DOCSLIB.ORG

Swiftmap Layout

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

17 r Caldecott o o k 0 Pond 52.4m © Crown copyright and database rights [2013] Ordnance Survey [100018056] Pond Ivy House Farm Riverbanks WB 1 .2 R 2 H m 17 Sluice 52.4m ROCKIINGHAM ROAD D e f 1 BS 6 The Castle Inn M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Sta Ppg I I I I I I I I I I I IL I I I I I I I I I I I I I L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Mill Cott L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L 1 L L L L L L L L L L 1 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L (PH) L A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Meadow 9 Farm Pond 3 1 2 Scale - 1:2500 Time of plot: 12:24 Date of plot: 21/01/2014 G ara ge 51.5m 5 2 2 Stable Yard 6 2 1 7 4 4 1 8 TCB 2 The Green 2 3 5 3 4 Hall 3 4 1 C HU RC 4 H L LA 1 N 3 4 E MM AA C CHU INIININIINIIN RC NN CH CLL Cott SSTSSTSSTSTS The STST TTT RR 1 EEEEEE Honeysuckle E Markham ETEET Glebe a Cottage House 9 TTT 3 The Plough Priest House House 3 Inn D is 9 ma 3 Rutland County Council Catmose, Oakham, Rutland LE15 6HP n t le d 7 R 3 1 a 4 2 ilw a y The Old School House 3 3 1 2 5 School House 3 1 1 3 0 7 2 8 1 2 6 3 57.9m 2 3 1 5 400m 2 9 7 3 5 1 a 3 Application: 2013/0967/OUT ITEM 2 Proposal: Outline planning permission for the erection of circa 47 No. dwellings, associated parking and ancillary amenities. Address: Land south of Caldecott Applicant: Mr M Sharman Parish Caldecott Agent: Mr Drummond Robson Ward Lyddington Reason for presenting to Committee: Major application in open countryside Significant local objection EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is an outline application for residential development on open pasture land to the south of the village. The site is outside the Planned Limit to Development and in open countryside. The site was submitted as a potential housing site in the Site Allocations and Polices DPD process but was not allocated as a development site in the Submission document. The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate an up to date 5 year land supply, including the 20% margin required by the National Planning Policy Framework. There has been significant local opposition to the proposal. The application is contrary to policy and there are no material considerations that would suggest that the development should be approved. Flooding, archaeology and ecology issues have not been satisfactorily resolved. No Developer Contributions have been offered as part of the application. RECOMMENDATION REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION, for the following reasons: 1. The site lies outside the Planned Limit to Development for Caldecott where policies in the Rutland Local Plan (2001) and the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) limit development in the countryside to certain essential uses provided that these meet certain criteria. The proposal does not constitute one of these exceptions. The emerging Site Allocations and Polices DPD (Proposed Submission Document, April 2013), also shows that the proposed area for residential development lies outside the Planned Limit to Development for Caldecott and is therefore subject to its policies relating to housing in the countryside, which again are restrictive. The site was put forward by the applicant for inclusion as a housing allocation in the Site Allocations and Policies DPD but it was not accepted by the Council following a site appraisal process. The site, together with wider land to the south of Caldecott is designated in the Rutland Local Plan as Particularly Attractive Countryside. The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate an up to date five year land supply with a 20% buffer as required by Para 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The Local Planning Authority does not accept the reduced figures suggested by the applicant, based on reduced delivery at the Oakham North site. Similarly, there is no identified need for additional housing in Caldecott that would justify overriding the policies. On that basis there is no need to exceptionally release this land for 18 development. The development would be prominent in the landscape when approaching Caldecott from the south and would harm the tranquil rural character of this edge of the village. The proposal would constitute a significant rise in the number of dwellings in a Smaller Service centre, leading to an unacceptable impact on the character of the area and further burden on an already low level of local services. The proposal would thereby be contrary to saved Policies EN26 and EN28 of the adopted Rutland Local Plan (2001), Policies CS4 and CS21 of the adopted Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and Policy SP5 of the Site Allocations and Polices DPD (April 2013). 