrary to the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy

2. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority – has responded to its consultation with a pro forma sticker requesting that the Council refers to it published standards for highways advice.

3. Northamptonshire County Council Sustainable Urban Drainage Project Manager – land is suspected of being contaminated, it should be ensured that it will not have a negative impact on water quality. With regards to Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS), schedule 3 of the Floods and Water Management Act 2010 has not yet come into effect and is unlikely to do so until April 2012, and as such is unable to provide a full consultation service at the moment. Important to consider SUDS at this stage and directs the developer to the SUDS manual (Circa 2007) which has not yet been published, however, it is likely to reflect the provisions set out by Cambridge City Council.

4. Environment Agency – has assessed the proposal as having relatively low environmental impact and has no further comment to make on the application as submitted.

5. Anglian Water Services Limited - no comment received.

6. Wellingborough Council’s Environmental Protection Service –

“I have received a copy of the geo-environmental site assessment for the above site referenced 23001-01(00)RSK. I agree with the conclusions and recommendations of the report. The report highlights contamination from arsenic chromium and benzo(a)pyrene which require remediation and a formal validation report. I also note that the plan suggests that a ground source heat pump may be used. I have asked the consultant to look into the proposed location of this installation.”

7. Borough Council of Wellingborough Design and Conservation Officer – no comment received.

8. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit - no comment received.

9. E.ON Central Networks – no objection, but identifies that the company has an electricity substation near to the site and that it should be contacted by the - 37 -

developer if new buildings or alteration in ground levels take place. The company goes on to say that the substation may cause noise and that any developer should adopt measures to ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained for future residents.

10. Neighbours – objections have been received from the occupiers of 97, 105 107, 115 Doddington Road; 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 St. Crispin Road. An objection letter has also been submitted on behalf of Mr R E Redden and Miss J P Redden. The objectors cite the following reasons for opposing the application:

• design is better scaled to suit the size of the plot and the driveway access is improved • new design is recognised, does it not properly address the comments made by the appeal Inspector • main roof pitch is still high and gable ends add bulk to the building. It may be that the applicant intends to convert the roof space into more living accommodation if the development is approved and permitted development rights should be withdrawn • design of the building is uninspiring • no landscaping details are included in the application which should be an important part of the design to promote biodiversity • loss of privacy, dwellings in St. Crispin Road are set at a 1.6m lower ground level than the application site, even a single storey dwelling will be intrusive. The site is also 3 feet higher than 97 Doddington Road • confirmation required that a 1.8m high boundary will be erected to protect privacy • existing landscaping should not be reduced • existing boundary fencing is not in keeping with the quality of the local neighbourhood • development in the rear garden would constitute a direct contravention of national Government strategy • the development does not accord with national and local planning policy because it is detrimental to the character of the area • the development does not meet the high standards of design expected in national land local planning policy and the fact that the site is accessed off a private drive does not reduce the need to protect the area • the development is very tight to the northern boundary, and close to its southern and western boundaries and substantially fills the plot • the development will adversely affect the setting of no. 113 Doddington road by reducing the size of its garden area • concerns expressed regarding contamination issues • dormer windows would be out of character with nearby dwellings • development would result in vastly increased traffic levels both during and post build. Grass verge would be turned to mud by contractors vehicles and reference to a nearby site as an example • debris and noise, obstruction, delay and highway danger whilst development is taking place - 38 -

• concern regarding stability of a bank on the boundary of the application site and the longer term impact of water run off from the additional large build and paved area • existing flooding problems due to the drains not being able to cope • reference to previous appeal decision • reference to estate agents selling details and reasons for purchasing adjacent property.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are:

• Compliance with policy • Access and highway safety • Effect on visual amenity and character of the area • Effect on neighbours amenities • Contamination • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity • Drainage

Compliance with policy Earls Barton is classified in Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan as a limited development village and the application site is within its designated village policy line. However, more specific Government guidance and development plan policies are examined below.

Access and highway safety 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. Objectors have suggested that the private access to the site is unsafe as a reason for opposing the application, but the Highway Authority has not objected or produced any evidence to suggest that it is hazardous.

The comments regarding the private access road, its junction with Doddington Road and possible highway safety implications are acknowledged. However, the County Highway Authority has not made any comment other than to direct this Council to its published standards and the Inspector did not identify any highway safety concerns when determining the previous appeal.

Effect on neighbours’ amenities With regards to the dismissed application, and its likely effects on the occupiers of the surrounding dwellings, the salient part of the Inspector’s decision letter is reproduced below.

“8. Living Conditions: The appeal site is higher than the St Crispin Road properties which back onto the access track and, in most cases, are reasonably well screened by mature hedging and/or other vegetation to their rear boundaries. Separation distances between windows in these houses and the - 39 -

new dwelling would be well in excess of 21m (the distance given in the officers’ report as a suggested minimum for ‘back to back’ relationships). In this case it would be a ‘front to back’ relationship but I consider this less significant than the effect of differing levels. To my mind, however, the separation distances would exceed 21m by an amount sufficient to compensate for these differences and to ensure adequate privacy at the neighbouring properties. Also, given the orientation and size of the rear garden at no. 115 Doddington Road, I am not convinced that the proposal would cause unacceptable overshadowing of it.

9. In summary, therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not cause material harm to living conditions at neighbouring properties.”

It is clear that the Inspector thought that the dismissed scheme would not materially harm the standard of amenity that is currently enjoyed by the surrounding residential occupiers. And it is the case the development now proposed would have less of an impact due to the amendments mentioned above. The objections that have been maintained are noted, but it is considered that the proposed dwelling and its occupation would not significantly impinge on the amenity of the nearby neighbours.

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. 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.

Upon the face of it, the general principle of residential development taking place on the site is could be in accord with national policy and development plan policy. However, a recent change to Planning Policy Statement 3; Housing removed domestic gardens from the definition of previously-developed or brownfield land, and the corresponding weight given to re-use of such sites should be adjusted accordingly. Nevertheless, this change in guidance does not amount to a complete prohibition on the development of garden areas. The proposal still has to be considered in the light of all relevant objectives and polices, including the continuing encouragement in Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3) to make efficient use of land. The principle of such a development taking place within a village such as Earls Barton generally accords with Policy 1 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and with saved Policy G4 in the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan because the application site is clearly located within the village policy line. However, the support in principle in PPS 3 and other development plan policies is subject to detailed consideration of specific proposals such as: The emphasis in PPS 3 regarding the importance of good design that makes places better for people, development plan policies which require consideration of the effect on the character and setting of villages have to be taken into account.

The appeal Inspector cited the harmful effect the then proposed development would have on the character of the area. The crux of this determination is, therefore, whether the changes that have been made to the design of the building and the position of its footprint adequately address the issue of cramping the site that the Inspector deemed to be of paramount importance. - 40 -

The changes that have been made to the design of the dwelling in an attempt to make it acceptable are acknowledged, however, the accompanying plans now show that the large garage would still be located to the front of the bungalow. This element of the scheme would visually fill the corner of the most prominent part of the plot, despite the insertion of a car parking space and bin storage area to the side, and its bulk would be close to two of the boundaries of the site and would result in a discordant feature.

The Inspector found that the closeness of the previous scheme to the boundaries of the site to be unacceptable, yet the garage and the footprint of the building would still be close to the northern and western boundaries which would have a detrimental effect on the character of the area. It is considered that this proposal has not fully assuaged the concerns of the Inspector with regards to how a scheme could sensitive deal with the need to enhance the character of the area and the application is thought to be contrary to development plan policy in this respect.

Contamination Reference to the issue of contamination has been made by the Parish Council, the Northamptonshire County Council Sustainable Urban Drainage Project Manager and neighbours. The previous application was accompanied by a geo-environmental site appraisal that made the following recommendations -

• ‘There is some heavy metal and PAH contamination within the soils, although leaching analysis indicate it is a low risk to controlled waters. The risk to human health therefore needs to be addressed and it is therefore proposed to provide a 600mm cover of clean verified subsoil/topsoil in the future garden area.’ • ‘A full radon/vapour barrier will need to be incorporated into the ground floor slab together with a fully ventilated void.’ • ‘Confirmation will be required from the Environmental Health Officer and Environment Agency that the recommendations and conclusions given in this report are acceptable.’ • ‘The proposed residential unit will need to be placed upon a reinforced strip footing on vibrated ground, or if the Environment Agency are in agreement, upon a piled foundation. Consideration will also need to be given to the influence of trees with respect to trees.’

The Environment Agency has no comment to make and the Council’s Environmental Protection Service is satisfied with the content of the report together with its recommendations. It is suggested that the recommendation that relates to planning, rather than the building regulations, could be taken forward into a planning permission by way of an appropriate condition.

Crime and disorder There are no pertinent crime and order issues to be considered.

Biodiversity The comments on behalf of objectors regarding the lack of landscaping detail in the application and its relationship to biodiversity are noted. It is considered, however, that should planning permission be granted it would be appropriate for a landscaping condition to be imposed on the permission which would require the submission for - 41 -

approval of a scheme that could include indigenous plant species to promote food and habitat for native fauna.

