Borough Council of Wellingborough Regulatory Committee Wednesday 6Th December 2006 at 7.00 Pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

Swanspool House Wellingborough BOROUGH COUNCIL OF NN8 1BP

WELLINGBOROUGH 28th November 2006

Regulatory Committee Wednesday 6th December 2006 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence.

Ι 2. Declarations of Interest (if any).

Ι 3. Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 8/11/2006

Ι 4. Applications for planning permission, building regulation approval etc.

Ι 5. Constitution planning thresholds discussion. 6. Any other items that the Chairman decides are urgent.

Ι Enclosed

Please note: Site Viewing Group for Tuesday 5th December 2006 will be Councillors Beirne, Mann and Morrall.

Lyn Martin-Bennison Chief Executive

Membership: Councillor Waters (Chairman), Councillor Morrall (Vice- Chairman), Councillors Beirne, Dholakia, L Lawman, Mann, Old, Palmer, Patel, Ryan, Smith, Timms and Ward.

For further information contact Democratic Services on 01933 231511. Borough Council of Wellingborough Regulatory Committee Wednesday 6th December 2006 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

INDEX

Page No. SITE VIEWING GROUP

WP/2006/0507/F - Small World Café, 54 High Street, Earls Barton. 1 WP/2006/0508/F - Rear of 87 Gipsy Lane, Irchester. 10 WP/2006/0554/F - 35 John Gray Road, Great Doddington. 13 WP/2006/0640/F - 80 High Street, Great Doddington. 16

DISTRICT

WP/2006/0171/F Stone wall near Sywell Aerodrome, Wellingborough Road, Sywell. 19 WP/2006/0528/F - 7 Bentley Court, Wellingborough. 25 WP/2006/0568/F - Manor Farm, Strixton. 28 WP/2006/0583/F - 5 Bradshaw Way, Irchester. 33 WP/2006/0615/F - 20 Church View, Ecton. 37 WP/2006/0621/F - 151 Knox Road, Wellingborough. 40 WP/2006/0622/F - Manor Farm, Wellingborough Road, Hardwick. 44 WP/2006/0638/TC - A509/A45 Junction, Wilby Way, Great Doddington. 48 WP/2006/0649/LB - The Grange, Church Way, Ecton. 52 WP/2006/0660/F - 43 Land adjacent Queens Road, Wollaston. 54 WP/2006/0690/C - Highfield Nursery School, Finedon Road, Wellingborough. 59

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 5th December 2006 at 10.50 a.m.)

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0507/F

PROPOSAL: Change of use from tea room/café to A5 (hot food takeaway).

LOCATION: Small World Café, 54 High Street, Earls Barton, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Lorraine Almey.

NOTE: This application was deferred at the meeting of the Regulatory Committee on 8th November 2006 pending a visit by the Site Viewing Group.

N C O 6 S R 20

E 1 R 2 0 R

OA 7

R Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 24/10/2006 3 2 5

854 5 Club

264100 264100

3 1

3 1 4

LB (

4 17 T 2 17 E

2 E 1 1 R 1

ST 0 15 4 H

1 IG

3 1

3 0

2 H 6 1

K C N CL

L I O

O G H 9

7 H R S O 2

E T AN 1 S M

640 640

1 Manor House 8 2

Close 4

K 5

N 9 7

1 7 3 4

H 1

T 1

T 1 H 2

S 1 E

D 2 8

C 0 EL T L L

E 1 O B S 1 B E

U 1

b 7

a 3

7 T 1 2 The

T a Stags Head 5

'S Factory 7 (PH) 6 Y

A 4 RD ( Issues Y 2 3 ( Sinks

9 (

9 1 5 3 4 Issues Fire

4 8 Station rs Y

639 T e 639

4 wl E 4 rd 15 E Bo 13 R Ya T

11 S

H 2 Y

G 4

I 0

H a

0 7

2 8 0

b Sinks (

9 3

3 3

0 8 4

3 1

t o

6 3

U t i n

0 Austins s

b 2

4 Yard

4 H 2

3 C 0

2 a R

33 U 1

8 4 H

29 C

3 1

6 2

3 4

3 2 0

Earls Barton 1 Junior School

263800 263800

2 0 485300 485500 F

854 A

Scale 1:1250 6 8 2

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 08/11/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0507/F

PROPOSAL: Change of use from tea room/café to A5 (hot food takeaway).

LOCATION: Small World Café, 54 High Street, Earls Barton, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Lorraine Almey.

This application is referred to the Regulatory Committee for determination because in excess of two letters of objection have been received from nearby neighbours.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above. The premises is an existing café which is categorized under the Use Classes (Amendment) Order 2005 as an A3 use and therefore requires consent to change to an A5 take-away.