2. The design illustrations of the proposed dwellings are considered to be inappropriate for this location on the edge of a traditional Rutland village where the predominant materials are ironstone and slate. The layout is led by the need to avoid the main flood zone area and as such is not locally distinctive where the pattern of development in the village is of buildings close to the rear of the footpaths. The development is urban in nature in that it utilises terraces of properties and presents a car dominated appearance. The proposal would thereby be contrary to the advice in Para 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS19 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and Policy SP14 of the Submission Site Allocations and Polices DPD (2013). 3. The application is not accompanied by any commitment to make developer contributions in line with the Council’s polices. The proposal would thereby be contrary to Policies CS8 and CS11 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Documents on Developer Contributions (2010) and Affordable Housing (2012). 4. The site is in an area at risk of flooding from both the Eye Brook and the Eyebrook Reservoir. The Environment Agency advises that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment does not adequately deal with this issue. Potential occupiers of the development would thereby be subject to an unnecessary risk in addition to the development displacing flood water elsewhere to the detriment of other nearby property. The proposal would thereby be contrary to the advice in saved policy UT5 of the Rutland Local Plan (2001), Policies CS1 and CS19 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and the advice in Para’s 99-103 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 5. No archaeological study has been undertaken to understand the importance of the site. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy CS22 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011), saved Policy EN14 of the Rutland Local Plan (2001), Policy SP19 of the Submission Site Allocations and Polices DPD (April 2013) and the advice in Para’s 128, 129 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 6. The site is considered to be of ecological importance and the submitted Habitat Survey is not considered to adequately address this issue. The development is also considered to be too close to the river and site boundaries to ensure that biodiversity and protected species are adequately protected. The scheme is thereby contrary to advice in Paragraph 118 of the NPPF and Policy CS21 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and Policy SP18 of the Submission Site Allocations and Policies DPD (2013). 19 7. The application is accompanied by traffic data which the highway authority considers to be unreliable, the access lacks adequate width, the new southern access lacks adequate visibility for an access outside the 30mph limit and the proposal would be likely to result in standing traffic on a section of highway in a rural area, to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal is thereby contrary to the advice in Para 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, saved Policies HT4, HT5 and HT6 of the Rutland Local Plan (2001) and Policy SP14 of the Submission Site Allocations and Polices DPD (2103). Site & Surroundings 1. The site is located in open countryside to the south of the village of Caldecott. The land here is designated Particularly Attractive Countryside in the Rutland Local Plan. The site adjoins the Planned Limit to Development as defined in the Rutland Local Plan and the Submission Site Allocations and Polices DPD. 2. The site comprises open fields including field hedges and trees. There is some historic ridge and furrow on the site. The Eye Brook runs through the site. The site is generally behind a high roadside hedge. The site is around 3ha in total although only 1.6ha is included within the red line site for the purposes of this application.
Recommended publications
  • Rutland County Council Rutland SFRA

