East Council Cedar Drive THRAPSTON Northamptonshire NN14 4LZ

APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 30 September 2009 INDEX OF APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Case Ref. No. Location Recom. Page No.

EN/09/00804/VAR The Old School House Main Street Grant Apethorpe Northamptonshire 2 PE8 5DL

EN/09/00936/FUL Potting Sheds Ashton Wold Ashton Refuse Northamptonshire 5

EN/09/01269/NCC Slipe Clay Pit Landfill Site Stamford Road Kings Cliffe Northamptonshire 9

EN/09/01412/FUL Stanwick Lakes A45 Nene Valley Way Grant Stanwick Northamptonshire 16

Development Control Committee 1 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

Committee Report

Printed: 18 September 2009

Case Officer Amie Baxter EN/09/00804/VAR

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward 26 May 2009 3 June 2009 29 July 2009 Kings Forest Apethorpe

Applicant Mr A Forbes

Location The Old School House Main Street Apethorpe Peterborough Northamptonshire PE8 5DL

Proposal Removal of condition 5 regarding parking to EN/94/00492/FUL

This application is brought before the Development Control Committee due to Councillors having previous interest in the site and as the Condition which this application seeks to remove was imposed at the request of the Members.

1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That permission be GRANTED subject to conditions

2. The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes to remove Condition 5 of planning permission number EN/94/00492/FUL by removing the parking restriction placed on the planning approval which requires the occupier of The Old School House to use a dedicated off road parking area situated to the rear of the application site, on Bridge Street.

2.2 The condition was considered necessary at the time of the previous application, to ensure that the additional parking need from the conversion of The Old School to a dwelling, did not result in additional vehicles parking on Main Street and thus resulting in possible detriment to highway safety.

2.3 The Old School has since been converted to a dwelling and the previous occupiers no longer live at the application site. The new occupiers have expressed that using the dedicated off road parking area is impractical due to its distance from the application site and have noted that they do not use the dedicated area for parking and instead use on-street parking along Main Street.

2.4 .The applicants have also noted that no other dwellings in the area have such a condition requiring the use of off-street parking.

3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The application site sits adjacent to the junction of Main Street and Bridge Street. The site is surrounded by dwellings of a similar age and size and St Leonards Church sits to the east. 3.2The application site accommodates a detached dwelling which was once a school. The property was converted from a school in 1995 and benefits from a private garden but has no off street parking facility within the curtillage of the application site.

Development Control Committee 2 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

4 Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Guidance PPS1– Sustainable Development PPG3- Housing. PPG13- Transport

4.2 Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13- General Sustainable development Principles.

4.2 Northamptonshire County Structure Plan None relevant to this application.

4.3 District Local Plan None relevant to this application.

4.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance NCC Parking SPG-2003

5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 EN/94/00492/FUL Extension and conversion of a former school into a residential dwelling Permitted 22/07/1994. The applicant sought pre-application advice which noted that, if the applicant is able to demonstrate that since The Old School House was occupied, the parking area referred to in Condition 5 has not been used for the parking of vehicles associated with The Old School House, then an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness could be submitted. An alternative to this could be an application to remove the existing condition.

6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbours 6.1.1 The occupier of 1, The Terrace objects to the proposal for the following reasons: Main Street is already congested without adding more cars. The Old School House is situated on a corner and parking outside the property is already dangerous. The existing parking condition should be kept because there is no more room on the road for anymore cars and the occupier has lived next to the application site for fifteen years and for the last couple of years, parking has become a major problem for those of us who have no choice but to park on the street.

6.1.2 The occupier of Michaelmas Cottage has submitted a letter in support of the application, stating that past and current use of on-street parking has not caused any obstruction or apparent inconvenience to nearby properties.

6.2 Parish Council: No Comments received at the time of writing this report.

6.3 Conservation Officer: No objection.

6.4 Highways Officer: No objection, given the previous use of the property.

7 Evaluation 7.1 The following issues are relevant to the determination of this application: Impact on Parking Provision and Highway Safety.

7.2 Impact on Parking Provision and Highway Safety. 7.2.1 The current owners of The Old School House consider that Condition 5 of the original planning permission is unreasonable, in that the dedicated parking area referred to in Condition 5 is situated too far away from the application site to be practical for everyday use. In addition, they state that they currently park on Main Street without having an impact on highway safety or causing obstruction to other highway users.

Development Control Committee 3 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

7.2.2 The applicant has submitted a series of photographs taken at periods through out the day, on weekdays and at weekends, which attempt to highlight that the current on street parking provision on Main Street is adequate, with the inclusion of their own parked cars. The applicant has also stated that Main Street is approximately 104 metres long and the maximum number of cars parked along the street ant any one time has been 8, including those belonging to The Old School House.

7.2.3 Planning conditions such as that which is the subject of this application can be difficult to enforce, in that compliance cannot be constantly monitored. In this instance Condition 5 is of limited use in ensuring that parking provision does not become an issue. There are no general parking restrictions in place on Main Street and it could be argued that the building’s previous use as a school would have generated a much higher level of traffic than the current use.

7.2.4 The current designated parking space sits approximately 80 metres away from The Old School House (as the crow flies) and is an estimated distance of 100 metres when walking to the parking area from The Old School House. It is considered unreasonable and impractical to expect an occupier to walk such a distance, particularly as adequate on-road parking provision exists directly adjacent to the application site.