The site is located on the edge of the centre of the village and within the designated Conservation Area at the end of a terrace that contains dwellings and a take-away. The area could however be reasonably described as mixed use because on the opposite side of the road there is The Stags Head P.H., A1 and B1 office uses and a Children's Day Nursery. The Stags Head P.H. has licensed opening hours of 10:00 - 00:30 Monday to Saturday and 12:00 00:00 on Sundays; the nearby take-away has planning conditioned opening hours of 08:00 - 23:00 Monday to Saturday with no opening on a Sunday.

To the side of the application property is a wide roadway known as Bowlers Yard that leads to more residential properties and commercial units at the rear of the High Street. The Fire Station adjoins Bowlers Yard to the northeast and has a 1 m high chain link fence on the boundary.

With regards on street parking there are zig-zag yellow lines in the road associated with the Fire Station access and on the opposite side of the road are double yellow lines but parking is unrestricted on the side of the application property down the hill towards the centre of the village.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WR/56/111 Change of use part of house to bookmakers' office - approved WR/61/39 Change of use to betting office - permitted development BW /88/424 Change of use of first floor to flat - approved BW /89/209 Erection of 1.3m diameter satellite dish - refused WP/2003/116 Change of use from shop to tearooms/café - conditionally approved WP/2006/067 Change of use from tearoom/café to A5 (hot food takeaway) Change of hours to Monday to Saturday 10:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Not open on Sunday - withdrawn.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Northamptonshire County Structure Plan - GS5. Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan - G1, G12, S9 and T9. Supplementary Planning Guidance - Parking and Planning Out Crime. Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development. Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport. Planning Policy Guidance 15; Planning and the Historic Environment. Planning Policy Statement 23; Planning and Pollution Control.

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

"I refer to your recent emails and understand that some local concern has been expressed in respect of the above planning application.

The application does not provide an indication of the number of daily vehicular trips likely to be made to the premises or the style of food to be prepared and little evidence exists, therefore, for an objection to be made or sustained on highway safety grounds. In view of the size of the operation it is unlikely that the proposal will have a material effect on the flow of traffic on the existing highway network in the vicinity of the premises but if usage is expected to be considerable then it may be necessary to seek a traffic impact assessment if only to address the local concerns.”

2. Earls Barton Parish Council - objects to the application on the grounds of highway safety and it mentions the following issues:

• Lack of parking in the vicinity. • A change of use would build up traffic travelling to the area in the evenings. • Unlike a nearby restaurant the proposal site does not have its own designated parking. There is a danger that cars could be parked irresponsibly thereby causing problems for the Fire Station and could result in lives being endangered.

3. Environmental Protection Service - refers to comments made in the context of the previously submitted and withdrawn application. The Service then commented that the proposed use has the potential to attract traffic to the area in the evening and affect residential amenity. In addition intensive cooking has the 4

potential to cause odours to nearby residents and if the application is approved a condition should be included that requires a scheme to abate cooking odours to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

4. Northants Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor -

“Please find following report to illustrate why, as a crime prevention officer and crime prevention design advisor I would not support the request for another, late opening food outlet, in Earls Barton.

Historically there has been substantial crime and disorder in the vicinity of the High Street and the Square, predominantly between the hours of 8 p.m. and 11.30 p.m.

I feel that this request, if supported, could increase crime and disorder in the area.

My recommendation is substantiated by the following crime statistics over the last year. These of course do not take into account any other incidents that have not been reported to the Police. Any replication of date is due to more than one report of an incident, often at a different time of evening. This illustrates how crime and disorder is affecting more than just one resident.”

Time analysis (approx) Between 6-7 p.m. 2 criminal damage and 7 rowdy

From 7 p.m. till midnight 9 criminal damage and 29 rowdy

From midnight till 7 a.m. 3 criminal damage and 4 rowdy

Date analysis 28, 31, 31, October 5, 5, 12, 23 November 3, 10, 16, 17, 19, 23 December 1, 5, 13, 18, 20, 22, 28, 28,January 3, 3, 10, 12, 12, 17, 17, 24, 24, 24, 24, 24, 24 February 4, 15, 20 March 24, 27 April 2, 6, 29 May 11, 17 June 1, 22, 22 July 12, 17, 17, 19 August 9, 10, 14 September

5. Neighbours/third parties - letters of objection has been received from the owners/occupiers of 11, 40, 40B, 52, 60, 64, 66, 68, 70, 76, 76A, 80, 84 High Street and 1 Knights Close who cite the following reasons for opposing the 5

application:

• High Street is already very congested and proposal will exacerbate car parking problems in the public highway, for both vehicles and pedestrians, and private accesses will be obstructed more often.

• Intention to develop Bowlers Yard into a Council maintained access road will push parking back onto the High Street.

• Issues of safety and access/illegal parking with regards the adjacent Fire Station and bus route.

• Crime and disorder concerns and respondents have supplied accounts of recent incidents of ant-social behaviour. Also, reference has been made to the fact that the local police station has been reopened, but it is not permanently manned and there is no guarantee that there would be a rapid response if it were needed.

• Cafe is very small and customers will queue outside on footpath in front of the windows of the next door dwellinghouse and people already knock on the windows.