Drainage Anglian Water Services Limited has been consulted with the application details, but it has not responded and the Environment Agency considers the site to be at low risk. It is the case that if the site were to be developed the build would have to comply with the Building Regulations with regards to surface water disposal, and in addition, a condition could be imposed that would require the area set aside for car parking within the site to be surfaced with permeable materials in the interests of sustainable urban drainage.

The Inspector did not identify any drainage concerns when determining the previous appeal.

Conclusion The amended proposal would have a demonstrably harmful effect on the character of the area and the application is, therefore, recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following reason:

1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy G4 (2) of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. The proposed development has inadequate space in-between the building and the site boundaries which would result in it having a cramped appearance that would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.

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:

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

- 42 -

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

Policy 13

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 dates shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 01 18 February 2011

- 43 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0069/RM

PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application pursuant to conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission WP/2010/0156/TX dealing with access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

LOCATION: Land rear of 203 and 205 Wollaston Road, Irchester, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr M J Evans.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination due to the level of third party objection that has been received.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: Reserved matter application for the determination of

The application site lies on the southern side of Prospect Avenue, near the junction of Wollaston Road. The site formerly comprised part of the rear gardens of nos. 203 and 205 Wollaston Road, but it has clearly been separated from the garden areas of these two dwellings for some time and is beginning to become overgrown.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2007/0338/O Outline consent for all maters reserved except access for 2 dwellings – conditionally approved. WP/2010/0156/TX Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission, in order to extend the time limit for implementation for W/2007/0338/O residential outline consent for all matters reserved except access for 2 no. dwellings.

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) 15 (Sustainable housing provision) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: G4 (Development within the limited development and restricted infill villages) WP/2011/0069/RM

Legend WP/2011/0069/RM - Land rear of 203 and 205 Wollaston Road, Irchester 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 1:1,250 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 - 44 -

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 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. Irchester Parish Council – to be reported via the late letters list.

2. Northamptonshire County Council Highways Authority – has returned the application with a pro forma sticker which counsels that advice be sought from its published highway standards. The County Highway Authority has, however, supplied a statement regarding the road safety measures nearby in Wollaston Road -

“The local planning authority must satisfy itself that adequate parking accommodation is provided to serve both the proposed development and the existing property affected by the proposal. There appears to be no evidence that parked vehicles encouraged to Park in Prospect Avenue by the installation of the traffic regulating features in Wollaston Road contribute to an accident record or cause significant obstruction to service or emergency traffic visiting the area.”

3. Anglian Water Services Limited – no comment received.

4. Environment Agency – no objection.

5. Borough Council of Wellingborough Landscape Officer – no comment received.

6. Neighbours – objections have been received from the occupiers of 53 Prospect Avenue; 209, 211, 213 Wollaston Road. A petition from the occupiers of no. 199 Wollaston Road which contains nine signatures and also opposes the application has been lodged. The respondents cite the following reasons for opposing the application:

• overdevelopment of the site • proposed development is 3m forward of the building line and will obscure the vision of people using the adjacent private road • proposed buildings are chalets, not bungalows, which will make them more obtrusive than the intent of the original outline planning consent • loss of privacy • sewer pipe under the site is not storm drain as indicated on the plans and may be put under stress as a result of the development • site has been prone to flooding, concern where the water will go if it is developed • building works will obstruct the adjacent private road which is used at all times and for disabled access • query regarding maintenance responsibilities for the private road - 45 -

• problems with extra wheelie bin space on collection days • noise levels; existing noise problems from traffic on Wollaston Road due to the traffic calming build outs • lack of off road parking on the application site. Difficult if not impossible for fire services to access the rear of properties. Existing parking and manoeuvring difficulties and visitors to properties in Wollaston Road are forced to park in Prospect Avenue due to the traffic calming build outs in Wollaston Road. Build outs also make the junction hazardous.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are:

• Compliance with policy • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity • Effect on neighbours amenities • Archaeology • Amenity space • Highway safety and parking • Effect on visual amenity and character of the street scene • Drainage

Compliance with policy Policy 1 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) 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. Policy 15 (f) of the NNCSS goes on to say 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.

Saved Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan defines Irchester as a restricted infill village. This policy 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 principle of two dwellings being built on the site has been established by the grant of planning permission WP/2007/0338/O and the time limit for development to start was extended by planning application WP/2010/0156/TX. However, the more specific aspects of Policy G4 and other NNCSS policies are examined below.

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.

- 46 -

There are no pertinent crime and disorder issues relevant to the determination of the application.

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

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

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.

There has been comment from nearby neighbours regarding loss of privacy that they perceive could result from the rooflight windows in the rear plane of the roof and the first floor windows in the gable ends. This concern is acknowledged, but it is considered that any potential loss of privacy can be prevented in two ways. The first would be to set the sill level of the roof lights to a minimum of 1.7m above the floor of the first floor accommodation by way of a condition. The 1.7m height is taken from the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008. The second method would be to specify obscure glazing for the first floor windows also by way of a condition which could also regulate the design of the opening mechanism.

It is considered that the position and scale of the proposed dwellings will allow for an acceptable standard of residual light reception for the surrounding residential occupiers.

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. Meanwhile, Policy 15 (f) states that in order to deliver sustainable residential communities, higher densities will be sought. Clearly, there could be the potential for conflict between the two core spatial strategies mentioned above.

The dimensions of the proposed rear gardens are: Plot no. 1 m length 9m x 11.2m width; plot no. 2 9.1m length x 10.2m width. It is considered that the amount of amenity space that would be available to the occupiers of the proposed units is acceptable.

Highway safety and parking 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.

- 47 -

The Government has recently announced that maximum car parking standards for development should not apply and it has amended the content of PPG 13; Transport to reflect this new stance on off-road car parking provision.

Concern has been expressed from neighbours and the regarding parking and highway safety issues. The comments of the County Council Highway Authority indicate that it thinks there is not a highway safety issue in the area.

With regards to off road parking, the submitted plans illustrate off road parking areas for each of the dwellings that are sufficiently long enough for two cars to park in a tandem arrangement. This provision is thought to be acceptable. One off road parking space is also shown for the nos. 203 and 205 Wollaston Road.

The comments of the local residents regarding highway safety and parking are noted, but the County Council raises no objection and it is considered therefore that there is no material reason on which to base a recommendation of refusal on highway safety grounds.

Effect on visual amenity and character of the street scene 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, as mentioned above Policy 15 (f) states that 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.

The comments of the neighbours regarding the position of the proposed buildings in relation to the building line are acknowledged. Planning permission WP/2007/0338/O was approved by the Planning Committee on 18 July 2007, subsequent to a visit from the Site Viewing Group, and the indicative plans that accompanied that application illustrate a pair of semi-detached dwellings that are further forward in the site than the two detached dwellings that are now proposed.

With regards the height of the proposed buildings, it is accepted they are shown as being higher than no. 203 Wollaston Road, but they are also drawn as not being as high as no. 53 Prospect Avenue. It is considered that the proposed development would therefore not have a detrimental impact on the street scene because their height would sit comfortably in-between the heights of the existing buildings.

Drainage The comments of the nearby occupiers regarding drainage and flooding are noted, however, the Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal. In addition, it will be the case that the surface water disposal from the development would have to meet - 48 -

with the requirements of the Building Regulations and the use of porous materials for the parking areas can be brought about by the imposition of an appropriate planning condition.

Anglian Water Services Limited has been consulted and if the company comments its observations will be reported to the Committee via the late letters list.

Conclusion It is considered that there are no planning considerations to justify the refusal of this application. The application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. 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. 2. Before development commences details of the porous surface materials for the off road car parking shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials. 3. The sill height of the rooflight windows in the rear elevation of the dwellings shall be a minimum of 1.7m above the floor. 4. Before development commences the opening design of the first floor windows in the east elevation of plot no. 1 shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing and the development shall be carried out using the approved design and the design maintained thereafter. These windows shall also be obscure glazed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority and maintained as such thereafter. 5. No additional windows shall be inserted above ground floor level without the express planning permission of the local planning authority. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended, the dwellings shall not be altered or extended without the express planning permission of the local planning authority. 7. Before development commences a scheme for screen fencing/walling shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the houses are occupied.

Reasons: 1. In the interests of visual amenity. 2. In the interests of sustainable urban drainage. 3. In the interests of privacy. 4. In the interests of privacy. 5. In the interests of privacy. 6. In the interests of preventing the sites becoming overdeveloped and privacy 7. In the interests of visual amenity, security and privacy. - 49 -

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: 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) 15 (Sustainable housing provision) 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 Numbers: Date Received: 10/047/01A, 10/047/02A, 10/047/03A, 10/047/04A, 10/047/05A, 10/047/06A and 10/047/07A 1 March 2011 3. The applicant is advised that planning permission does not automatically allow the construction of the vehicle crossing, details of which require the approval of the Highway Authority. In this regard you should contact the Team Leader Regulations, Sustainable Transport, Riverside House, Riverside Way, Northampton NN1 5NX prior to any construction/excavation works within the public highway. 4. 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 - 50 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0073/FCOU

PROPOSAL: Change of use from A1 Retail to Licensed Betting Shop (Use Class A2).

LOCATION: 3 Market Street, Wellingborough. NN8 1AN

APPLICANT: Project Ferry (No. 2) Limited and Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Limited.