7.2.5 Overall then, with the condition proposed as part of EN/94/00494/FUL being difficult to enforce and given that the applicant has demonstrated that the current need for parking on Main Street is met with an adequate on-street parking provision, it is considered acceptable that Condition 5 be removed so as not to insist that the designated parking area is used by the occupiers of The Old School House.

8 Other issues 8.1 Crime and Disorder - this application does not raise any significant issues.

8.2 Access for Disabled - this building would not be subject to any public access and this does not raise any significant issues

9 Recommendation 9.1 That the application be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions/Reasons -

1. The condition is hereby removed and the occupiers of The Old School House shall not be ordered to use the designated parking area referred to in Condition 5 of planning permission ref EN/94/00492/FUL and as shown on drawing number: 1, received by the Council on 03/06/09,as the sole parking area for the parking of vehicles associated with the application site.

Development Control Committee 4 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

Committee Report Committee Date : 30 September 2009 Printed: 18 September 2009

Case Officer Mr Rhys Bradshaw EN/09/00936/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 17 June 2009 19 June 2009 14 August 2009 Lower Nene Ashton

Applicant OHL Ltd

Agent David Jackson

Location Potting Sheds Ashton Wold Ashton Northamptonshire

Proposal Creation of five new two bedroom residential dwellings for holiday units to compliment Phase 1 Approved under 07/01174/FUL

This application is reported to the Development Control Committee because the proposed development exceeds the threshold in the scheme of delegation of 1 new dwelling in the open countryside.

1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 The application be REFUSED

2 The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes the erection of 5 purpose built holiday let units. The units are designed to compliment an existing range of potting sheds, which are to be converted into five holiday let units under application reference EN/07/01174/FUL.

2.2 The proposed units will have two bedrooms and will be sited to infill gaps in the existing range of sheds.

2.3 The application also proposes 10 parking spaces in addition to 10 provided under the previous application.

3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The application site forms part of the Ashton estate and is situated in the open countryside some 2 miles away from the nearest public highway. The site is reached via an access road leading from Ashton village and there is a further access from the Polebrook Road.

3.2 Within the estate are a group of dwellings and former farm buildings which have been converted to general residential use and lie in a group close to the main Ashton Wold Manor House. Some of these buildings originally formed staff accommodation for people employed at the main house.

3.3 There is a small communal parking area adjacent to the access road, this can accommodate approx 10 parked cars.

3.4 A stable block has recently been converted to provide holiday let accommodation. The former staff houses have been refurbished and are used as general residential accommodation for estate tenants.

Development Control Committee 5 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

3.5 The site includes a walled garden with a number of greenhouses and a swimming pool. The buildings and garden are generally in a poor condition and in semi derelict state and the garden overgrown. The area is generally well wooded and lies to the west of Ashton Wold House.

4 Policy Considerations 4. 1 Planning Policy Guidance Notes/Statements PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 - Housing PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9 - Nature conservation

4.2 Regional Spatial Strategy 8: Regional Plan Policy 2 Promoting Better Design Policy 24 Regional Priorities for Rural Diversification Policy 27 Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment Policy 42 Regional Priorities for Tourism

4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles

4.4 East Northamptonshire District Local Plan There are no saved policies relevant to this proposal.

4.5 Rural North and Thrapston Plan Submission Document Policy 1 - Settlement Roles (Please note that this document has not been adopted by members)

4.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance- Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism

5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 EN/07/01174/FUL – Conversion of former potting sheds and walled garden into five holiday let units. APPROVED

6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbours – 3 letters of support have been received from residents of Ashton Wold.

6.2 Parish Council: No objection.

6.3 Warmington Parish Council: No objection

6.4 NCC Rights of Way: No objection

6.5 Natural : No objection

6.6 Wildlife Trust: Comments – Application is close to designated wildlife site therefore care needs to be taken during construction operations and the subsequent use in order to protect the site and its wildlife from possible impacts.

6.7 ENC Conservation Officer - While I have no objection to this proposal, I did want to clarify the position of the landscaping element. The scheme for the re design of the walled garden was agreed as part of the last application (07/01174). Will this still stand if a new planning permission is determined as it will need to be amended to facilitate the changes in the site layout.

6.8 Northants Badger Group – No comments

Development Control Committee 6 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

6.9 NCC Highways – No objection subject to conditions to ensure the reconstruction of the vehicular access.

7 Evaluation 7.1 The following issues are relevant to the determination of this application:

7.2 Principle of development: 7.2.1 PPS7 promotes more sustainable patterns of development in the countryside. PPS7 and policies in the Regional Plan generally support the development of tourism accommodation in the open countryside.

7.2.2 PPS7 advises however that wherever possible, tourist and visitor facilities should be housed in existing or replacement buildings, particularly where they are located outside existing settlements. The Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism also advocates this approach. Facilities requiring new buildings in the countryside may be justified where the required facilities are needed in conjunction with a particular countryside attraction or to allow appropriate facilities needed to enhance visitors’ enjoyment, and/or improve the financial viability, of a particular countryside feature or attraction, providing they will not detract from the attractiveness or importance of the feature, or the surrounding countryside.

7.2.3 Whilst some of the recent applications at Ashton Wold, including the most recent proposal linked to the potting shed complex, involved the conversion of existing buildings, the application considered here is purely for new buildings. No evidence of need had been submitted in support of the application and the proposed units will not be linked to a particular countryside attraction.

7.3 Design and Layout 7.3.1 The design of the units themselves reflects the character and appearance of existing former porting sheds by following the simple lean-to form, utilising the high garden wall as the spine. The southern side of the wall facing the private gardens would be highly glazed to reflect the character of greenhouses within the walled garden, whilst the northern side would take on the appearance of brick built outbuildings with simple fenestration details and wooden entrance doors.