• Reference to informal pre application given by the Police.

• Noise related to the above crime and disorder problems.

• Noise from the proposed business operation and customers affecting next door neighbours.

• Suggestion that the existing operation, and others in the vicinity, already cause a smell and the proposal will make matters worse.

• Mention of the existing littering problems in the area, despite the proximity of several litter bins and belief that a take-away will make matters worse. One writer mentions that the nearby footpaths are narrow and pedestrians may be obstructed by any new litter bins close to the application premises.

• Reference to the number of other food take-away outlets in the village and opinion that a new one is not needed.

• Belief that conservation" area status should protect Earls Barton from developments that are more suited to a town.

• Proposal will impact of owner's ability to let next door dwelling and loss of property value.

• Assumption than additional refuse bins will be required at the rear of the premises and reference to private access issues.

ASSESSMENT: Material planning considerations: • Effect on residential amenity • Highway safety • Effect on the Earls Barton Conservation Area • Crime and disorder

Effect on residential amenity Policy G1.2 of the local plan states that proposals should not affect the amenities of any neighbouring properties or result in widespread impact by way of noise and smell. With regards to a specific hot food take-away policy; Policy S9 of the local plan relates to A5 uses in the town, but it is considered that its provisions are sound and persuasive in the context of this application in a village and it is therefore reproduced below, together with its explanatory text in italics, for information.

POLICY S9

DEVELOPMENT FOR RESTAURANTS, PUBS AND SIMILAR FOOD AND DRINK RETAILING WILL BE PERMITTED OUTSIDE THE TOWN CENTRE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS TO LIMIT LOCAL DISTURBANCE AND MAINTAIN FUTURE CONTROL, AS APPROPRIATE, OF THE NATURE OF RETAILING WHICH CAN TAKE PLACE FROM THE SITE AND PROVIDED THAT:

1. IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS IT IS SMALL SCALE AND LOCATED WITHIN A LOCAL CENTRE OR GROUP OF SHOPS; OR

2. ELSEWHERE IT IS ACCESSIBLE BY A RANGE OF TRANSPORT MODES.

Many snack bars, some hot food take-aways, public houses and restaurants are also closely associated with shopping trips and appropriately located in shopping areas. A flexible stance may be taken with those uses whose function is largely independent of shopping activities. Exceptions may be permitted in mixed use areas, or greenfield sites in close proximity to existing or proposed development, provided site location and design will not normally result in general loss of amenity nearby.

The latter condition is important as sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises or of hot food to be taken away can create significant problems of disturbance from fumes, cooking smells, noise, litter and parking. In residential areas new uses and extensions to existing establishments will therefore normally only be permitted if the use is of a small scale which would relate essentially to local needs. New development should normally be located in a local centre. Even in this case it may be necessary to oppose development or impose conditions, such as limiting opening hours, where disturbance generated, especially in the evenings and at weekends, will be obtrusive to nearby occupiers.

The Council's Environmental Protection Service has identified that the proposed use does have the propensity to adversely affect the amenities that the nearby occupiers 7

currently enjoy by way of noise and smell. It has however, not objected to the proposal but recommends a condition so that the intended odour extraction system is submitted for approval before development commences. Policy S9 above makes reference to the acceptability of food and drink uses that are located in a local centre or a group of shops. There is a public house and another take-away nearby in the terrace in which the application site is located, but it cannot reasonably be described as a parade of shops as specified in the policy. The adjoining property to the application site is a dwellinghouse and there is also another in close proximity to the rear, and it has been identified that noise and smell could be a problem for the nearby residential occupiers. There is therefore the likelihood that there will be increased harm to residential amenity, over and above the existing levels, both through the use and the extended hours.

The detrimental effect is considered to be unacceptable due to the closeness of the adjoining and neighbouring dwellings which leads to the opinion that the application should be recommended for refusal because it is contrary to Policy G1.2 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

Highways safety The comments of the respondents to the publicity procedure are noted, but the advice of the Highway Authority is clear inasmuch that it is not objecting to the proposal. The size of the application premises is very modest and it is considered that the proposed operation will not be sufficiently substantial or intensive to warrant requesting a traffic impact assessment. Car parking on the zig-zag lines, yellow lines and on footpaths are offences under paragraphs 167, 213 and 218 respectively of The Highway Code and it is a matter for the Police to enforce against the offenders as necessary. It is considered that to withhold planning permission for the reason of danger to highway safety is inappropriate.