    Rutland County Council Rutland SFRA

    Rutland County Council Rutland SFRA Final Report 29 May 2009 Entec UK Limited Report for Rutland County Peter Beever Senior Planner Council Catmose Oakham Rutland Rutland SFRA LE15 6HP Final Report Main Contributors Barry Rodgers 29 May 2009 Issued by Entec UK Limited ………………………………………………………… Barry Rodgers Approved by ………………………………………………………… Bill Finlinson Entec UK Limited Canon Court Abbey Lawn Abbey Foregate Shrewsbury SY2 5DE England Tel: +44 (0) 1743 342000 Fax: +44 (0) 1743 342010 h:\projects\hm-255\22153 rutland sfra\docs\reports\final report may 2009\appendix a\rr052i1.doc In accordance with an environmentally responsible approach, this document is printed on recycled paper produced from 100% post-consumer waste, or on ECF (elemental chlorine free) paper Copyright and Non-Disclosure Notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Entec (© Entec UK Limited 2009) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Entec under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Entec. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.
  • Rushton Landfill, Oakley Road, Rushton Supporting Statement

    Rushton Landfill, Oakley Road, Rushton Supporting Statement

    Proposed Extension to the Waste Reception Building & Construction of a Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) Facility and Concrete Batching Plant Rushton Landfill, Oakley Road, Rushton Supporting Statement Rev. April 2014 Supporting statement Storefield Lodge April 2014 Contents 1. Proposed site operations .............................................................................................................. 1 2. Design and Access Statement ....................................................................................................... 8 3. Planning Policy Statement .......................................................................................................... 10 Appendices Appendix 1 – Plans R14/13/01b R14/13/02 R14/13/03 Appendix 2 – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Crestwood Environmental Appendix 3 – Flood Risk Assessment White Young Green i Supporting statement Storefield Lodge April 2014 1. PROPOSED SITE OPERATIONS 1.1. Planning consent for the landfill site at Storefield Lodge, Rushton was originally granted in 1989. In 2008 Mick George Ltd (MGL) acquired an interest in the site and in November 2008 was granted consent to establish a building to undertake waste recycling operations undercover on the site (Consent No 08/00069/WAS). 1.2. Subsequent planning consents have been granted on the site the last being for a northern extension to the landfill facility being granted in November 2011 (Consent No 11/00046/WAS). 1.3. It is now proposed to extend the existing Waste Reception Building close to the site access in a northern direction, to the same height and design (including colour and cladding) as the existing building (c. 10m high to the eaves and c. 12m high to the ridgeline), in order to expand the current waste pre-treatment and sorting operations to meet demand and aid efficiency of operations. A second weighbridge will also be established for greater efficiency of site operations and a new wheel bath facility included.
  • The Welland Valley Partnership River Improvement Plan

    The Welland Valley Partnership River Improvement Plan

    The Welland Valley Partnership Enhancing the River Welland Our invitation to support a new vision for the local environment January 2013 Foreword The Welland Valley Partnership - Working Together for a Better River The River Welland arises above Market Harborough and flows through the gently rolling countryside of Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and Rutland until it reaches Stamford where it is one of the features that makes the town so attractive. Below Stamford the River continues on its way to Market Deeping and Spalding, where its character changes and the water slows down to become one of the four fenland rivers which drain the Fens and finally enter the Wash. People have relied on the Rivers for thousands of years for water, food, transport and energy; as a result the River Welland and its valley have changed enormously. Even the course of the River Welland has moved; it used to flow through the Trinity Bridge in Crowland, but now runs almost a mile away and the bridge is a dry monument in the centre of the town. Figure 1: Trinity Bridge at Crowland. This triangular bridge once provided a crossing place over two channels of the River Welland. (©Dave Hitchborne and licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Licence) 1: Trinity Bridge at While many of these changes have been beneficial, such as the creation of water meadows which were an important feature of the English countryside, others have had unintended side effects. For example, land drainage and the extensive dredging of the River upstream of Stamford have left us with an over-widened and over-deepened channel with little of its historic character.
  • Premises, Sites Etc Within 30 Miles of Harrington Museum Used for Military Purposes in the 20Th Century

    Premises, Sites Etc Within 30 Miles of Harrington Museum Used for Military Purposes in the 20Th Century

    Premises, Sites etc within 30 miles of Harrington Museum used for Military Purposes in the 20th Century The following listing attempts to identify those premises and sites that were used for military purposes during the 20th Century. The listing is very much a works in progress document so if you are aware of any other sites or premises within 30 miles of Harrington, Northamptonshire, then we would very much appreciate receiving details of them. Similarly if you spot any errors, or have further information on those premises/sites that are listed then we would be pleased to hear from you. Please use the reporting sheets at the end of this document and send or email to the Carpetbagger Aviation Museum, Sunnyvale Farm, Harrington, Northampton, NN6 9PF, [email protected] We hope that you find this document of interest. Village/ Town Name of Location / Address Distance to Period used Use Premises Museum Abthorpe SP 646 464 34.8 km World War 2 ANTI AIRCRAFT SEARCHLIGHT BATTERY Northamptonshire The site of a World War II searchlight battery. The site is known to have had a generator and Nissen huts. It was probably constructed between 1939 and 1945 but the site had been destroyed by the time of the Defence of Britain survey. Ailsworth Manor House Cambridgeshire World War 2 HOME GUARD STORE A Company of the 2nd (Peterborough) Battalion Northamptonshire Home Guard used two rooms and a cellar for a company store at the Manor House at Ailsworth Alconbury RAF Alconbury TL 211 767 44.3 km 1938 - 1995 AIRFIELD Huntingdonshire It was previously named 'RAF Abbots Ripton' from 1938 to 9 September 1942 while under RAF Bomber Command control.
  • Volume 111 • 2017