7.3.2 Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the intensification of the number of units from 5 to 10 and the proposed linear layout would have a detrimental impact on the character of the Ashton Wold estate. The infilling of the gaps between the existing sheds (to be converted) with new build units would create a more urban character in what is essentially a countryside setting by increasing the density of the built form and arranging buildings in a more formal layout. The resultant length of the range of holiday lets will extend to 122 metres. Surrounding buildings, which consist of former workers dwellings, outbuildings and converted holiday lets are collectively at a low density. This lower density manifests itself in a less formal arrangement of the buildings on site.

7.4 Neighbouring amenity: 7.4.1 The Gardener’s Cottage and two other former workers dwellings are situated to the west and southwest of the walled garden and potting shed buildings. Given the single storey height of the proposed units and their orientation away from the existing dwellings, the impact on the occupiers of these buildings is considered minimal.

7.5 Parking 7.5.1 The existing access road is of sufficient width to allow the additional traffic associated with the proposed use. The access road is currently in need of repair as it is deeply potholed in part. This slows down the speed of traffic passing along its length. Whilst the Highway Authority has requested a condition to secure alterations to the access road, its repair is a management matter for the estate and it is not considered necessary to require the improvement or upgrading of the access road to serve the

Development Control Committee 7 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

addition units proposed in this application. There is ample space for vehicles to pass and for on site turning and parking in connection with the proposed use. On site turning is provided and pedestrian visibility splays at the access of 2m by 2m are provided.

8 Other issues 8.1 Crime and Disorder - this application does not raise any significant issues

8.2 Impact on trees – The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has raised questions regarding the landscaping scheme. If this scheme were considered acceptable, the same landscaping condition as application reference EN/07/01174/FUL could be attached.

8.3 Access for the Disabled - No disabled issues are considered relevant to the determination of this application

9 Recommendation 9.1 That planning permission should be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Conditions/Reasons -

1. The proposed development, by reason of the increased density of buildings on site and the introduction of a linear form, will have an detrimental impact on the rural character of the Ashton Wold Estate. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 13(h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, and Policy 2 of the East Midlands Regional Plan.

2. In the absence of an adequate justification of need, the proposed development is considered contrary to PPS7 on the basis that the proposed tourist accommodation comprises new buildings in the open countryside.

Development Control Committee 8 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

Committee Report Committee Date : 30 September 2009 Printed: 18 September 2009

Case Officer Kate Freeman EN/09/01269/NCC

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 13 August 2009 13 August 2009 12 November 2009 Kings Forest Kings Cliffe

Applicant Northamptonshire County Council

Location Slipe Clay Pit Landfill Site Stamford Road Kings Cliffe Northamptonshire

Proposal Landfill disposal of low level radioactive waste in Phases 4A, 5A and 5B of permitted hazardous waste landfill

This application is brought forward for consideration by Members of Development Control Committee as it considered that the proposal has the potential to have a significant impact on the District and does not therefore fall within the Scheme of Delegation.

1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) be advised that East Northamptonshire Council raises no objection to the application subject to the comments as set out in the report.

2 The Proposal 2.1 The application is for the landfill disposal of low level radioactive waste (LLW) in phases 4B, 5A and 5B of the currently permitted hazardous waste landfill at the East Northants Resource Management Facility. The application does not propose to increase the level of waste approved for deposition at the site or to extend the cells which already have approval.

2.2 The current planning permission (NCC ref. EN/05/1264C) allows for the deposition of hazardous waste and inert materials at the landfill site. In addition to the hazardous waste already permitted at the site, the application proposes the disposal of low level radioactive waste (LLW), which, while of low risk, must be sent to specifically authorised landfill sites. Typically the LLW will comprise soils and construction materials that arise from sources such as hospitals and decommissioned nuclear power stations.

3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The application site is located approximately 2.2km to the southeast of the village of Duddington and 2.5km north of Kings Cliffe, just south of Great Wood and on the opposite side of Stamford Road to the West Hay Transport Depot site.

3.2 The proposed development relates to an area of approximately 6 hectares in the south east section of the site; specifically phases 4A, 5A and 5B of the current hazardous landfill. Landfill operations are complete in phases 1, 2 and 3 of the site and landfill is currently being carried out in phase 4A.

4 Policy Considerations 4.1 Planning Policy Guidance PPS1 : Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 7 : Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9 : Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Development Control Committee 9 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

PPS 10 : Planning for Sustainable Waste Management PPG 13 : Transport PPS 23 : Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24 : Planning and Noise

4.2 East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009) (incorporates the Milton Keynes South Midlands Sub Regional Strategy (MKSM SRS))

4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (June 2008)

5 Relevant Planning History

• 07/01838/NCC: Soil treatment facility (approved). • 06/01517/CRA: Installation and operation of gas flare and surface water pumping station (approved). • 05/01264/NCC: Part retrospective, part prospective application for hazardous waste infill and associated operations. Continued use of the site for landfilling of hazardous waste, operations of a dry waste collection business, retention of site infrastructure and final restoration of the site to agricultural (approved). • 02/00178/CRA: Importation and storage area of soils for the restoration of clay pit (approved). • 02/00166/CRA: Variation of condition to include the disposal of asbestos (approved). • 00/00883/CRA: Waste recycling and storage facility (approved). • 89/01250/NCC: Extension of silica clay workings and infilling with inert waste materials (approved).