Effect on the conservation area The Council is required to have special regard to proposals in conservation areas to ensure that they preserve and enhance their visual quality. It is considered that a change of use with no alterations other than an extraction system, which can be adequately conditioned for prior approval before any development commences, is acceptable in terms of ensuring that the conservation area is not harmed. Crime and disorder Many nearby neighbours have identified the possibility of anti-social behaviour resulting from and being exacerbated by the proposed take-away; crime and fear of crime are material planning considerations. It is clear from the Police consultation reply and the result of the neighbour publicity process that the difficulties in and near the centre of the village are ongoing despite the initiatives that have been undertaken

With regards the Planning Out Crime Supplementary Planning Guidance the salient paragraph is 9.2 and it is reproduced below for ease of reference:

Hot Spots “Town centres can provide a concentration for leisure and entertainment facilities such as pubs, clubs, restaurants and theatres which increase activity on the streets, particularly in the evening and weekends, and therefore enhance natural surveillance. However, these premises, as well as other uses such as fast food takeaways, will attract a gathering of people and can be "hot spots" for crime and 8

disorder, particularly at night.

Local planning authorities should seek the advice of Northamptonshire Police when considering applications for fast food takeaways, leisure and entertainment uses, including change of use, whether in town centres, villages, local centres or stand alone facilities.

Planning permission for new development or change of use should take into account the local context and potential for crime and disorder, particularly when uses may lead to a rise in antisocial behaviour.”

The replies to the application publicity procedure have revealed that there is palpable evidence of crime and disorder issues in the locality of the proposal site and the development policies together with the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance indicates that this issue should have significant weight in the determination of this proposal. It is considered that to approve the application and create another possible source of crime and disorder in the face of the existing well documented anti-social behaviour problems in the village would not be reasonable and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy GS5 of the County Structure Plan, Policy G1.11 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and the provisions of the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Planning Out Crime'.

Non planning considerations • Under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the Borough Council of Wellingborough is empowered to serve a Street Litter Control Notice on a take-away operation that does not maintain a duty of care with regards littering and the local environment. • Ability to let property and effect property values. • Need for another take-away operation. • Private access arrangements.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The application is considered to be contrary to Policy GS5 of the County Structure Plan, Policies G1.2 and G1.11 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan together with the provisions of the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Planning out Crime'.

POLICY G1

PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT WILL NORMALLY BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT:

2. WILL NOT AFFECT THE AMENITIES OF ANY NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES OR RESULT IN WIDESPREAD IMPACT, BY REASON OF NOISE, VIBRATION, SMELL, LIGHT OR OTHER POLLUTION, 9

UNACCEPTABLE LOSS OF LIGHT OR OVERLOOKING;

11. REFLECTS THE NEEDS OF SECURITY AND CRIME PREVENTION;

POLICY GS5

IN ORDER TO PROMOTE HIGH QUALITY DESIGN AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, ALL PROPOSALS WILL HAVE REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS: y THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOCAL AREA; y THE NEED TO ENCOURAGE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND THE RELATIONSHIPS OF DIFFERENT LAND-USE WITH EACH OTHER; y THE NEED FOR MEASURES FOR PLANNING OUT CRIME; AND y THE NEED FOR CONSERVATION OF ENERGY, RESOURCES AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND FOR DEVELOPMENTS AND DESIGNS WHICH GIVE PRIORITY TO MEANS OF TRANSPORT OTHER THAN THE PRIVATE CAR.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 5th December 2006 at 11.30 a.m.)

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0508/F

PROPOSAL: Proposal for a new two bedroom bungalow to the rear of the existing dwelling.

LOCATION: Rear of 87 Gipsy Lane, Irchester, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs E C Arundel.

NOTE: This planning application was deferred at the Regulatory Committee on 8th November to enable to Site Viewing Group to visit the site.

WP/2006/0508/F 11

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 08/11/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0508/F

PROPOSAL: Proposal for a new two bedroom bungalow to the rear of the existing dwelling.

LOCATION: Rear of 87 Gipsy Lane, Irchester, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs E C Arundel.

This application is subject to the Regulatory Committee due to the objection of the Irchester Parish Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: An existing two storey, semi-detached dwelling and its surrounding curtilage form the application site. The existing dwelling at no. 87 is part of ribbon development on the western edge of Irchester. Open countryside is located to the north and south of the site.

This application seeks outline planning permission for a dwelling in the rear curtilage of no. 87 Gipsy Lane, Irchester.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: It is considered that there is no planning history relevant to the determination of this planning application.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: G1 and H3 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Irchester Parish Council – objects on the following grounds: • Loss of privacy to neighbours. • Vehicle access not suitable as does not appear to be any way of turning the vehicle around and would cause a highway issue if reversing to or from the main road. • Unsuitable area to accommodate a second dwelling.

2. Highways Authority – no comment received at the time of writing this report. 12

3. Environment Agency – no objections to the proposal but informative comments have been made.

4. Third Parties – one letter of objection has been received. Grounds of objection are as follows:

• Development should be in keeping with existing building line. • Loss of light. • Loss of privacy. • Detrimental effect on visual amenity. • Loss of views of the open countryside.