The application comes before the Planning Committee for determination due to the high number of third party objections received.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The development property is located within the central retail core of Wellingborough Town fronting the pedestrianised Market Street between McDonalds Restaurant and Brighthouse retail outlet. The premise is currently vacant with the last occupier being Johnsons Dry Cleaners. The proposal is as above and would involve the change of use to A2 which includes Banks and Building Societies and more specifically in this case the change of use would be to a Betting Office.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2007/0716/F Change of use from A1 (Retail) to A2 (Financial and Professional Services) – refused under delegated powers for the following reason:

The proposed change of use would result in an unacceptable loss of a retail unit within the primary shopping area, contrary to Policy C1 of the Wellingborough Local Plan.

Subsequently an appeal was received (APP/H2835/A/08/2067596) the inspector favoured with the Council and dismissed the appeal.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Note: Policy C1 as shown above is not a saved policy in the Wellingborough Local Plan and therefore is not considered as part of this application.

PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) WP/2011/0073/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. ± when reproduced at A4 Licence No 100018694. (2010) WP/2011/0073/FCOU - 3 Market Street, Wellingborough - 51 -

PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) Policy WTC3 (Primary Shopping Area) of the Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan (WTCAAP):

Within the Primary Shopping Area, as defined on the Proposals Map, A1 shopping uses will be granted planning permission.

The Borough Council will promote major retail-led redevelopment on Proposal Sites E1, E2 and I, as defined on the Proposals Map, in order to enhance the quality and range of shopping provision within the town centre. Proposals will be required to include a range of shop units of different sizes. This should include provision of a landmark retail anchor store (anticipated to be approximately 2,500 sq m) on Site E1 or E2.

The Primary Shopping Area, as defined on the Proposals Map, will include A3 uses (restaurants and cafés) and A4 uses (such as bars) providing the overall A1 shopping character of the area is not compromised. To ensure, this the grant of planning permission for A3 or A4 uses will be subject to their combined total not exceeding 20% of the overall street level frontage.

D1 community uses and/or D2 leisure facilities will also be permitted within the Primary Shopping Area but will be sited on upper storeys in order to prioritise shopping at ground level.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Highways Authority –

“To ensure that highway safety is maintained, this authority recommends to the planning authority that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document ‘Highway Authority Standing Advice’ be applied to this planning application.”

2. Wellingborough Council Property Services Department –

“…is objecting to the above planning application…”

3. Wellingborough Chamber of Commerce -

“No. 3 Market Street is within the central shopping area of Wellingborough Town Centre and as such it is essential that the unit remains solely as a ‘retail sales outlet’. Currently there are four other ‘betting’ locations within easy walking distance of each other and should be sufficient competition and need to satisfy those wishing to use these facilities. Out shopping community are continually saying that Wellingborough Town Centre needs to attract ‘more choice’ not less to enhance and attract shoppers and so increase spend levels for the business community. Approving this application will not enhance the centre in any positive way what-so-ever.

- 52 -

No. 3 Market Street needs to house a ‘new choice’ of business opportunity for the Town Centre, not just another business similar to others that are already located in the town.

The Chamber of Commerce therefore requests that this change of use be rejected; the unit occupation within the town is currently high, in the region of 90- 94% so do not approve this application ‘just-to-fill’ the unit.”

4. Third Parties -

1a Silver Street

“Not suitable to have next to McDonalds, enough A2 usage in town already. Dilutes A1 usage.”

18 Spring Street, Swansgate Shopping Centre

“This application does not improve Wellingborough's shopping offer, there are 3 other betting shops within the town centre and easy walking distance.

This premises is located within the central shopping area and needs to remain a retail outlet, there are not many other properties of this size available in the primary shopping area to attract futher (sic) retail to improve our shopping offer.”

On behalf of an anonymous nearby commercial premise

“We act as planning consultants to commercial clients who trade from nearby premises. Our clients wish to object to the above proposals on the grounds of direct non-compliance with the aims and objectives of the adopted Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan Development Plan Document.

The subject premises traded as a Johnson’s Dry Cleaner until 24th December 2010 and is situated in a prime shopping frontage being the middle unit of a block of three units on the north side of Market Street at the entrance to Market Square. It is therefore highly prominent and a ‘gateway’ site to the town centre prime shopping area. For this reason it must be protected for Class A1 retail use.

With regard to policy we draw your attention to the stated Objectives at Section 5.3 of the newly adopted Town Centre Area Action Plan. These are -

1. To redevelop the Market Square area so that its status is reinforced as the heart of the town; and

2. To seek a major increase in retail provision, bringing enhanced quality and choice, whilst keeping the centre compact

The application site is central to the success of the regeneration and extension of the primary being the link between the existing primary and the proposed future extension. Allowing a non retail Class A2 use here will undermine the main - 53 - objective of the Town Centre Area Action Plan. Indeed such an approval would be short-sighted given the Councils long terms aim for the Market Square to be the central focus for retailing in the town centre.

Policy WTC3 then deals specifically with the primary shopping area. It states:-

Within the Primary Shopping Area, as defined on the Proposals Map, A1 shopping uses will be granted planning permission.

D1 community uses and/or D2 leisure facilities will also be permitted within the Primary Shopping Area but will be sited on upper storeys in order to prioritise shopping at ground level.

We have discussed this policy with your Mr Mike Haybyrne who confirms that Class A2 uses are not permitted with the prime shopping area whilst other non retail uses such as Class A3 and Class A4 uses are allowed so long as there is a minimum of 80% retail use within the primary shopping area. It is therefore the case that Class A1 retail levels below 80% will be deemed harmful to retail vitality and viability.

We have surveyed all of the uses in the primary shopping area. The subject unit is adjoined to the left by a double fronted McDonalds Restaurant (Cass A3) with an 11m frontage, and by a Brighthouse, electrical appliance store, to the right. The application site has a 5.5m frontage, such that with this proposal in place there will be a 16.5m continuous run of non-retail use at this prominent location. Also, further to the right across the pedestrianised square is a massive Barclays Bank (Class A2) with a 25m return frontage and a 10m frontage on to Market Street. Directly opposite the application site is a run of 6 large Class A2 bank uses measuring a total of 57m of continuous Class A2 use. Therefore if this application were to be approved there would be only two isolated Class A1 uses left (Colemans Stationer and Brighthouse) at the gateway entrance to the Market Street primary shopping area. On the other hand, with this application in place there would be 10 non-A1 uses with 8 of these being in Class A2 use. The addition of yet another non-retail A2 use in such a prominent location at the ‘gateway’ into the primary will only further corrode the character and appearance of the primary shopping area by blurring the distinction between the primary and - 54 -

the secondary. Shoppers and retailers lose confidence when non-retail uses predominate. Surely, this proposal ‘tips the balance’ and must be considered to create a harmful over-concentration of Class A2 use which will undermine the retail function of this important part of the Market Street and Market Square primary.

As to Policy WTC3 and there being at least 80% retail use within the prime shopping area. Our survey of the primary indicates that there are 108 commercial uses within the primary, with 25 currently being in non-A1 use. Therefore the retail element currently stands at 83 premises or 76.8%. This is already below the allowed 80% allowed threshold and with this proposal in place this figure will drop even further 75.9%. On this basis even further Class A3 and A4 proposals would be refused let alone Class A2 proposals.

There is also the significant precedent of the June 2008 (PINS Ref: APP/H2835/A/08/2067596 enclosed) appeal dismissal for Class A2 use at this site. The Inspector dismissed the application on the main issue of the effect of the proposed change of use on the town centre of Wellingborough. He also noted that the level of vacancy in the town centre was below the national average. Planning Policy Statement 4 also advises that “vacancies can arise even in the strongest town centres, and this indicator must be used with care”. Whilst the applicants suggest that the site has been marketed with no retail interest, their own submission suggests that there were a number of enquiries in 2010 alone. It is inconceivable that such a prominent unit in a key strategic location adjoined by McDonalds (with the level of footflow attracted by McDonalds) should not be of interest to retail occupiers.

For all of the above reasons we respectfully request this application be refused.”

A number (20) of Businesses and Private residences both in and out of Wellingborough returned the following mass produced letter

“I would like to oppose the change of use of 3 Market Street, Wellingborough, NN8 1AR, formerly Johnsons Dry Cleaners to A2 usage for a licensed betting shop.

Wellingborough Town Centre does not need any more betting shops, or anymore A2 offices or locations. The area is prime retail location and the council should be encouraging shops and A1 usage in the area. If we dilute the shopping experience anymore by reducing and allowing more A2 usage in the town centre, the town centre will become a less attractive place to shop and after spending so much money on a development of the town centre, I feel this would be counterproductive to the long term success of the town centre.

Considering a local election is due, we hope the council will listen to the views of local people and oppose the change of usage at this location and leave it as A1 to help re generate the town centre”

- 55 -

5. Evening Telegraph Article -

In response to the above article the leasing agent (prop-search), who provided the excerpt, returned the following comments:

“I write in response to the article that recently appeared in the Evening Telegraph (copy attached) and was interested to note the comments made by traders about wanting a quality clothing shop in the town centre. I would just like to reiterate that the property in question has been openly on the market for 2 years and the only offer received has been from Bet Fred. We could not have tried harder to identify alternative users as we were aware that A2 would meet some resistance, nevertheless we are in the position where we have a willing occupier on acceptable lease terms ready to occupy a shop that has been (and remains) vacant for over 2 years. I would have thought that (bearing in mind the constant press about vacancy rates in the town centre) it was better to have a shop occupied than empty.”