6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 East Northamptonshire Council is being consulted by Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) as the determining Authority for minerals and waste related applications. NCC will therefore undertake all external consultations and determine the planning application. However, as part of their consideration, both NCC and the Environment Agency has consulted ENC’s Environmental Protection Team. Their comments are considered below within the evaluation.

7 Evaluation 7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 The applicant has outlined the principal reasons for selecting the East Northants Resource Management Centre at Kings Cliffe for the deposit of LLW, as follows:

• The site is centrally located for the main decommissioning sites in the south of the UK. • The site has a high standard of engineering which is suitable for the receipt of the waste types proposed without the need to upgrade or amend the containment design. The containment engineering provides an 18 times greater level of protection than the equivalent requirement for a domestic waste landfill. • The site has established operational and acceptance procedures that will ensure the waste is managed safely.

7.1.2 Due to the size and nature of the proposals, an Environmental Statement was required to accompany the planning application, in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (as amended). As determining authority, NCC is required to assess the applicant’s Environmental Statement.

7.1.3 This authority must consider whether the proposals would have any significant or unacceptable environmental, social or economic impacts upon the district of East Northamptonshire which would warrant an objection to the application. The key issues for consideration are principle of development, pollution control, traffic impact, visual

Development Control Committee 10 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

impact and impact upon residential amenity. These matters together with any other relevant considerations are considered in turn below.

7.2 Principle of Development 7.2.1 National, regional and local planning policy does not refer specifically to the treatment and deposition of low level radioactive waste. As Local Planning Authority, it falls to NCC to be satisfied that the development accords with relevant policy. However, the consented use for the site is waste management and the proposal appears to be consistent with this use.

7.2.2 The application documentation explains that the requirement for the disposal of LLW arises from a national need. The safe decommissioning of nuclear power stations is a critical environmental objective arising from the legacy of the electrical power generation that has been enjoyed by all communities over the past 50 years.

7.2.3 The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has indicated that there will be substantial amount of LLW as a result of the decommissioning process, which needs to be properly disposed of. In light of this, the Government has produced various policy documents in relation to LLW including the Waste Strategy for England (2007) and the Policy for the Long Term Management of Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste in the (2007), which covers the generation, management and regulation of solid LLW and applies to the following organisations: those responsible for the production and management of wastes (waste producers and managers); the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA); the regulatory bodies; the Food Standards Agency (FSA); waste disposal facility operators; regional planning bodies; and planning authorities. NCC will need to take this in account when determining the application.

7.2.4 Overall then it is not considered that there is any policy objection in principle to this proposal, subject to the detailed considerations below.

7.3 Pollution Control

Background

7.3.1 As outlined above, the LLW will typically comprise construction materials including rubble, soils, metals and crushed concrete from the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, buildings and infrastructure, lightly contaminated miscellaneous wastes from maintenance and monitoring of these facilities such as plastic and metals, and wastes from manufacturing activities, science and research facilities and hospitals where radioactive materials are used.

7.3.2 No changes are proposed to the consented operational lifetime of the site, or the restoration and aftercare proposals. Operations will cease in 2013 in accordance with the current extant planning consent. The site will be capped and restored progressively in accordance with the current planning permission and the Environmental Permit.

Acceptance and Regulation of LLW Disposal

7.3.3 National policy, including PPS10 (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management), requires waste producers to minimise the quantities of LLW arising and to consider other management methods, such as reuse and recycling, decay storage and incineration, prior to the consideration of landfill disposal. Before the EA can give authorisation for the transfer of LLW from a decommissioning site, the consignor must undertake a Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) review of the options for management of the LLW.

7.3.4 The Government defines LLW as radioactive waste having a radioactive content not exceeding 4,000 bacquerels per gram (Bq/g) of alpha activity or 12,000 Bq/g of beta or

Development Control Committee 11 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

gamma activity. As set out within the application documentation, the proposals are for the East Northants Resource Management Facility to dispose of waste up to 200 Bq/g, which is the bottom 5% of the LLW category.

7.3.5 Before the LLW is brought to the site it will be subject to pre-acceptance tests. The waste will be transported to the site in double sealed bulk bags or drums as per existing regulations for the transport of radioactive waste. It will be checked on arrival at the landfill and it will then be checked once it arrives at the site, to ensure it meets the acceptance criteria of up to 200 Bq/g. The waste will be handled within the site in enclosed containers and disposed of immediately after receipt.

7.3.6 The Environment Agency is the principal regulator of the disposal of LLW in England and disposal is authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act. The occupational safety of workers and the public is regulated by the Health and Safety Executive and the transport of radioactive materials is regulated by the Department for Transport.

Human Radiation Exposure

7.3.7 The application documentation states that risk assessments have been undertaken to assess the potential of site workers and the public to be exposed to radioactive gaseous emissions. The assessments conclude that there will be no unacceptable risk to air quality or to human health as a result of the disposal of LLW.

7.3.8 The site is currently the subject of an Environmental Permit for the landfill disposal of hazardous waste. The disposal of LLW at the site will require Authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, for which the regulator is the Environmental Agency (EA). An application for Authorisation under this legislation has been submitted to the EA in parallel with the planning application to NCC. The risk assessments for human exposure to radiation form part of the application for Authorisation.

7.3.9 In terms of risks to workers specific personal protective equipment will not be necessary during normal site operations in addition to the standard equipment used and worn by workers at the site currently. The application documentation states that passive dosemetres will be worn by staff in the LLW reception and disposal areas, as reassurance to confirm that the exposures received are in accordance with the predictions. However, the predicted doses of radiation which the workers will be subjected to are below those set out in the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999.