ASSESSMENT: Principle of Residential Use The site occupies a position to the rear of existing ribbon development, on the western edge of the village and adjacent to the open countryside. The proposal constitutes development which is uncharacteristic of the existing linear development along Gipsy Lane and does not respect the prevailing building line. It is considered that the proposed form of tandem development would have a detrimental impact on both the character of the village and its setting. It is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy H3 (2) and G1 (1) of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The proposal is contrary to Policy G1 (1) and H3 (2) of the Borough of Wellingborough in that it would result in development which would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the village. The proposed development constitutes tandem development which is uncharacteristic of the existing linear development and does not respect the prevailing building line.

POLICY G1

PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT WILL NORMALLY BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT:

1. IS OF A HIGH STANDARD OF DESIGN WHICH RESPECTS AND ENHANCES THE CHARACTER OF ITS SURROUNDINGS.

POLICY H3

WITHIN THE RESTRICTED INFILL VILLAGES, SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE VILLAGE POLICY LINES PROVIDED THAT THE PROPOSAL:

2. WILL HAVE NO ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE SIZE, FORM, CHARACTER AND SETTING OF THE VILLAGE AND ITS ENVIRONS. 13

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 5th December 2006 at 10.30 a.m.)

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0554/F

PROPOSAL: First floor extension forming bedroom.

LOCATION: 35 John Gray Road, Great Doddington,Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr G Wright.

This application is to come before the committee and site viewing due to the applications complex nature and the loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The application site is located within the Village of Great Doddington and forms a development of semi-detached houses and dormer properties. The application property is a semi-detached dormer dwelling with open agricultural land to the rear. The proposed development involves a first floor flat-roofed extension on an existing ground floor extension to the rear of the property.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: BW/1979/0910/F Single-storey rear extension to form new kitchen and conservatory - approved. WP/2001/0717/F Single storey side extension to form disabled bathroom - approved with conditions.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan Policies- G1.1.2 and H12.2.4. Supplementary Planning Guidance II: Building Better Places 4.1. Supplementary Planning Guidance IV: Planning Out Crime.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 2 letters received by neighbouring properties 33 and 37 John Gray Road (submitted with application):

‘…we do not have any objections…’

ASSESSMENT: Affect upon Neighbours Amenity The property is backed to the north-east by open agricultural land and as the extension is proposed to the rear of the property there is no impact upon properties fronting the 487600 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. WP/2006/0554/F 487800 Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 27/11/2006 877

264900 264900

9 3

7 7

5 6

648 648

45 6 AD RO

Y El Sub Sta A

3 G 4 9 2 N H O

2 7 2 2 9 647 647

10 5

R 1 2 1 O 8 5 1 ST 2 0

2 O

1 U R 4 3 T

m 02

6. 2 8 @ M ( B 264600 264600 44 487600 877 487800

1 Scale 1:1250

52 14

site. There are no windows proposed in either the first floor side elevation and therefore considered to be no overlooking issues that can not be ensured via conditioning restricting windows to be inserted in the first floor side elevations. As the extension is to the rear elevation it is necessary to judge the application with regard to Supplementary Planning Guidance II: Building Better Places and in particular the angle test as stated therein. As the two neighbouring properties 33 John Gray Road and 37 John Gray Road, to the south-west and north-east respectively have single storey extension the extension will be considered using the 60 degree angle test as if the extension was single storey. The test in relation to 37, the detached neighbouring property, passes the test but fails in respect to no. 33, the attached property, by 1.5m and is therefore considered to result in an unacceptable loss of light to the rear first floor windows. It is accepted that the proposed extension is not in the path of the suns arc but due to the degree of failure and the guidance not disseminating between the extension being in the suns path or not the application is considered to be contrary to Policies G1.2 and H12.4.

Loss of Amenity Space As the extension is wholly to be built on an existing ground floor extension, there is no additional loss of amenity space to the application site.

Character and Setting of Locality As the property is of no particular architectural importance similarly the neighbouring properties the proposed works will not be to the detriment of the character of the property or the area it is located in. Although it is acknowledged that flat-roofed extensions are discouraged in favour of pitched-roofed extensions, which reflect the existing, the extension is located to the rear of the property and therefore considered not to be detrimental to the street scene. It is therefore considered that the application is in accordance with Policy G1.1 of the Local Plan.

Planning Out Crime Implications Having consulted Supplementary Planning Guidance IV: Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire there are no crime implications with regard the extension.

Highway Implications The extension is to go no closer to the highway than the existing dwelling therefore there is no increased implications to the safety and convenience of highway, there is also no loss of off street parking. Therefore having consulted the NCC document ‘Minor Planning Applications that have an effect on the highway’ be applied to this application there are no highway grounds for refusal of this application.

Response to Representations The comments provided by the neighbours have been noted.

Summary Having considered the above, there are considered to be material planning considerations to justify refusal of this application and is therefore contrary with Policy G1.4 and H12.4 due to the loss of light issue to a neighbouring property and is hereby recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development does not comply with the applicable development plan policies and there are material considerations that would constitute unsustainable grounds for refusal due to the unacceptable loss of light to a neighbouring property. These include specifically the following policies: G1.2 and H12.4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and associated supplementary planning guidance.