ASSESSMENT: The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the vitality, vibrancy and viability of Wellingborough town centre. - 56 -

The prevailing local policy is contained within the Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan. Policy WTC 3 (The Primary Shopping Area) as shown in full above is clear and is worded positively with regard to alternate uses at ground floor within the Primary Shopping Area. A1 uses will be considered appropriate failing that a limited number (not exceeding 20%) of A3 or A4 will also be considered. There is no proviso for the provision of A2 use changes within the primary shopping area. The reasoned justification for this policy is: The erosion of retail outlets within the town centre, and specifically the primary shopping area as designated, to other uses can cause a loss to the viability and vitality of the town centre. It is important that within these areas where Class A1 currently exists it should be protected from changes of use, this is especially important in Market Street given the relatively high proportion of banking establishments.

The core shopping frontage of Wellingborough is by no means confined to the Primary Shopping Area but is also distributed in surrounding streets. Those other parts have been designated as Secondary Shopping, Commercial Fringe Area as well as Mixed Use Areas and a Leisure Quarter; these parts are still considered part of the town centre. It is within these areas that there is considerable flexibility to allow for a diverse range of uses. Nevertheless, the Primary Shopping Area Market Street frontage does not consist exclusively of Class A1 uses as the applicant suggests; although they are the dominant use (29) as well as 3 that could be considered A1 use such as a Tattooist that is a Sui Generis use and open to individual authorities’ interpretation. There are also 8 Class A2 uses all of which are Banks or Building Societies and one A4 (Mcdonalds) Restaurant and one A4 (Rafferty’s Public House), which are positioned on the southern and northern boundary, respectively of the Primary Shopping Area. Most of these non-A1 uses are historic and all predate the WTCAAP and also the old C1 policy in the Local Plan which was the basis for the previous refusal on this unit.

These other uses and the flexibility of the surrounding streets as well as policy WTC3 allowing for a proportion of non-A1 uses ensures that there is diversity throughout the centre, as required by Policy EC4.1a of Planning Policy Statement 4. However, WTCAAP policy WTC3 ensures that the town centre retains a strong retail mix at its core and this includes several smaller shops, like the application premises, to significantly enhance the character and vibrancy of the centre as promoted by Policy EC4.1b of PPS4. There is no conflict between Policy WTC3 and the slightly (6 months) more recent PPS4. Although the appeal premises has been vacant for little over a year, there are very few other vacant premises and the town centre as a whole is still vibrant and viable.

The agent has included a Planning Support Document in order to provide evidence to demonstrate the positive impacts of a betting office and other justifications as to why the application should be approved.

Justifications These will be discussed in turn as they appear in the submitted Planning Support Document -

- 57 -

Policy The compliance with policy has been discussed above, however the agent has attempted to argue that as policy WTC3 of the WTCAAP does not mention A2 use then it is permissible under the policy. This assertion is wrong and counterintuitive. It is common practice and is recommended by Inspectors to write planning policies in the positive and omit the uses that are seeking to be avoided rather than negatively word a policy IE - A2 use is not permitted in the Primary Shopping Area and rather have emphasise on the uses that are permitted. The agent also suggests that Policy WTC4 (Secondary Shopping Area) of the WTCAAP does not make reference to A2 uses, this again is an incorrect interpretation of the policy which clearly would allow change of use in the Secondary Shopping Area to A2 so long as A1 (retail) remains dominant in the street, this gives the flexibility to the street to allow non-retail uses and protect the viability of the Primary Shopping Area. WTCAAP policy has been found not to be in conflict with National Policy PPS4 and supportive of its aspirations to give diversification to town centres. The argument therefore that the proposal would be in accordance local and national policy is considered to be without basis.

Previous Appeals The agent has included 4 examples and included excerpts of previous appeals where a change of use to a Betting Office was allowed by the Planning Inspectorate with the view to demonstrating a more favourable response to applications of a similar nature. It is noted that these appeals were in different towns with different situations, considered under differing policy documents at local level and most importantly all 4 pre-date the publication of PPS4. Should this report form the basis of an appeal statement the Officer would wish to make mention of two infinitely more recent planning appeal decisions post-dating the publication of PPS4 and therefore of more relevance one of which was the same applicant [latter]; APP/Y5420/A/10/2133648 and APP/Q1153/A/10/2132176.

The submitted Planning Support Statement also makes mention of the previous appeal on the same premise (APP/H2835/A/08/2067596) for a change of use to A2 which was dismissed, the document argues that as this application is not for a blanket A2 use and is concerned with a Betting Office only it should be viewed more favourably. The logic is that the Planning Document purports that a Betting Office would give more footfall than other A2 uses and therefore offers more vitality and vibrancy than estate agents may offer for example. Whilst this may be true, which is arguable, a Betting Office when compared to a retail use is not considered comparable, with the latter being considered far more vibrant and viable. The assertion therefore by the applicant that the attached appeal decisions and the previous on the unit should add weight to any approval is considered weak at best.

Unit Vacancy The Planning Support Statement also argues that the presence of other vacant units in Market Street together with the vacancy of the development unit adds weight to a favourable decision as there exists other retail units that prospective retail users can occupy instead of the application unit. In particular 24 and 25(26) Market Street is mentioned, whilst at the time of the writing of the Planning Support Statement this was true and at the time of writing this report, however the landlord (Borough Council of Wellingborough) has agreed leasing terms for both units with occupation imminent. Therefore the vacant development unit is one of only one or two vacant in the Primary - 58 -

Shopping Area (including the Swansgate Centre) and given its prominent location its retention for retail use is important in being able to respond when customer confidence improves and a retail business is attracted.

It is acknowledged that the unit has been vacant for approximately 1 year; however the successful letting of 24 and 25 (26) Market Street in a lesser time demonstrates that retail businesses are attracted to Wellingborough Town despite the current economic climate, with the demand only increasing in the recovery years to come. The failure to attract retail businesses where others have been attracted to 24 and 25(26) Market Street may be a deficiency in the marketing strategy of the unit. There is little weight attached to the continued vacancy of the development unit or other units in close proximity that may or may not be vacant especially as the ones cited in the Support Statement are soon to be occupied.

Other Issues On the whole the concerns of the objectors with respect to a dilution of A1 (retail) uses are concurred with and form the basis for refusal, however the point raised with respect to the timeliness of local elections is not considered relevant. In the event that this report should form the Statement of Case for an appeal the applicant is advised that in light of a previous appeal dismissal on the same site and the blatant conflict with policy that there is no reasonable likelihood of success and therefore it is likely the Authority will seek costs. The comments of the leasing agent with regard the prolonged vacancy of the unit justifying the change of use is discussed above and is not supported and the assertion of high vacancy rates in the town centre are unfounded.

Conclusion Having carefully considered the arguments contained in the submitted Planning Support Statement as discussed above there is no substantive justification to depart from Policy WTC3 of the WTCAAP as there is clearly sufficient flexibility across the town centre as a whole to be able to accommodate the proposed use as PPS4 dictates. The loss of the existing shop premises would be harmful to the vitality, vibrancy and viability of the town centre especially at this very prominent position. The application is recommended for refusal for the reason given below.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal.

1. The proposed change of use due to its Primary Shopping Area location is considered to be harmful to the vitality, vibrancy and viability of the Town Centre in conflict with Policy WTC3 (Primary Shopping Area) of the Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan and inconsistent with the advice in PPS4.

Policy WTC3 (Primary Shopping Area) of the Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan (WTCAAP):

Within the Primary Shopping Area, as defined on the Proposals Map, A1 shopping uses will be granted planning permission.

- 59 -

The Primary Shopping Area, as defined on the Proposals Map, will include A3 uses (restaurants and cafes) and A4 uses (such as bars) providing the overall A1 shopping character of the area is not compromised. To ensure, this the grant of planning permission for A3 or A4 uses will be subject to their combined total not exceeding 20% of the overall street level frontage.

D1 community uses and/or D2 leisure facilities will also be permitted within the Primary Shopping Area but will be sited on upper storeys in order to prioritise shopping at ground level.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 702BF-2ALP & Planning Support Statement 18 February 2011

- 60 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0087/C

PROPOSAL: Installation of a double mobile classroom.

LOCATION: Ruskin Infant School, Ruskin Avenue, Wellingborough. NN8 3EG

APPLICANT: Mr Ian Shanks, Northamptonshire County Council - Property Asset Management.

NOTE: The Borough Council of Wellingborough is a Consultee on this application.

ASSESSMENT: Ruskin Infants School was built in the mid nineteen sixties to a standard design and specification that was popular at the time. Unfortunately the construction had many inbuilt design flaws that have led to various structural problems.

The County Council has recognised these design flaws and has put together a comprehensive programme of remedial works in affected schools throughout the county. The remedial works are very invasive and require areas of the school to be taken out of use whilst the works are completed. Although the works are planned to be phased throughout the school inevitably there will be a serious shortfall of available accommodation to the school.