7.3.10 The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has commented that it is not clear within the application documents whether the received waste will be transported using hoists or on palettes. However, discussions with the applicant have indicated that the LLW will be palletised which is considered to pose a lesser handling risk than using a hoist. It is therefore recommended that NCC be requested to ensure that the operator manages the movement of waste within the site in this way to minimise the risk of exposure. It is noted that the waste will immediately be provided with 300mm of cover resulting in a dose rate at 1m above ground level of <2MicroSv/hr.

7.3.11 In addition to the above, the Environmental Protection Officer has also noted that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEC) guidance states the general public should not be exposed to radiation greater than 1mSV per annum above background. The applicant has submitted detailed risk assessments for all phases of the disposal operation from transportation to deposition and environmental monitoring. From these they conclude the maximum exposure to the general public will be no greater than 0.02mSv/year from the landfilling of LLW. This is within guidance levels set by the IAEC and from the same document as mentioned above can be equated to the equivalent exposure from one transatlantic flight.

Development Control Committee 12 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

Ecology

7.3.12 Collyweston Great Wood borders the northern boundary of the site and to the east north east of the site is the woodland of Easton Horstocks. Parts of these woodlands comprise a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and National Nature Reserve (NNR).

7.3.13 As set out above, the LLW is proposed to be located within the cells currently approvedfor hazardous waste and as such will be no closer to the important ecological areas. The application states that the radiological exposure of non-human species has been assessed and that the estimated radiation dose to wildlife is significantly below the level at which a more detailed assessment should be considered.

Water Resources

7.3.14 The surface water from the site is currently collected and monitored in line with the Surface Water Management Plan under the Environmental Permit. The leachate collected at the site is removed and stored until it is removed for off site treatment. This will not alter as a result of the proposals.

7.3.15 Assessments have been undertaken to establish the potential risks to surface and ground water quality from radioactive contaminants leached from the LLW. The application documentation states that it has been demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable impacts on surface or ground water quality. These risk assessments also form part of the Authorisation which the applicant is seeking from the Environment Agency.

Air Quality

7.3.16 The application documentation states that the LLW deposited at the site will have very limited degradable material and a low potential for the generation of carbon based gases or odour. Gas management and control systems are currently in place at the site and the applicant states that these will continue to be operated in the same way. As noted above, the LLW will arrive in sealed packages; as such the potential for dust generation is negligible.

7.3.17 A risk assessment of the potential exposure to gas emitted through the surface of the site has been carried out and it concluded that the doses of radiation to which the workers and members of the public would be exposed to as a result of gas emissions are below the assessment criteria.

Transportation

7.3.18 The transportation of waste is regulated by the Department of Transport and all waste carriers are responsible for ensuring compliance with this legislation. However, a risk assessment of the potential for exposure to waste following a vehicle accident was carried out. It concluded that the doses of radiation to which members of the public would be exposed as a result of a traffic accident falls below the level which requires further assessment.

Cumulative Effects

7.3.19 The application documentation states that the potential for adverse chemical reactions between the LLW and the hazardous waste deposited at the site is negligible.

Development Control Committee 13 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

Monitoring

7.3.20 The applicant has stated that a site wide radiochemical monitoring scheme will be prepared and will be subject to approval by the EA and the Health Protection Agency (HPA). Augean will monitor the site including groundwater, surface water, leachate, air and dust, as well as measurements of direct radiation levels at the site boundary. Augean is required to provide its monitoring results to the Agency quarterly and annually. If there are any exceedances Augean is required to report them immediately.

7.3.21 The applicant has also stated that under the Environmental Permit there is already an extensive and regular regime of daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual monitoring. The monitoring includes locations within the site, at the site boundary and beyond the site as appropriate. The monitoring will be extended to include radiological parameters in all media. Augean is required under the permitting regime to continue to monitor and manage the site until the site without control no longer represents a risk to the environment and human health. Augean has put in place with the Environment Agency a financial provision so that in the event Augean no longer exists the funds are available to ensure that the site continues to be managed effectively.

7.3.22 The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer (EPO) has noted that the details in the application provide for around 60 years of post closure monitoring and aftercare at the site. The EPO has stated that East Northamptonshire Council needs to be fully aware of site conditions during and after this period. It is therefore recommended that NCC be requested to ensure that any planning permission / permit requires details of where the LLW is placed within the site be provided to ENC as well as the Environment Agency. In addition, it should also require that results/reports of all environmental monitoring at the site is provided to ENC as per the existing and any future arrangements with the Environment Agency.

7.5 Traffic Impacts

7.5.1 The application states that there will be no change to the volume of waste deposited at the landfill or the level of traffic associated with the site. The currently permitted annual importation rate of 250,000 tonnes will not increase as a result of the proposals. The deposition of LLW will not result in any change to the use of the highway or require any alterations to the site access, which is currently located off Stamford Road, close to the A47.

7.5.2 The proposal will not result in an increase of lorries or other vehicles associated with the site and the number of staff at the facility will not increase.

7.6 Visual Impact

7.6.1 The proposal will not change the level of waste currently permitted for deposit at the site or the physical features assessed during the consideration of the current planning approval. Furthermore, the application documentation confirms that the proposals will not change the restoration profile or restoration proposals for the site. As such the proposals will not affect the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

7.7 Residential Amenity

7.7.1 With the exception of the change in waste types, the waste management operations at the site will not change as a result of the proposal. The application documentation states that there are not likely to be any additional impacts from the deposit of LLW in terms of dust, noise, litter, vermin, flies or light spillage.