POLICY G1

PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT WILL NORMALLY BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT:

2. WILL NOT AFFECT THE AMENITIES OF ANY NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES OR RESULT IN WIDESPREAD IMPACT, BY REASON OF NOISE, VIBRATION, SMELL, LIGHT OR OTHER POLLUTION, UNACCEPTABLE LOSS OF LIGHT OR OVERLOOKING

POLICY H12

PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROVIDED THAT:

4. REASONABLE STANDARDS OF PRIVATE AMENITY ARE AFFORDED TO ALL DWELLINGS.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 5th December 2006 at 10.15 a.m.)

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0640/F

PROPOSAL: Footpath crossing and hardstanding.

LOCATION: 80 High Street, Great Doddington, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr P Twigg.

This application is due to be heard by the Regulatory Committee due to the objection of the Great Doddington Parish Council. A request for Site Viewing has also been made by the Parish Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: An existing terrace stone cottage and its surrounding curtilage form the application site. The site forms part of a small row of cottages which is positioned within the Great Doddington Conservation Area. The site benefits from a low stone wall along the frontage and has an existing pedestrian access. The existing dwellinghouse at no. 80 has both a residential and post office use. This application seeks planning permission for a dropped kerb and hardstanding in order to provide off-road parking accommodation for the site. This is to be used in conjunction with the residential use only.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: It is considered that there is no planning history relevant to the determination of this planning application.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: AR6 (2) of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan. G12 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Great Doddington Parish Council – the following objection and request for site viewing has been received.

“The Parish Council would like to place an objection to the request for a footpath crossing and hardstanding as it is felt that this is not in keeping with the environment and will detract from the view of these cottages. Although it is appreciated that this would provide off street parking it is believed that this would Manor House Great D County Pr 488000 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. WP/2006/0640/F 488200 Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 21/11/2006 881 264900 264900

Manor Farm St Nicholas' War Memoria D Church C Hall H 1 The Rookery U 0 R C The BM H 8 92.09m L Rookery k A 52 N 4 ( 5 @ E

0 3 6 ) The Old 2 m Cross (u h Vicarage at (restored) Vicarage 2 P ( 6 IG 648 648 H

72 The B 1 86.3m

Coach House

5 5

6 3 2 76 LEBEFARMC

G T D

2 0 O 7

o t

1 4 6 C PO T 84 8 to S O

t 85.3m 1 N 6 1 ic h

B o 3 C la C o s u 3 r

8 H t 4 8 2 9 AP 6 0 16 9 86 ch 18 4 E ur Ch L

W L A IL 6 BY N 36 8 96 2 E 26 2 T L Trough S

647 A 83.2m 647 R 4 9 E

N W

1 LO

2 a

E B 3 2

BARTON ROAD 8 7 3

EARLS 9

@ 3 7

3 (

7 5

B 5 BM 5

82.76m 3

9 5

Club 1 The Farm

264600 264600

The Farm 488000 881 488200 Scale 1:1250 17

set a precedent for the adjacent cottages to make similar requests. It may help for a Site Viewing to be made by Members.”

2. Conservation Officer, Borough of Wellingborough – the following objection has been received:

“The proposal is not acceptable in the village conservation area. The engineering works, hardsurfacing and loss of the stone wall and greenery all add up to inappropriate suburbanisation of a pleasant conservation village setting.”

3. Highways Authority – recommendations are as follows:

“The vehicular crossing must be constructed in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and must maintain existing levels across the width of the footway.

The crossing must be sited to avoid existing street furniture to the satisfaction of the service provider.

Any gates at the entrance to the site must be hung to open inwards only.

To prevent loose material being carried on to the highway at least the first 5m of driveway must be hard-paved.”

ASSESSMENT: The application is required so that the off-road parking accommodation can be achieved on site. This is intended for residential use only and not in connection with the post office use that operates in part of the property. Off-road parking is desired due to the vandalism of vehicles parked on-street.

The main issues to be taken into consideration in the determination of this application are the impact on highway safety, residential amenity and the conservation area. With regards residential amenity and highway safety it is considered that the proposal is acceptable. The proposed development will not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of those properties neighbouring the site and will not prejudice highway safety. The site however occupies a position within the village conservation area and as a result the proposal should be assessed in terms of Policies AR6 of the County Structure Plan and G12 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. It is considered that the engineering works, hardsurfacing of the front curtilage and loss of the wall and greenery will have a detrimental impact on both the character and appearance of the conservation area in that it will lead to the inappropriate suburbanisation of a pleasant conservation village setting. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the conservation policies detailed above which support development which preserves or enhances the special qualities of the conservation area and its setting. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The proposed development would be contrary to Policies AR6 (2) of the County Structure Plan and G12 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan in that if permitted it would result in development that would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the Great Doddington Conservation Area.

POLICY AR6

PROVISION WILL BE MADE TO CONSERVE, AND WHERE APPROPRIATE ENHANCE, THE FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS:

y THE CHARACTER, APPEARANCE OR SETTING OF CONSERVATION AREAS.