In the majority of affected schools there has been sufficient available space to ensure the school can function normally whilst areas have been taken out of use to accommodate the necessary works. However in the case of Ruskin Infants this is not the case. Therefore it is proposed to install a double classroom mobile adjacent to the school so that classes can be decanted from the main building on a rolling programme.

The works are scheduled to commence in the summer of 2011 and be completed around Dec 2011/Jan 2012. Therefore I am applying for temporary permission to cover the period whilst works are being carried out. On completion the mobile will be removed from site.

DESIGN:

Use The building will be used for general teaching in conjunction with the existing accommodation within the school site whilst major remedial works are completed to the school fabric. WP/2011/0087/C

Legend WP/2011/0087/C - Ruskin Infant School, Ruskin Avenue, Wellingborough 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 1:1,500 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 - 61 -

Size The proposed development consists of a single storey double classroom mobile building of approx 144m2. The height is approx 3.3m.

Layout The layout of the site is as existing and therefore has been somewhat predetermined.

Landscape The mobile will be sited on a grass area adjacent to the existing school buildings at the end of the Junior school playing field. The landscape of the site will remain the same other than the footprint of the mobile.

Appearance The proposed building is of standard single storey mobile classroom construction. The elevations are perpendicular surmounted by a low pitch roof. The roof is finished in grey felt with a small overhang, discharging rainwater into a black PVC gutter and down pipes. The height of the roof is approximately 3.3m from ground level. The walls are refinished in a stippled weatherproof coating, all painted in dark green (12 B 25) colour. All windows have white uPVC frames and are double glazed in clear float glass. A wooden slatted skirt is fitted between ground and floor level, the slats being horizontal.

ACCESS:

The building design takes account of:-

Approach Within the limits of the site the mobile has been positioned to create ease of access for all users.

Parking Not Applicable.

Entrance Access to the site is as existing with no need for any alterations. Access to the mobile will be via a temporary hard paved pathway which will be removed along with the mobile at the end of the building works. Horizontal and Vertical The horizontal circulation within the mobile has been carefully planned Circulation to accommodate all users. Vertical circulation is not applicable for this single storey building. Access to All Services Internally the mobile has been carefully laid-out to maximise use. All facilities are logistically placed in relation to each other. Emergency Egress The design of the mobile will ensure and assist evacuation should an emergency need occur. All travel routes have been carefully planned and emergency exit facilities provided. Evacuation planning will be recorded and regularly tested by the occupiers. Waste Management There will be minimal waste generated during the installation of the mobile. Each contractor will be responsible for removing their own waste to a licensed tip. - 62 -

RECOMMENDATION: That no objection be raised.

- 63 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0121/C

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 10/00001/WAS to permit the erection of a staircase and viewing platform and the installation of a safety line on the roof of an existing materials recycling facility building.

LOCATION: 301 White Plant Recycling Centre, Grendon Road, Earls Barton, Wellingborough. NN6 0RB

APPLICANT: Mr Ben Eule, Viridor.

NOTE: Wellingborough Borough Council is a consultee on this application.

1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 This Minor Material Amendment application is being made under Section 73 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, and seeks to gain permission for the installation of a mananchor system and stairwell and viewing platform at the Viridor waste transfer station/materials recycling facility at Earls Barton. The stairwell and viewing platform will allow for the safe access to and from the green roof, with the mananchor system allowing for the maintenance of the sedum green roof to be conducted in a safe manner.

1.1.2 The viewing platform will also allow members of the public and interested parties to view the green roof in safety.

1.2 Application Documents

1.2.1 The following documents support this application;

• GPP-V-EB-11-01 Site Location Plan • GPP-V-EB-11-02 Site Plan • GPP-V-EB-11-03 Site Layout Plan • GPP-V-EB-11-05 Photograph Panel A • GPP-V-EB-11-05 Photograph Panel B WP/2011/0121/C

Legend ICT Services Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the WP/2011/0121/C - White Plant Recycling Centre, 301 Grendon Road, Earls Barton 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 1:3,840 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 - 64 -

• VI100-01 Earls Barton Viewing Platform – Not scale drawing • VI101-01 Earls Barton Viewing Platform – Not scale drawing • VI102-01 Earls Barton Viewing Platform – Not scale drawing • V001-01 Planning Statement • V001-01 Design and Access Statement

1.3 The Site

1.3.1 The site is located off the A45 due south of the village of Earls Barton. The site has been the subject of previous planning applications, the original planning permission 07/00027/WAS permitted the development of a Materials Recycling Facility and Waste Transfer Station; granted 4th of October 2007.

1.3.2 However, this application seeks to vary condition 2 of permission 10/00001/WAS. Permission 10/00001/WAS granted on the 31st of March 2010 permits the increase in operational hours at the Recycling Centre, 301 Grendon Road, Earls Barton, NN6 0RB. As stated by the permission;

‘This consent supersedes, consolidates and updates the previous planning permissions for the site which granted, reference 07/00027/WAS, 09/00007/WAS and 09/00068/WAS’

1.3.3 In line with this, condition 2 of planning permission 10/00001/WAS sets out the parameters of the development that is permitted on site. The condition reads as following;

‘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, dated 4th January 2010; Planning Statement prepared by GP Planning Ltd, dated March 2010; Noise Assessment prepared by ANV Acoustic Consultants, dated January 2010; Site Outline Plan GPP/ARL/EB/07/02; and Site Location Plan GPP/ARL/EB/08/02a. The development hereby permitted shall also be in accordance with the previously approved plans, i.e. Proposed Site Plan Layout GPP/A/EB/09/02a; Site Access Plan GPP/ARL/EB/07/03; Proposed Site Plan Layout 0719-01 Rev C; Proposed Plan Layout 0719-02 Rev C; Proposed Elevations & Cross Section 0719-03 Rev C; Replacement Office Building Proposed Ground Floor & First Floor Plans 0829-01 Rev B; Replacement Office Building Proposed Elevations & Section A-A 0829-02 rev B; and Sub Station Plan GPP/ARL/EB/08/02 Rev 1’

1.3.4 This application seeks its variation through incorporating the associated documents that relate to this application in the condition stated above, thus permitting the proposed minor amendments to the existing development. The proposal seeks to vary the condition in the following manner;

GPP/V/EB/11/01; Site Plan GPP/V/EB/11/02; Site Layout Plan GPP/V/EB/11/03; GPP/V/EB/11/05 Photograph Panel A, GPP/V/EB/11/05 Photograph Panel B, VI100-01 Earls Barton Viewing Platform; VI101-01 Earls Barton Viewing Platform; VI102-01 Earls Barton Viewing Platform. The development hereby permitted shall also be in accordance with the previously approved plans; Planning Statement prepared by GP Planning Ltd, dated March 2010; Noise Assessment prepared by ANV Acoustic Consultants, dated January 2010; Site Outline Plan GPP/ARL/EB/07/02; and Site Location Plan GPP/A/EB/09/01; Proposed Site Plan Layout GPP/ARL/EB/08/02a; Site Access Plan GPP/ARL/EB/07/03; Proposed Site Plan Layout 0719-01 Rev C; Proposed Plan Layout 0719-02 Rev C; Proposed Elevations & Cross Section 0719-03 Rev C; Replacement Office Building Proposed Ground Floor & First Floor Plans 0829-01 Rev B; Replacement Office Building Proposed Elevations & Section A-A 0829-02 rev B; and Sub Station Plan GPP/ARL/EB/08/02 Rev 1’

1.3.5 With regards to the permitted development on site, the Planning, Design and Access Statement submitted as a part of permission 07/00027/WAS sets out the description and dimensions of the green roof that is the focus of this application. The two main activities of roof maintenance and technological interest in the sedum green roof have created the need to gain permission for the stairwell/viewing platform and a safety line to be installed on the roof.

1.4 The Development

1.4.1 The applicant proposes to install a viewing platform to be situated alongside the northern edge of the building. The steel viewing platform will be approximately 6.7m long and 5.16m wide at its widest point. The structure will be 8.5m high to the viewing platform which is in line with the edge of the existing roof height. The surrounding guard rail stands a further 1.43m high.

1.4.2 The viewing platform will be accessed by a steel stairwell which is incorporated into the supporting structure of the viewing platform. Access to the roof from the viewing platform will be controlled through the installation of a gate and supervision by appropriate parties.

1.4.3 The viewing platform is required due to the amount of interest that has been generated by the installation of the green roof at the Earls Barton site. In line with this, an award from the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England for interesting and considerate design of a large building in the countryside provides an indication of the interest that the sedum green roof attracts, due to its locally significant and unique characteristics.

1.4.4 The positioning of the staircase and viewing platform allows for monitoring from the site office, for safety reasons. The use of the stairwell/viewing platform will be controlled by the appropriate responsible persons employed by Viridor. All visitors to the site are required to sign in and out of the premises, thus allowing a record of arrivals to be kept. This process of visitor recording will be maintained with regards to the interested parties viewing the green roof. Once signed in, the visitors will be escorted to the stairwell/viewing platform and supervised at all times during the use of the facility. - 66 -

1.4.5 Due to the nature of the ‘living green roof’ essential maintenance needs to be undertaken. The installation of the stairwell and viewing platform would also allow safe access onto the roof for maintenance purposes.