    Volume 111 • 2017

    THE LEICESTER LITERARY & PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY Founded in 1835 TRANSACTIONS OF THE LEICESTER LITERARY www.leicesterlitandphil.org.uk & PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL President: Professor A Yarrington PhD FRSA FSA FRSE VOLUME 111 2017 Life Vice Presidents Sir David Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE FRS FZS FSA Dr TD Ford OBE BSc PhD FGS Professor MA Khan BSc PhD FGS FRAS FRSA Mrs HAE Lewis JP MA Vice Presidents Mrs Joan Beeson BSc Mrs Ann Fuchs Mr Michael Taylor BA Dip TP MA MRTPI IHBC Mr Kanti Chhapi Dip Arch FRIBA Hon Secretary: Mr John Heard 4 Harrow Place, Leicester LE2 3AP Hon Membership Secretaries: Mr David Beeson & Mrs Joan Beeson BSc The Hollies, Main Street, Frolesworth, Leics LE17 5EG Hon Programme Secretaries: Dr Geoffrey Lewis MA MD FRCA & Mrs Hilary Lewis JP MA 3 Shirley Road, Leicester LE2 3LL Hon Treasurer: Mr Michael Kirk OBE FCA Elms Cottage, 46 Shirley Road, Leicester LE2 3LJ Hon Editor of Transactions: Dr Geoffrey Lewis MA MD FRCA 3 Shirley Road, Leicester LE2 3LL Publicity Officer: Dr Diana Thurston BSc MSc PhD FGS Linden House, Loddington Lane, Tilton on the Hill, Leics LE7 9DE Assistant Hon Publicity Officer: Mrs Ann Fuchs The Elwells, Bennetts Hill, Dunton Bassett, Leics LE17 5JJ Independent Examiners: Mr Keith Smithson FCIB MIMgt FRSA Mr Peter Fuchs MA Website Editor: Dr Craig Vear BA PCGE PhD Email [email protected] Members of Council MARBLE MOVEMENT MEMORY AND THE MUSEUM IN SOUTH ASIA: SOUTH ASIA Professor PJ Boylan BSc PhD FGS FMA FBIM FRSA • Professor John Fothergill MSc PhD CEng FIEEE FIEE FInstP
  • FIELDFARE – March 2017 RUTLAND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

    FIELDFARE – March 2017 RUTLAND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

    rnhs FIELDFARE – March 2017 RUTLAND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY Photo, Dave Cotter. Diary dates, 3 Spring is very confusing this year. One day it’s like summer, and then the next it’s back to winter again. Flowers are convinced that spring is here: banks of violets Weather, 5 are appearing, both blue and white, with celandines, primroses, speedwell and Amphibians and reptiles, 5 even wood anemones showing their faces to the sun – and wind and rain – creating a colourful carpet in woodland. The first chiff-chaff has arrived. Hares have also Birds, 6 decided that it’s time to get together again, boxing parties being seen from the end Botany, 10 of February, and where hares have been remarkably scarce, groups of up to 11 in one field have appeared. Whatever the weather, those hormones just can’t be Butterflies, 10 suppressed! Moths, 11 Let’s make spring and summer 2017 a good season for wildlife. Plant galls, 11 As a start, in order to commemorate 50 years of RNHS we, together with the Orthoptera, 11 Leicestershire Bat Group, have funded bat boxes for the Nathusius’ pipistrelles Other insects & invertebrates,12 in Burley Wood; and will have them erected with the very kind assistance of the Rutland Water Osprey team in good time for the bats’ return later this spring. We Mammals, 13 can achieve much more when we cooperate with other conservation groups. We Bats, 13 are also supporting Paul Bennett, our Moth Recorder, by providing funding for a moth trap to assist with collecting records this summer. AGM minutes, 14 Less happily the wonderful signs on the verges courtesy of RCC have been less RNHS contacts, 15 than effective in protecting the verges.
  • The Rove Beetles of Leicestershire and Rutland