7.7.2 It is considered that there are no issues of residential amenity which warrant the Council raising an objection to the proposal.

Development Control Committee 14 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

7.7 Other Issues

7.7.1 It is considered that there are no other material planning considerations which warrant an objection to the application as proposed.

8. Recommendation 8.1 It is concluded that the proposal is unlikely to significantly impact the district of East Northamptonshire and it is therefore recommended that East Northamptonshire Council raises no objection to the proposals subject to the following comments:

Conditions/Reasons -

1. Northamptonshire County Council should ensure that the planning approval (if granted) requires details of where the LLW is placed within the site be provided to ENC as well as the Environment Agency. In addition, the planning permission should also require that results/reports of all environmental monitoring at the site is provided to ENC as per the existing and any future arrangements with the Environment Agency.

2. Northamptonshire County Council should ensure that the operator manages the movement of waste within the site in a manner which ensures the risk of radiation exposure is minimised. It is considered that the movement of palletised waste is likely to pose less of a risk the use of hoists.

Development Control Committee 15 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

Committee Report

Committee Date : 30 September 2009 Printed: 21 September 2009

Case Officer Anna Lee EN/09/01412/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 4 September 2009 9 September 2009 4 November 2009 Irthlingborough Waterloo Irthlingborough

Applicant Rockingham Forest Trust - Mrs A Allfree

Agent Saturn Projects Limited

Location Stanwick Lakes A45 Nene Valley Way Stanwick Northamptonshire

Proposal Erection of wind turbine to provide electricity to visitor centre (EN/07/01185/REM) Amended application from previous approval EN/08/01514/FUL dated 8/01/09

1. Recommendation 1.1 That authority to GRANT planning permission be delegated to the Head of Planning Services in conjunction with the Chairman and Ward Member.

1.2 The reason a request is being made to delegate authority, is because planning permission has already been granted for a wind turbine in the same position of a different design and the consultation period and neighbour notification period does not expire until 12 October 2009. ( Nene Valley News 28 September, most consultees and site notice 9 October, Natural England 12 October) However, Rockingham Forest Trust urgently need to install a turbine for financial reasons, and have requested that the application be put before Members as soon as possible.

2.The Proposal 2.1 This application is for an amended design for a wind turbine that has already been granted planning permission. ( Ref EN/08/01514/FUL – copy of previous report attached as Appendix for Members information). The background information included in this report is also relevant to this current application.

2.2 The proposed turbine would be the same height as the turbine which already has planning permission, however instead of 3 blades the turbine would have a head as shown in the submitted drawings. The height to the top of this head would be just less than 20m.

2.3 The applicant has submitted the same information in support of this application that was submitted previously.

3, The Site and Surroundings 3.1 See previous report attached as Appendix.

4 .Policy Consideration 4.1 The relevant policies are set out in the previous report, however since this was written the East Midlands Regional Plan has been adopted. The relevant policies in this Plan are:

Development Control Committee 16 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

Policy 1 – Regional Core Objectives Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design Policy 26 – Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage Policy 28 – Regional Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure Policy 39 - Regional Priorities for Energy Reduction and Efficiency Policy 40 – Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Generation 4.2 Policy GS5 in the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan is no longer a saved policy.

5 Planning History 5.1 See previous report

5.2 08/01514/FUL - Planning permission granted for windturbine.

6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 As mentioned in section 1.2 above at the time of writing this report the period for consultations and representations had not expired. Any further comments received will be reported on the Update Sheet. See the attached Appendix for the previous comments that consultees made.

6.2 Neighbours – Comments awaited

6.3 Northamptonshire County Council Rights of Way– Comments awaited

6.4 Environmental Health Officer – Comments awaited

6.5 Economic Development Officer ( ENC) – Comments awaited

6.6 Conservation Officer (TPO) – Comments awaited

6.7 National Air Traffic Surveys – Comments awaited

6.8 The Ramblers: No Comment

6.9 Woodland Trust- Comments awaited

6.10 National Grid - Comments awaited

6.11 Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust – Comments awaited

6.12 Northamptonshire County Council Sustainable Development - Comments awaited

6.13 North Northants Badger Group- No comment

6.14 Natural England- Comments awaited

6.15 Northants Bat Group – This vertical style of windturbine is apparently less harmful to wildlife ( including bats) than the original application style on a horizontal axis. It would be sensible to have as a condition monitoring of any bird or bats casualties over the following year or two. If it is then found to be harming wildlife then other mitigation can be introduced.

6.16 Irthlingborough Town Council - Comments awaited

6.17 RSPB- Comments awaited

6.18 British Horse Society - Comments awaited

6.19 Environment Agency – Comments awaited

Development Control Committee 17 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

6.20 Safewings Bird Sanctuary - Comments awaited

6.21 Raunds Town Council- Comments awaited

6.22 Stanwick Parish Council - Comments awaited

7 Evaluation 7.1 The issues, which are relevant to the determination of this application are the same as for the previous application: contribution to sustainable development objectives, impact on wildlife and horses, impact on the landscape.

7.2 Principle of development: 7.2.1 The principle of the development has been accepted by the granting of the previous planning permission.

7.3 Nature Conservation 7.3.1It is understood that this amended design has been submitted for nature conservation reasons. Further formal clarification has however been requested by the applicant.