1.4.6 Additionally, the installation of the mananchor system allows for the maintenance processes to be undertaken safely after access to the roof has been gained. The proposed installation of the MananchorTM Travel 8 fall arrest system includes an inertia reel system with harness that is connected to a central stainless steel cable. Mobility is ensured through the sliding shuttle which connects to the anchored cable allowing movement across the green roof. The shuttle, along with the combination of the inertia reel and 20m line allows access to the roof edge.

1.4.7 The supporting line will sit relatively close to the green roof. Due to the low height of the anchor points between the base plate and the stainless steel line, the visual amenity of the surrounding area will not be affected by the installation of the safety equipment.

2 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

2.1 Relevant Policy

2.1.1 The site has been the subject of previous applications relating to the current Waste Transfer Station/Material Recycling Facility on site. Planning Permission 07/00027/WAS provided the permission for the erection of the current building. Since then there has been further permission granted, 09/00007/WAS that allows for the extension of the WTS/MRF. However, this permission has not yet been implemented, and therefore this application relates to the building that was constructed as a part of the original permission.

2.2 Justification

2.2.1 The justification for the installation of the stairwell and viewing platform and the mananchor system has resulted from the original need to provide a building that is sensitive to its rural surroundings, and that retained the visual amenity of the Village of Earls Barton situated to the North West of the site. A major aspect of this policy compliance was fulfilled by the installation of the green roof on the WTS/MRF building.

2.2.2 The following passage from the original planning statement provides the reasoning for the erection of the green roof;

‘Incorporating the curved, ‘green’ living roof, it is hoped to limit the building’s impact upon the environment, and beyond that make a positive contribution to its surroundings. It will be far less intrusive than a conventional agricultural or industrial building, having the appearance of a green field over the roofed portion’.

- 67 -

2.2.3 In policy terms, the curved green roof showed compliance with the high quality design, local distinctiveness, and sustainable development aspects of the Design Criteria stated in local policy.

2.2.4 The green roof is now subject to maintenance requirements, and due to health and safety reasons a safe access and safety precautions for work on the roof needs to be installed.

2.2.5 Technological interest in the sedum green roof, requires a safe access and vantage point to be provided as well as providing maintenance access. Thus the relevant application has been submitted.

3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Landscape and Visual Amenity

3.1.1 It is contended that the development will have little effect on the surrounding visual amenity. The stairwell and viewing platform will be screened to the north west of the site by the existing mature planting along the site boundary. To further minimise the visual intrusion upon the village of Earls Barton, the structure will be painted green, the same colour as the WTS/MRF building, thus blending it in with its surroundings.

3.1.2 The stainless steel cable will not create any intrusion into the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The cable will lie close to the sedum roof, creating minimal impacts on the area as a whole.

4 CONCLUSIONS

4.1.1 The development is needed to ensure that the maintenance of the sedum green roof will be undertaken in safety. The siting of the stairwell/viewing platform has been chosen to minimise its impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area, in particular the village of Earls Barton.

4.1.2 The MananchorTM Travel 8 fall arrest system will project only a very short distance above the roof so will be barely visible.

4.1.3 The viewing platform will allow interested parties to view the sedum green roof safely. Viridor has seen a large interest in the green roof, and therefore a facility that enables interested parties to view the distinctive feature should be provided.

RECOMMENDATION: That no objection be raised.

- 68 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

OTHER BOROUGH

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0108/OB

PROPOSAL: Installation of 1 no. single wind turbine with a maximum height to tip of 66m, new access track, crane hardstanding, transformer cubicle and substation.

LOCATION: Arable field at Cranford.

APPLICANT: Cranford Management Limited.

NOTE: Wellingborough Borough Council is consultee on application.

Scheme is as follows:-

1. Introduction

1.1 Cranford Management Ltd (‘Cranford’) is applying to Kettering Borough Council (‘the council’) for planning permission for the construction of a wind turbine and associated infrastructure on land at Cranford owned by the Cranford Estate lying to the north east of Cranford St Andrew, Northamptonshire (‘the Development’).

1.2 This planning statement assess the proposed Development against national, regional and local policy as well as other material considerations. It also takes into account national energy policy, and specifically the renewable energy policies that are of primary importance when making determinations on developments such as this.

1.3 It is intended that the Development will comprise of the following:

1.3.1 a single wind turbine with a tip height not exceeding 66 metres with a generating capacity of approximately 330 kilowatts (kW).

1.3.2 Transformer cubicle.

1.3.3 crane hardstandings.

WP/2011/0108/OB - 69 -

1.3.4 access track leading to the site.

1.3.5 substation.

1.4 It is anticipated that the wind farm will generate renewable, zero carbon electricity for transmission into the local electrical distribution network, which approximately would be enough to meet the annual electricity requirements of 187 homes in the area. The proposal would also help to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through the replacement of conventional fossil fuel electricity generation potentially saving the generation of several hundreds of tons of CO2 per annum.

1.5 A screening opinion adopted by the Kettering Borough Council on 21 June 2010 confirmed that the proposed Development does not constitute EIA development pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (the ‘EIA Regulations’). However, an environmental appraisal comprising a suite of documents has been prepared and submitted in support of the application. This planning statement is also submitted in support of the planning application.

1.6 The environmental documentation submitted for the proposed Development comprises the findings of numerous studies including the following, which are also provided themselves as appendices:

1.6.2 noise

1.6.3 archaeology and cultural heritage

1.6.4 landscape and visual effects

1.7 This planning statement is structured as follows:

1.7.1 The proposed development on the site.

1.7.2 The wider policy context relating to climate change.

1.7.3 National planning policy.

1.7.4 Regional planning policy.

1.7.5 Local planning policy.

1.8 It will then consider the impact of those policies in terms of the issues raised in the environmental information submitted with the application.

2. The Applicant

2.1 Cranford Management Ltd is a family run farming business based in Cranford where it has been established for over 250 years. It has diversified into the holding of sporting and corporate events and now wishes to diversify further - 70 - into the provision of renewable energy. This step will also increase the sustainability of its farming practice.

3. The Site and the Proposed Development

3.1 The site lies 3.7km to the east of Kettering in Northamptonshire. It is located 1.6km to the north east of Cranford St Andrew, 1.5km to the south east of Grafton Underwood, 1.7km to the north west of Tyswell and 19km north of Cranford St John. A plan showing the location of the turbine site is included at plate 3 of the Application submission.

3.2 The site comprises less than one hectare in total within arable farm land which has a single track road running through it. This area encompasses sufficient land to accommodate the turbine hardstanding, the substation, external transformer and the new/upgraded access track. Arable farming will continue right up to the edges of the hardstanding areas.

3.3 The location of the proposed Development has been selected through the consideration of various constraints in accordance with the guidance set out in PPS 22 and the siting requirements for a candidate turbine. The following matters were considered to be key issues in site selection:

3.3.1 wind resource in the area

3.3.2 locations of the nearest buildings and residences

3.3.3 aviation issues and constraints

3.3.4 the presence of designated sites

3.3.5 location of highways and other rights of way

3.3.6 utilities

3.3.7 ecological constraints

3.4 As noted above the proposed Development will consist of a single turbine with a generating capacity of approximately 330 kW. The turbine is expected to have a 16 metre blade length, a hub height of 49 metres and a maximum tip height of 66 metres. The design would be characterised by a three bladed upwind rotor horizontal access with pitch power regulation. The rotor and nacelle would be mounted on a tapered steel tower and would be painted in a semi-matt off white colour to minimise visibility and reflection. The Scheme will also require a connection to the local distribution network. A separate application for the grid connection will be made by the Distribution Network Operator if necessary. As this may form a separate application, grid connection issues are not considered within this Planning Statement.

3.5 Access to the site will be via an existing entrance to the farm from the local road leading from Slipton towards Cranford St John. - 71 -

3.6 The construction of the proposed Development will take around four months. Details of the likely vehicular movements associated with the construction is included within the submitted environmental information. It is also proposed that the movements of the largest loads be restricted to off peak periods during the weekend and this can be secured by condition.

3.7 The Development will be designed with an operational life of 25 years. Once the Development ceases to operate, all major equipment and structures would be removed from the site with the dismounting of the turbine effectively being the reverse of the erection process. However, the access track may remain in the event that it is of use to the landowner.

RECOMMENDATION: That no objection is raised.

- 72 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

FOR INFORMATION

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

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.

NOTE: Approved by Northamptonshire County Council on 1st February 2011 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 to 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 condition attached to this planning permission the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted application: i.e. Application Form, dated 11th October 2010; Supporting Statement Rev A; Design and Access Statement Rev A; Flood Risk Statement; Heritage Statement; Impact and Justification Statement; Bat Survey by EMEC Ecology, dated January 2011; Existing and Proposed Shower Block Plans - Drawing No. 0050355-BC-001 B; Existing and Proposed Shower Block Elevations - Drawing No. 0050355-BC-002; Proposed Layout Plan and Works Areas - Drawing No. 0050355-BC-0041; Existing Site Plan - Drawing No. 0050355-BC-005B; Site Plan - Drawing No. 0050355-BC-006C; Development 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) - 73 -

Superimposed over EA Flood Map Drawing No. 0050355-BC-12; Identification Site Plan/Photos of Proposed Yurt Village - Drawing No. 0050355-BC-13; Photographs of yurts from NCC's preferred yurt supplier.