    The Rove Beetles of Leicestershire and Rutland

    LEICESTERSHIRE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY The Rove Beetles (Staphylinidae) of Leicestershire and Rutland Part 1: Sub-families Paederinae, Pseudopsinae and Staphylininae Derek A. Lott Creophilus maxillosus (Graham Calow) LESOPS 24 (2011) ISSN 0957 – 1019 Correspondence: 5 Welland Road, Barrow upon Soar, LE12 8NA VC55 Staphylinids Part 1 2 Introduction With over 56,000 described species in the world, the Staphylinidae are the largest family in the animal kingdom (Grebennikov & Newton, 2009). Around a quarter of the British beetles are rove beetles, so they represent an important component of biodiversity in Britain. However, because of perceived difficulties in their identification, they have not received the attention that they merit. This paper aims to play a part in redressing that imbalance by listing all reliable records from Leicestershire and Rutland for the different species and analysing which species have declined locally over 100 years of recording rove beetles and which have prospered. The subfamilies treated in this first part include the largest and most conspicuous species in the family. The geographical area covered is the vice county of Leicestershire and Rutland (VC55). Some records from adjacent banks of the River Soar that technically lie in Nottinghamshire are also included. These records can be distinguished by the use of Nottinghamshire parish names. Identification Staphylinidae can be easily recognised among beetles in the field by their short wing cases that leave five or six segments of the abdomen exposed and flexible. In fact they look more like earwigs than other beetles. For identification to species, all the members of the subfamilies in this part will be covered by the forthcoming Royal Entomological Society handbook to Staphylinidae parts 6 and 7 due for publication in 2011.
  • Item Xx Subject of Report

    Item Xx Subject of Report

    Agenda Item No: 6a DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 26 JANUARY 2010 REPORT BY CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER Erection of the new Maplefields school and associated sports hall with parking, play areas, soft landscaping and all weather Subject: pitch on part of the former Beanfield Secondary School site, Corby. New School to be accessed off Tower Hill Road, Corby (09/00045/CCD). Applicant: NCC Children and Young People’s Service That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions Recommendations: specified in Appendix A. 1. Purpose of Report 1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with professional planning advice on any issues, Development Plan Policies and other material considerations relevant to the determination of a planning application. 2. Relevant Corporate Outcome and Corporate Priority A cleaner, greener and more prosperous county 3. Background 3.1 The former Beanfield Secondary School site is situated within a predominantly residential area on the south-western edge of Corby. The application site covers part of the former Beanfield Secondary School site and is located on the former southern playing field area which is bounded to the east by the existing Beanfield Primary School, the A6003 Uppingham Road to the west and residential properties to the south. The proposed access to the site will be off Tower Hill Road in the southwest corner. The existing access off Glastonbury Road which used to serve the Beanfield Secondary School will be retained for future development of the northern part of the former secondary school site which does not form part of this application. 4. Proposal 4.1 The proposed new Maplefields School would provide places for 40 primary and 64 secondary pupils with behaviour, emotional and social difficulties (BESD).
  • Phase 1 Habitat Surveys

    Phase 1 Habitat Surveys

    UPPINGHAM, RUTLAND EXTENDED PHASE 1 SURVEYS FOR RUTLAND COUNTY COUNCIL JULY 2009 UPPINGHAM, RUTLAND EXTENDED PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEYS CONTENTS 0.0 Non-Technical Summary 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Legislation and Policy 3.0 Methodology 4.0 Generic Area Description 5.0 Compartment Results References Figure 01 – All compartments Figure 02 - Compartment 2: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Figure 03 - Compartment 3: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Figure 04 - Compartment 4: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Figure 05 - Compartment 5: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Figure 06 - Compartment 6: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Figure 07 - Compartment 7: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Appendix 1 – Survey Methods Appendix 2 – Target Notes Appendix 3 – SSSI Citation Appendix 4 – Background Data Maps Appendix 5 - Wildlife Corridors Appendix 6 – Glossary of Terms Report: R29.08 Uppingham Ref No: Author: LSC LTD Scientific Hilary R Ludlow MSc CBiol, check: CMLI, MIEEM, CEnv Presentation Zoe Lewis BA (Hons) check: Date: JULY 2009 Landscape Science Consultancy Ltd 2 L:\LSC\R29.08 Rutland County Council\Reports & Drafts\Uppingham\Uppingham Extended Phase 1 Survey FINAL July 2009.doc UPPINGHAM, RUTLAND EXTENDED PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEYS 0.0 Non-Technical Summary Background to Phase 1 Habitat Survey Landscape Science Consultancy Ltd (LSC Ltd) was commissioned by Rutland County Council (RCC) to conduct Extended Phase 1 Habitat Surveys of compartments of land bordering the town of Uppingham, Rutland. The purpose of the surveys was to provide RCC with evidence on habitats and protected species within the compartments, as part of the Local Development Framework. The habitat surveys were conducted by LSC Ltd ecologists between April and May 2009 and followed best practice methodology.
  • Heritage 217 Q1 2015