7.3.2 It was accepted previously that the proposal would not be harmful to nature conservation subject to the imposition of the following conditions:

Condition 2. The wind turbine shall not be operated between dusk and dawn on any day between March and October inclusive of any year. Reason: To ensure that the impact on bats is minimised during the main flight times.

Condition 3. The total height of the turbine (base to blade tip) is no higher than 20 metres; the specification of the chosen model must be agreed with the Local Authority in consultation with Natural England prior to installation. Reason: To define the permission and to ensure that the impact on birds is reduced to an acceptable level.

Condition 4 Prior to any construction commencing details of a programme of post-construction monitoring will be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Natural England. Reason : To ensure that the turbine is not contributing to an increased level in bird mortality

7.4 Sustainable Construction and Energy Efficiency 7.4.1 Policy 14 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy requires development to meet the highest standards of resource and energy efficiency and reductions in carbon emissions. A target of at least 30% of the demand for energy is to be met on site from renewable energy sources. As previously, the proposal satisfies this policy as it seeks to make the visitor centre carbon neutral.

7.5 Flood Risk 7.5.1 It was accepted by the Environment Agency under the previous application that as the footprint of the turbine was insignificant the proposal would not result in an unacceptable level of flood risk.

7.6 Landscape and Visual Impacts 7.6 1 The proposed turbine is not as elegant as the turbine approved previously. However due to the location of the site and the screening provided by existing trees the turbine should not be visible from the A45. There are also no nearby residential properties.

Development Control Committee 18 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

7.6.2 On the basis that the turbine will be more compatible with the wildlife interest of the site it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on the effect that it would have on visual amenity.

8 Other Issues 8.1 Crime and Disorder - There are no issues arising as a result of this proposal.

9 Recommendation 9.1 It is recommended that the authority to GRANT planning permission be delegated to the Head of Planning Services in conjunction with the Chairman and ward Member , subject to the expiry of the statutory consultation period on 12 October 2009 and subject to the following conditions:

Conditions/Reasons -

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Statutory requirement under provision of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Prior to any construction commencing details of a programme of post-construction monitoring will be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Natural England. Reason : To ensure that the turbine is not contributing to an increased level in bird or bat mortality

3. The wind turbine shall not be operated between dusk and dawn on any day between March and October inclusive of any year. Reason: To ensure that the impact on bats is minimised during the main flight times.

Appendix 1 – Report in Respect of Previous Design for Turbine ______

1. Recommendation 1.1 The application be GRANTED, subject to conditions,

2 The Proposal 2.1 The application seeks approval for a wind turbine to provide electricity to the visitor centre recently approved under reference 07/01185/REM.

2.2 The proposal is for a wind turbine measuring 15m high with a three arm rotor blade with a diameter of 10.4m. The overall height is 20.2m.The turbine is set on a concrete base measuring 3m by 3m. The turbine is proposed to provide electricity to support the running of the Stanwick Lakes Visitor Centre building.

2.3 The proposed turbine is to be located in the site some 46m from the end of the spur road leading from the A45 roundabout.

2.4 The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, Flood Risk Assessment, Preliminary Bat Survey, Winter Bird Survey and Impact Assessment.

3.0 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The site is generally flat and is located north west of Stanwick Lake. The site is bounded by the A45 to the south west, the A6 to the south and the River Nene to the northwest. The adjoining land is in use as a country park and is served by an existing car park area.

Development Control Committee 19 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

3.2 The site was previously used as a gravel extraction quarry. The land has been regenerated with lakes and grassland.

3.3 Access is gained to the site from the A45 via an existing access road which has a controlled barrier leading to the car park and adventure play area.

3.4 Stanwick Lakes is identified as a proposed Special Protection Area as a site of European importance for wild birds and as a proposed RAMSAR site

4 Policy Considerations

4. 1 Planning Policy Guidance Notes/Statements PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development PPS7 - The Countryside PPG9 - Nature Conservation PPG13- Transportation PPG16 - Archaeology PPG17- Sport and Recreation PPS22 - Renewable Energy PPS25 - Development and Flood Risk

4.2 Northamptonshire County Structure Plan GS5 - Design

4.3 East Northamptonshire District Local Plan EN8 - Protection of SSSIs, NNR’s and LNRs

4.4 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 5 - Green Infrastructure Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction

4.5 Raunds Area Preferred Options

5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 EN/2004/0540/FUL - Change of use of Quarry Workings to a Country Park – Approved 27 .07 .2004

5.2 EN/2005/2092/FUL – Erection of a log cabin for use as office/classroom and portaloo for a temp period of 3 years – Approved 14.12.2005

5.3 EN/06/02494/OUT - Outline application for Visitor Centre and cycle hire building- Approved Mar 2007

5.4 EN/07/01185/REM - Visitor Centre and cycle hire building- Approved August 2007

6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbours - No comments received

6.2 Northamptonshire County Council Rights of Way– No comments received

6.3 Environmental Health Officer – No Objections. No significant increase in noise. Nearest dwelling is 600m away.

6.4 Economic Development Officer ( ENC) – No comments received

6.5 Conservation Officer (TPO) – No comments to make.

Development Control Committee 20 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

6.6 National Air Traffic Surveys – Object insufficient information

6.7 The Ramblers: No objections

6.8 Woodland Trust- No comments received

6.9 National Grid - Negligible impact on gas and electricity transmission network..

6.10 Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust – Agrees with the recommendations of the Bat Report and Winter Bird Survey. Suggests that conditions be imposed to cover the recommendations and that post- implementation monitoring be made a requirement of any planning permission

6.11 Northamptonshire County Council Sustainable Development - No comments received

6.12 North Northants Badger Group- No comments to make.

6.13 Natural England- No objections subject to suggested conditions.

6.14 Irthlingborough Town Council - No comments received

6.15 RSPB- No comments received

6.16. Natural England - No comments received

6.17 British Horse Society - No comments received

6.18 Environment Agency –Objected to the original FRA as it relates to the visitor centre and cycle hire building and is not fit for purpose. A revised FRA has been submitted and the original objection has now been withdrawn.