POLICY G12

PROPOSALS FOR NEW BUILDINGS, OR ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS OR OTHER STRUCTURES IN A CONSERVATION AREA WILL BE REFUSED UNLESS THE DEVELOPMENT BY REASON OF ITS SCALE, SITING, DESIGN AND THE USE OF MATERIALS WILL PRESERVE OR ENHANCE THE SPECIAL QUALITIES OF THE AREA AND ITS SETTING.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0171/F

PROPOSAL: Highway improvement works comprising of road widening and realignment of stone wall.

LOCATION: Stone wall near Sywell Aerodrome, Wellingborough Road, Sywell, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Sywell Aerodrome Limited.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: This application site is situated just outside the Village of Sywell along Wellingborough Road in close proximity to the boundary of Sywell Aerodrome and directly north of the existing conservation area. The part of the road to which the application relates is extremely narrow and this development comprises of highway improvement works. It proposes the widening of part of Wellingborough Road for a distance of 140 metres along its northern side in order to create a width of 6 metres. In addition to this, the application proposes to dismantle the existing stone wall and rebuild it on a new alignment.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2004/0426/F All weather surface runway. WP/2005/0163/F All weather surface runway.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Regional Spatial Strategy 8. Policy T12 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan. Policy G1 and SY1 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northamptonshire County Council Built and Natural Environment response received 3rd April 2006 –

“I have consulted our records, principally the Northamptonshire Sites and Monuments Record and assessed the likely impact of the proposals on any archaeological features or remains. I am satisfied that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on known or predicted archaeological features and I do not consider that any further measures will be required as part of this application.”

WP/2006/0171/F 20

2. Government Office for the East Midlands response received 4th April 2006 –

“I am sure you will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the application as this could prejudice the Secretary of States impartiality should the application be referred to Government Office.”

3. Environment Agency response received 5th April 2006 – no comments.

4. Wellingborough Civic Society response received 7th April 2006 –

“We regret the loss of an historic roadway. This will spoil the environment. Traffic calming would be better”’.

5. English Heritage response received 7th April 2006 –

“The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice”’.

6. Moulton Parish Council response received 10th April 2006 –

“Moulton Parish Council supports this application to help improve a current dangerous stretch of road”.

7. Mears Ashby Parish Council response received 11th April 2006 –

“We have no objections to this application, however we feel that there should be adequate road signage denoting the bend and a speed reminder prior to the junction of Mears Ashby with Overstone Road.”

8. Ecton Parish Council response received 12th April 2006 – no comment.

9. Wilby Parish Council response received 12th April 2006 –

“The Council cannot see any specific objections particularly as it appears road improvement work is planned without recourse to public funding. However we make the following observations;

1. The applicant claims this work would benefit road safety in the vicinity. Presumably this can be verified. What is the accident record at this junction? Has this part of the road already been identified for remedial work by the County Council?

2. We recommend that a clear justification is established for this proposed improvement to be carried out separately from the existing hard runway planning procedure, given that the applicant acknowledges the link between the two schemes.”

10. Economic Development, Wellingborough Council response received 12th April 2006 – no comments or observations.

11. County Highway Authority response received 13th April 2006 –

“The proposals correspond with the requirements of Northamptonshire County Council as Highway Authority as contained in a letter to Kember Loudon Williams Limited dated 25th November 2005.

Recommendation It is suggested that the mature tree at the eastern end of the section should be retained if at all possible.

In connection with the widening works it is required that:

• The existing 30mph speed limit be extended from its current location west of the Mears Ashby Road to a point approximately 180m east of that road. • A new 40mph speed limit be introduced on the Wellingborough Road from the extended 30mph limit eastwards to the end of the built up area, a distance of approximately 700m. • A new rural style direction sign be located to replace the existing which will be removed during the road widening operations.

Subject to the whole of the road works being carried out in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and to an appropriate agreement including the dedication of land outside the present highway boundary no objection is raised to the proposal on highway grounds.

If you are mindful of approving this application it is suggested that planning permission should be subject to a condition requiring the applicant to enter into a suitable agreement with the Highway Authority to cover the execution of the above operations.”

12. Daventry District Council response received 18th April 2006 –

“I can confirm that Daventry Planning Department has no objections to the proposal.”

13. Wollaston Parish Council response received 18th April 2006 – no objections.

14. Scaldwell Parish Council response received 19th April 2006 – no objections.

15. English Nature response received 20th April 2006 – no comments.

16. Kettering Borough Council response received 20th April 2006 – no objections.

17. Strixton Parish Council response received 20th April 2006 – no comments.

18. The Countryside Agency response received 20th April 2006 –

“We would like to stress that the absence of comment or direct involvement on individual plans or proposals is simply an expression of our priorities. It should 22

not be taken as implying a lack of interest or indicating either support for or objection to any proposal.”