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

Hours of Construction 3. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority all construction works shall be confined to the hours of 7.30am to 5.30pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays, with no works on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby occupiers of property 'from noise and other disturbance and in accordance with Policy 2 of the East Midlands Regional Plan (2009) and Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

Design 4. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority the external appearance of the yurts shall match the photographs from the preferred supplier received on 14th January 2011 with the felt cover being off- white and the coloured trim being 'forest green'.

5. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority the overall dimensions of the yurts shall be no larger than: (i) The largest communal yurt - 7.3m in diameter and 3.5m at its tallest point. (ii) The two single sex accommodation yurts - 6.4m in diameter and 3.1m at their tallest point. (iii) The smallest staff accommodation yurt - 4.8m in diameter and 2.9m at its tallest point.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy 2 of the East Midlands Regional Plan (2009), Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008) and Policy G6 of the Wellingborough Local Plan (1999) including Alteration (2004).

Maintenance 6. The yurts shall be properly maintained and the felt covers replaced when necessary. In the event that the yurts become in a dilapidated state of repair and/or are no longer needed they shall be taken down and the site reinstated to sports field.

Bat Enhancement Scheme 7. Prior to the bringing into use of the development hereby permitted a scheme of proposals for the installation of bat boxes on the sides of buildings or on trees within the grounds of Grendon Hall and activity centre, on a range of aspects, - 74 -

shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme as approved shall be implemented within two months of the approval and the boxes shall be thereafter maintained.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity enhancement and in accordance with Policy 2 of the East Midlands Regional Plan (2009) and Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

Community Use Scheme 8. Prior to the commencement of the use of the facilities approved by this consent, a Community Use Scheme for the sports facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The Scheme shall include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by non-activity centre users/non- members, management responsibilities and include a mechanism for review. The approved Scheme shall be implemented upon commencement of use of the development.

Reason: To secure well managed safe community access to the sports facility, to ensure sufficient benefit to the development of sport in accordance with Policy 2 of the East Midlands Regional Plan (2009) and Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

INFORMATIVE 1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the Bat Survey undertaken by EMEC Ecology in January 2011, particularly the procedure to follow if any works are required to the existing shower block and adjacent garage which will affect the roof structure or the loft spaces in any way and Appendix 1 which explains the procedure to follow if bats are discovered during the development works. A copy is attached to this permission.

REASONS FOR APPROVAL The proposal is to install a yurt village providing additional sleeping accommodation within the grounds at Grendon Hall Residential Training and Outdoor Education Centre and to provide adequate welfare facilities for the yurt village through a combination of converting and refurbishing existing buildings. The yurt village will allow disabled people access to the sports and other recreational activities that the site offers which they cannot currently enjoy because of the lack of suitable accommodation.

Overall the design and appearance of the proposed yurt village and external alterations to provide associated welfare facilities are considered acceptable in the context of the characteristics of the local area and would not detract from the setting of the adjacent listed buildings or conservation area.

Issues relating to flood risk, the loss of a small part of the playing field, crime and disorder, highway safety and parking and biodiversity have been carefully considered. While some of these issues have been adequately resolved with the relevant statutory consultees during the planning application process, the use of planning conditions is considered appropriate to mitigate any perceived issues and there are no substantive reasons to justify refusal of the application.

- 75 -

The development is therefore considered acceptable having regard to: East Midlands Regional Plan (2009) Policy 2 (Promoting Better Design); North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008) Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles); Wellingborough Local Plan (1999) including Alteration (2004) Saved Policies G2 (Flood Protection) and G6 (Development in the Open Countryside).

- 76 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

FOR INFORMATION

Planning Committee 13/04/2011

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.

NOTE: Approved by Northamptonshire County Council on 26th January 2011 subject to the following condition/s:-

Commencement of Development

1. This permission shall only be implemented in conjunction with planning permission 10/00005MJAS.

Reason: In recognition that this development is dependent on planning permission 10/00005MJAS if it is to be lawfully implemented.

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

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

Scope of Permission

3. 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, namely: Application form received 29th October 2010, Planning Statement received 29th October 2010, Design and Access Statement received 29th October 2010, Red Line Plan Drawing Number SRL.1 02.1 0 received 18th October 2010.

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 - 77 -

4. The quantity of waste exported from the site shall not exceed 50,000 tonnes per annum.

Reason for conditions 3 to 4: To define the scope of the permission and in the interest of clarity, highway safety, amenity and the environment in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

Access and Highway Safety

5. Within three months of the date of approval of this permission, the applicant shall submit to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing a scheme for cleansing of the wheels of all HGVs leaving the site in connection with waste operations. Except as otherwise agreed in writing the scheme shall include provision for wheel cleansing plant and a programme for maintaining the surface of the haul road. The approved scheme shall be implemented and be maintained for the duration of waste operations at the site.

6. All operational vehicles leaving the site shall be cleansed of mud and other debris to ensure that no mud or debris is deposited on the public highway.

7. The sole vehicular access in association with the development hereby permitted shall be the existing access on to the A43 Road and this access shall be maintained to a high standard of repair as agreed under the scheme required by condition 5.

8. HGV movements exporting waste from the site shall not exceed 180 per week.

9. All operational vehicles arriving at and leaving the site shall be sheeted to prevent material spillage or wind blow.

Reason for conditions 5 to 9: In the interests of highway safety and local amenity in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

Hours of Working

10. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, site operations and any associated activities shall only be carried out between the hours of 07.00 and 18.00 Mondays to Friday and 07.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays. No waste management operations whatsoever shall be carried out on the site on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays.

Dust

11. Operations on site, including the movement of vehicles, shall be controlled to minimise the creation of dust from these operations and measures to reduce dust emissions during dry weather periods, including the use of water spray facilities, shall be undertaken.

Reason for conditions 10 to 11: To protect the interests of local amenity in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. - 78 -

Monitoring 12. The operating company shall keep records of the quantity and type of waste exported by weight and its destination and the number of traffic movements from the site. These records shall be provided to the Waste Planning Authority within seven days of a written request and shall incorporate records that demonstrate compliance with the restriction on HGV movements (Condition 8).

Reason: To enable the Waste Planning Authority to monitor progress towards achieving the waste management capacities in Policy CS1 and the principles in Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy DPD (2010) and the objectives of the National Waste Strategy for England 2007.

End Date

13. The development hereby permitted shall cease no later than 30th April 2014 (two thousand and fourteen).

Reason: To enable the Waste Planning authority to reconsider the development in the light of circumstances prevailing at the end of the period stated and to ensure that the site is restored in a reasonable timescale, having regard to Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy DPD (2010) and Policy 16 of the Waste Local Plan (2006).

INFORMATIVES The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposed development, as submitted, but wishes to make the following informative comments:

This development will require an Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 from the Environment Agency, unless an exemption applies. The Applicant is advised to contact our National Customer Contact Centre on 08708 506 506 to discuss the issues likely to be raised.

The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off- site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.

If any waste is to be used on site, the applicant will be required to obtain the appropriate exemption or authorisation from us. For specific advice the Applicant will need to contact the Northampton Environment Management Team on 08708 506 506 or look at available guidance on our website: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste.

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

Inert waste processing and disposal is established on site. The recently granted permission for the processing and placement of inert waste material is temporary and must cease by 30th April 2014. This application is to allow the export of recycled material that is not suitable for use in construction of the go-kart track or bunds. It is proposed that these operations will cease no later than 30th April 2014 to coincide with - 79 - planning permission 10/00005/WAS which includes requirements for the restoration of the site. If undertaken in accordance with the recommended conditions of consent, any additional impacts under these proposals will be no more than minor. It is considered that there is an opportunity to improve operations through an approved scheme for cleansing the wheels of HGVs leaving the site. This proposal has been assessed against the local development plan. In particular the proposals are considered to be acceptable having regard to policies CS2, CS9, CS13 and CS14 of the Core Strategy, policies 8, 15, 16 and 17 of the Waste Local Plan and policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. On this basis, it is considered that there are no grounds for the County Council to refuse this application.

- 80 - 13th April 2011

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/2010/0515/F Glebe Farm Equestrian Glebe Farm, APPROVED Centre 65 Harrold Road, Bozeat. Proposed agricultural storage barn.

WP/2010/0559/F Mrs F Steinhardt Delos Community, 7 Poplar AC Street, Wellingborough. Extension and associated works.

WP/2011/0001/F Mr Gordon Betts Land adjacent to AC 70 Queens Road, Wollaston. New house on land adjacent to 70 Queens Road Wollaston - re-submission following refusal of WP/2010/0286/F.

WP/2011/0012/F Mrs Jane Kingham 3 Hookhams Path, Wollaston. AC Single storey rear and side extensions and bay window to front elevation.

WP/2011/0015/F Mr John Brown Agricultural building at Manor AC Farm, 7 Dychurch Lane, Bozeat. Conversion and extension of agricultural building to form a single residential dwelling - amended plans.

WP/2011/0016/LB Mr John Brown Agricultural building at Manor AC Farm, 7 Dychurch Lane, Bozeat. Conversion and extension of agricultural building to form a single residential dwelling (Application for Listed Building Consent) - amended plans.