6.19 Safewings Bird Sanctuary - No comments received

6.20 Raunds Town Council- No objections.

6.21 Stanwick Parish Council - No objections.

7 Evaluation 7.1 The following issues are relevant to the determination of this application: contribution to sustainable development objectives, impact on wildlife and horses, impact on the landscape, contribution to sustainable development objectives.

Principle of development:

7.2.1 The site is located on a site which is established as a tourism destination linked to the birds attracted to the nearby RAMSAR site. The site contains a wetland habitat in the River Nene valley and there is a series of footpaths running across the area The tourism status of the site was recently reinforced by the grant of planning permission for a visitor centre at the Stanwick Lakes site.

7.2.2 The application relates to the erection of a single wind turbine 15m in height with a three-arm rotor with blades spanning 10.4m in diameter. The turbine is to be sited 100m south east of the visitor centre building and will mark an amphitheatre seating area which will be created by the excavation for the visitor centre buildings. The turbine will therefore act as a visual signpost for visitors in addition to its main purpose of generating electricity for the visitor centre but is sited such that it will not obstruct views of the lake and complements the building.

Development Control Committee 21 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

7.2.3 Policy 5 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy seeks to achieve a net gain in green infrastructure through the protection and enhancements of green space which promotes (inter alia) recreation, tourism green education and biodiversity. Proposals affecting the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits proposed Special Protection Area will need to determine and mitigate against any impacts where these are identified. Development should contribute to enhancement and ongoing management of local green corridors. The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of policy 5 as part of the sustainable ethos of the Stanwick Lakes sites and providing an additional attraction to the site which can be included within the educational exhibition in the visitor centre.

7.2.4 The proposed visitor centre is to be located on an existing peninsular that juts out into the lake. The design philosophy for the building is that it is sustainable and carbon neutral in its construction. The building utilises the energy available in the lake to drive the heating system. The proposed wind turbine is part of the overall objective of providing a carbon neutral development as it is proposed to generate power to drive the pumps at a future date. Other sustainable design solutions include solar collectors on the building to provide hot water, low flush wcs and waterless urinals.

7.2.5 The Companion Guide to PPS22 provides advice on the safety of wind turbines in relation to roads. In paragraph 49 it indicates that if properly designed and maintained turbines should be safe. It however does advise that turbines should be set back from a road by the “fall over distance” In this case this would be 20m. The turbine is proposed at a distance of 46m from the road and this would be clear of the “fall over distance”.

Nature Conservation

7.2.6 Policy EN8 of the local plan has been “saved” and seeks to protect designated or proposed SSSI sites unless adequate mitigation measures are secured. The application includes information relating to the use of the site by bats and birds and suggests measures to mitigate the impact of the proposed turbine on these species.

7.2.7 It is not considered that a wind turbine of the height proposed will affect the nearby SSSI in a detrimental way and therefore the proposal is considered to be acceptable when assessed against this policy. Natural England has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions specifying a height restriction to 20m and a programme of post-construction monitoring being agreed.

7.2.8 The application is supported by a preliminary Bat Assessment report. This study took the form of a desk based habitat assessment followed by two evenings of bat activity recording at the site. This confirmed that there are four bat species currently using the site; the pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle, Daubenton’s and Noctule. The report concludes that the site is of high value to bats and that the turbine will create a considerable risk to fast high- flying species such as Noctule. The report recommends that the turbine is disabled from sunset to sunrise during the months of March to October which is the time of peak bat activity. This will reduce the power output from the turbine by 20% of its annual output. This can be made subject to a condition.

Sustainable Construction and Energy Efficiency

7.2.9 Policy 14 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy requires development to meet the highest standards of resource and energy efficiency and reductions in carbon emissions. A target of at least 30% of the demand for energy is to be met on site from renewable energy sources. The proposal satisfies this policy as it seeks to make the visitor centre carbon neutral.

Development Control Committee 22 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009

Flood Risk

7.2.10 The site is in flood zone 3a/b and has a known history of flooding. The site is to be used as a visitor centre and cycle hire centre for Stanwick Lakes leisure/conservation area. PPS25 allows water compatible development such as water based recreation, open space, nature conservation and biodiversity in Flood Zone 3a/b.

7.2.11 The Environment Agency objected to the original FRA provided as it did not relate to the proposed development for a wind turbine but was prepared to support the earlier application for the visitor centre and cycle store. The footprint of the turbine is insignificant and the Environment Agency have confirmed that the original objection is withdrawn.

Landscape and Visual Impacts

7.2.12 The proposed wind turbine is sensitively sited some 300 m from the A45 Stanwick roundabout. This will reduce its immediate visual impact when viewed from the A45.

7.2.17 There are no nearby residential properties which could be affected by noise or flicker from the turbine.

7.2.18 It is considered that the proposed turbine is acceptable in this position and that it will not detract from its surroundings in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy or on the SSSI in accordance with Policy EN8 of the Local plan.

8 Other Issues 8.1 Crime and Disorder - There are no issues arising as a result of this proposal.

Development Control Committee 23 of 23 Date printed 30 September 2009