    Heritage 217 Q1 2015

    No. 217 1 January - 31 March 2015 Editorial Panel: Helen Ikin, Steve Woodward, Jim Graham. Hon. Sec. Sue Graham, 5 Lychgate Close, Cropston, Leicester. LE7 7HU. Tel: 0116-2366474 A View From The Armchair To live and grow up in a house with a lovely garden is a real privilege. For a naturalist it can provide hours of fun and a realisation that even in an area that we consider familiar there is still much to learn. My father built the house in Quorn in Leicestershire in the early 1950s after demolishing three small cottages that were initially on the site. My parents and sister moved into the house on its completion in 1955. I was born in the house a year later. My father was, and still is, a keen naturalist and during my childhood he held a ringing licence and ringed birds in our garden. Birds have now been ringed in the garden for 60 years and this has provided us with a wealth of information. The garden which is some 80 feet long and 40 feet wide, borders onto a mixed woodland called Kaye’s Plantation. I started bird ringing in 1974 and, after attaining my C-permit a short time later, started to use a mist net in the garden which added to the variety of birds ringed. Since we started we have caught some 57 species some of which have taken us by surprise including: Common Gull, Kingfisher, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker and Firecrest. The fourth Siskin I had ever caught in the garden in April 1976 IN THIS EDITION was wearing a Russian ring! It had been ringed near Liepaya in Latvia in October the previous year.
  • Report to the North Northamptonshire Joint Committee

    Report to the North Northamptonshire Joint Committee

    Report to the North Northamptonshire Joint Committee by Nigel Payne BSc (Hons), Dip TP, MRTPI, MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Date 22 June 2016 PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004 (AS AMENDED) SECTION 20 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION INTO THE NORTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE JOINT CORE STRATEGY LOCAL PLAN Document submitted for examination on 31 July 2015 Examination hearings held between 17 and 27 November 2015 File Ref: PINS/G2815/429/1 Abbreviations Used in this Report AA Appropriate Assessment CSS Core Spatial Strategy DtC Duty to Co-operate EA Environment Agency GIDP Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan HE Highways England HMA Housing Market Area HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment IDP Infrastructure Delivery Plan JCS Joint Core Strategy JPU Joint Planning Unit LDS Local Development Scheme LP Local Plan LPA Local Planning Authority MM Main Modification NCC Northamptonshire County Council NE Natural England NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NTP Northamptonshire Transport Plan OAN Objectively Assessed Need SA Sustainability Appraisal SCG Statement of Common Ground SCI Statement of Community Involvement SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment SPA Special Protection Area SPD Supplementary Planning Document SUE Sustainable Urban Extension VS Viability Study -2- North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan, Inspector’s Report June 2016 Non-Technical Summary This report concludes that the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Part 1) (JCS) provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the area, providing a number of main modifications are made to the plan. The Joint Planning Unit (JPU) has specifically requested me to recommend any modifications necessary to enable the plan to be adopted.
  • Council Minutes 20/07/2017

    Council Minutes 20/07/2017

    Page:28 The Meeting of the Desborough Town Council held at the Library, High Street, Desborough on Thursday 20th July 2017 PRESENT Councillors: Cllr J Pearce (Vice Chairman). Cllr A Matthews, Cllr J Putt, Cllr R Cutsforth, Cllr R Marlow, Cllr D Howes, Cllr M Tebbutt Clerk: James McKechnie Also in attendance: Members of the Public 124/17 To receive apologies for absence – Cllr Soans, Cllr R Brooks, Cllr J Derbyshire, Cllr A Turigel & Cllr E Gilbey 125/17 To receive and approve for signature the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 18th May 2017 The minutes of the meeting held on 15th June 2017 were approved as a true record and signed by the Vice Chairman. 126/17 To note any matters arising from the minutes not included on the agenda for report only None 127/17 To receive declarations of interest – None 128/17 Chairman’s Announcement – View from the Bridge Multi Wheeled Sports Facility • Broke ground on 3rd July, estimated finish date of w/c 11th September • Postponement of project due to the delay of local authority removing the encampment that resulted in a slippage of up to 8 weeks with our contractors • Travellers came back on Thursday 22nd June, the matter dealt with robustly by the Clerk in conjunction with the Police, Leisure Centre Management, NNC & KBC • Travellers moved out 2 hours later that same morning • The Clerk stated that this was the 2nd time that the site was occupied, KBC were asked again what they are going to do to secure site, etc. • The Clerk has liaised with the Police to ensure that a Section 58 Notice would be served as the encampment would impact on our business stability to function.