WP/2011/0021/F Mr Cushing 20 Dowthorpe End, AC Earls Barton. Erection of white PVCU conservatory to rear elevation - amended plan. - 81 -

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

WP/2011/0023/F Mr Paul Field 35 Knuston Spinney, AC Irchester. Single-storey rear extension, first floor side extension and new fence to south-eastern boundary.

WP/2011/0027/FCOU Mr Michael Anthony Talyor 97-99 Wellingborough Road, APPROVED M S J Supplys Finedon. Change of use from motor cycle showroom to grocery shop (A1).

WP/2011/0028/F Mr Gary Minter 82 Mannock Road, AC Wellingborough. Single storey, flat roof extension to rear of property, forming kitchen extension.

WP/2011/0031/F Mr Michael Ledlie 9 15 Paterson Road, AC Gallay Limited Wellingborough. Extension to existing industrial building to create parts storage warehouse in connection with the existing business. Modifications to external works to remove raised gravel area and replace car parking spaces.

WP/2011/0032/F Mr Stephen Kidman 7 Harrison Close, AC Wellingborough. Remove existing porch and replace with larger porch to accommodate ground floor toilet.

WP/2011/0034/LB Mr A Sandhu Ecton House, 5 Church Way, APPROVED Ecton. Alterations (application for Listed Building Consent).

WP/2011/0039/F Mr Plant 41 Doddington Road, AC Wellingborough. Proposed first floor extension over existing garage and kitchen. Re-submission following refusal of planning application WP/2010/0330/F - revised plans.

- 82 -

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

WP/2011/0040/TX Mr Ian Dally 16 Dowthorpe Hill, AC Earls Barton. Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation for WP/2008/0008/F - application for single storey dining, wet room and utility.

WP/2011/0041/F Scott Bader Scott Bader and Company APPROVED Limited, Wollaston Hall, High Street, Wollaston. Proposed canopy extension to provide cover while filling chemical tankers, hardstanding area and rapid roll enlargement.

WP/2011/0042/RVC Mr Chi Lee 44 High Street, Earls Barton. AC Variation of condition 3 of planning permission BW/1983/0137 to allow the opening hours as follows: 11:00-23:00 Monday to Saturday and 17:00-22:00 on Sunday.

WP/2011/0047/F Miss J Broom 20 Main Street, REFUSED Little Harrowden. Proposed two storey side extension with associated internal and external works.

WP/2011/0048/F Mr Alan Fisher 67 Somerford Road, AC Wellingborough. Two storey side extension.

WP/2011/0053/F T-Mobile (UK) Limited Water Tower, Irchester Road, APPROVED Wollaston. Upgrade of T-Mobile (UK) Limited's existing radio site on a 25m water tower in Wollaston. The proposed development consists of the removal of 1 no. 600mm dish antenna from the water tower at a height of 24.6m and replace it with 1 no. 800mm dish antenna. The dish will be situated at the same height and utilise existing steel work on the water tower. - 83 -

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

WP/2011/0056/F Mr Mike Hager Wrenn School, London Road, AC Wrenn School Wellingborough. 2 storey extension to provide additional office space and a single storey hall extension to create additional storage and classroom space.

WP/2011/0057/FCOU Mr Stephen Brindle 7 Trojan Centre, AC SB Autocare Wellingborough. Wellingborough Limited Change of use to car repairs garage and MOT Testing Station (B2).

WP/2011/0058/FCOU Wellingborough Homes 2a Cambridge Street, AC Wellingborough. Change of use from A1 retail to office use A2.

WP/2011/0063/F The Executors of The Estate 1 Torrington Road, REFUSED of Mr R Page Wellingborough. The erection of a detached bungalow in the rear garden of 1 Torrington Road Wellingborough.

WP/2011/0067/F Mr T Higgs Hall Close Cottage, AC 81 Main Road, Grendon. New garage and alterations to dwelling.

WP/2011/0076/F Mr Michael Newman 55 Queen Street, Bozeat. AC Front extension.

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.

- 84 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/03/2011

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2010/2089/ A Factor 4 Developments One new house. 29 Moulton Lane APPROVED Boughton Northampton

PS/2011/0066/ Charnwood Borough Council New proposed room in the roof Council Offices conversion to each dwelling to APPROVED Southfield Road provide bedroom and ensuite with Loughborough re-modelled first floor.

FP/2011/0075/ Mrs C Groom Proposed single storey extension 12 Little Lane and alterations. APPROVED C Wollaston Wellingborough

FP/2011/0076/ Riz Single storey rear/side extension. Croyland Pharmacy REJECTED 77 London Road Wollaston Wellingborough

FP/2011/0078/ Mr M Coady Construction of a pair of 36 High Street semi-detached houses. APPROVED Bozeat Northants - 85 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/03/2011

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2011/0084/ Mr and Mrs T Robinson Two storey extension. 3 Yorke Close APPROVED C Finedon Northants

FP/2011/0086/ Mr and Mrs J Wayland Single storey rear kitchen extension 123 Station Road and first floor bedroom extension. APPROVED Earls Barton Northants

FP/2011/0087/ Mr J Reynolds Rear extension to lounge and 37 Easton Way dining room. New porch APPROVED C Grendon construction to front elevation. Northants

RE/2011/0090/ Mr and Mrs Rigley Change of use shop area to Main Street habitable. APPROVED Little Harrowden Wellingborough

BN/2011/0092/ Mr Thomas Reynolds Removal of part of wall on lower 115 High Street ground floor and replacement ACCEPTED Newport Pagnell windows. - 86 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/03/2011

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2011/0093/ Bedford Properties Limited Erection of one detached single C/o 73 - 75 storey dwelling. APPROVED C Harper Street Bedford

FP/2011/0103/ Ms W Stanton Proposed loft conversion. 40 Victoria Street APPROVED Earls Barton Northants

BN/2011/0111/ Mr T Sharp Domestic single storey rear 70 Roberts Street extension. ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

FP/2011/0112/ R Clements Conversion of disabled Friars School toilet/shower into a small kitchen. APPROVED Friars Close Wellingborough

PS/2011/0113/ Kirklees Council New separating wall, amenity block, Civic Centre entrance screen and associated APPROVED 3 Market Street works. Huddersfield - 87 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/03/2011

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2011/0134/ Mr and Mrs P Hammond Proposed fireplace and chimney. 3 Hidcote Close APPROVED Wellingborough Northants

PS/2011/0137/ Attn: Building Control Re-construction of mid-terraced Braintree District Council House. APPROVED Causeway House Bocking End

BN/2011/0140/ Mr Rob Betts Barn conversion. Lodge Farm ACCEPTED Shephards Hill Wollaston

PS/2011/0143/ FAO Building Control Refurbishment of existing industrial The Civic Centre unit. APPROVED The Water Gardens Harlow

FP/2011/0145/ Mr R Thahki and Mr J Patel Conversion of existing workshop 72 Westminster Road into residential dwelling. APPROVED C Wellingborough - 88 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/03/2011

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2011/0146/ Croyland Primary School New office area above existing Croyland Road plant room. APPROVED Wellingborough

DM/2011/0148/ Francis Jackson Estates Demolition of existing property. Limited ACCEPTED

DI/2011/0157/ Mr Burn Doorway widening from lounge - 13 Birchfield Road kitchen, disabled adaptation. ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

BN/2011/0161/ Mark Wright Excavating floor to make concrete 26 Wollaston Road footings to accommodate piers to ACCEPTED Bozeat take steel RSJ. Inserting steel RSJ. Northants Constructing opening between kitchen and dining room. Double plaster boarding steel RSJ. Plastering steel and piers. Remove electrics on kitchen wall and reposition light switch for dining room. Removal of existing radiator. Chasing out floor to accommodate pipework for new radiator. Filing floor after pipes have been laid. Blocking up existing doorway from dining room into lounge. Plastering over blocked up doorway. - 89 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/03/2011

Application No. Name & Address Description DI/2011/0166/ Mr D Patel L/A shower. 36 Tudor Way ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

BN/2011/0170/ Sheila Cowles Single storey extension. 12 Blenheim Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

DI/2011/0171/ Mr Dickson Level access shower. 42 Central Avenue ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2011/0176/ Ms Enid Smith Garage conversion 19 Moreton Avenue ACCEPTED Wellingborough

DI/2011/0180/ Brenda Willey Conversion of an existing utility 4 Fellows Close room into a bathroom consisting ACCEPTED Wollaston shower and w.c. New foul water Northants drainage will be plumbed to existing drainage (access to drainage system is via manhole cover already located in this room). Level access facility for disabled person. - 90 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 29/03/2011

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2011/0185/ Richard Flint Remove wall between lounge and 8 High Street dining room, remove chimney in ACCEPTED Bozeat lounge, and open up chimney in Northants dining room. - 91 -

Received Appeals

Appeal Site Ref. No. Date Status Received

Duke of York PH, WP/2010/0143/FM 24/09/2010 Hearing set for 10am 159 Northampton Road, 27/01/2011 at Swanspool Wellingborough House - Decision pending

15 Hickmire, WP/2010/0228/F 21/01/2011 Appeal Site Visit 06 April Wollaston 2011 - Decision pending

16 Holme Close, WP/2010/0361/F 11/02/2011 Awaiting Site Visit - Wellingborough Decision pending