19. Hardwick Parish Council response received 20th April 2006 –

‘We have no objections but have the following concerns:

Whilst we acknowledge that the existing road layout is far from ideal, the road width restriction serves as a very effective traffic calming measure. Should the road width be increased, it would be essential that alternative traffic calming measures are simultaneously implemented as this is an area of significant pedestrian traffic.”

20. Spratton Parish Council response received 21st April 2006 – no observations.

21. Northampton Borough Council Development Control response received 26th April 2006 – no observations.

22. Irchester Parish Council response received 28th April 2006 – no objections.

23. Little Harrowden Parish Council response received 3rd May 2006 – support.

24. Stop The Aerodrome Runway Expansion (STARE) response received 5th May 2006 –

“STARE has no formal objection to SAL’s proposals though we are concerned that the respective works will encourage traffic to drive faster on approach to Holcot Lane mini roundabout despite highway recommendations to extend the 30mph speed limit. We therefore suggest that additional traffic calming measures are required as a condition of planning to reduce the likelihood of accidents involving road users and pedestrians approaching the roundabout.”

25. Hannington Parish Council response received 17th May 2006 –

“We have no objection to the application other than to point out that consideration would need to be made of the impact on the small roundabout by the Horseshoe Public House.”

26. Overstone Parish Council response received 18th May 2006 – ‘This application should not be considered until after the decision of the public inquiry in relationship to the proposed hard runway’.

More recently, a further application has been submitted which is identical to the proposal described above and additional comments have been received from consultees notified of this second application.

27. Third party representation received 21st September from 18 Sywell Village –

‘I write to object to the road widening scheme proposed. My reason for objecting is I feel that by widening the road it will enable traffic to travel much faster at that 23

point and therefore make the junction for Mears Ashby Road dangerous to come in and out of as well as entering and exiting Sywell Hall which is already difficult due to the bend in the road and poor visibility. At present the traffic has to slow down considerably at that point which makes the drivers be more cautious. I feel that as the road is already used as a cut thorough to Lodge Farm, Little and Great Harrowden and other parts of Wellingborough, by widening the road it will just enable more vehicles to use this road causing more traffic at greater speeds’.

28. Ecton Parish Council response received 21st September 2006 –

“We resolved that the application should not be considered until after the decision of the public inquiry is known.”

29. Hardwick Parish Council response received 26th September 2006 –

“The question has been raised as to the legality of a private business substantially modifying a public highway. Could you clarify the legal position please and confirm that the Highways Authority are in full agreement with all aspects of the plan.”

30. Overstone Parish Council response received 4th October 2006 –

“The Parish Council have the following observations:

1. No necessity or justification for this application which would merely increase the danger through Overstone and Sywell by increasing the volume of traffic using this route as a cut through. In its present stage it is self limiting especially to large commercial vehicles. 2. In the event that this application was approved it would cause a detrimental effect on the surrounding area and spoil the character of the village environment. 3. Within this application there is no drainage of flood assessment risers. The surrounding area has been radically changed and the importation of such a large quantity of earth requires adequate drainage. 4. Concerns expressed that no consideration has been given to the high pressure gas main that crosses the site.”

ASSESSMENT: A highway improvement at this location has long been considered and traffic problems in the vicinity are noted in the text relating to Policy SY1 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. Consultation response reveals some concern about the repositioning of the wall but it is considered acceptable in relation to the safety issues. The concern about a general increase in speed can be addressed by the requirement for alteration to the speed limits.

RECOMMENDATION: That the issue of planning permission be delegated to the Proper Officer subject to a Section 106 Planning Agreement to secure a financial contribution to achieve speed limit changes on roads within the vicinity. 24

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

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0528/F

PROPOSAL: Change of use to vehicle repair centre (B2).

LOCATION: 7 Bentley Court, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Naynesh Mistry.

This application is due to be heard by the Regulatory Committee due to the level of third party objection to the proposed development.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: A vacant unit within a Wellingborough Industrial Estate forms the application site. The unit is part of Bentley Court, a small complex of units, which is located within the Finedon Road Industrial Estate in the north eastern part of the town. The units within Bentley Court predominantly have B1 and B8 uses. This application seeks planning permission to change the use of a vacant unit to a vehicle repair centre, which falls into the B2 use class.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: BW/88/1325 Erection of light industrial units, warehouse and hi-tech (uses B1 and B8) – approved with conditions.

BW/90/0206 Change of use from existing to preparation of cooking and storage of Asian food for catering purposes – approved with conditions.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: E1, UE1 and G1 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Highways Authority – recommends that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document ‘Minor Planning Applications that have an effect on the highway’ be applied to this planning application.

2. Third Parties – three letters of objection have been received. Grounds of objection are as follows:

Waste Transfer S

Tank

P 701 A 701 T E 3 4 R

to 16 S 4 2 O 15 N R O A D

3 2

8 d 1 an 17

0 El Sub d 2 an Sta 19 7

RT OU Y C TLE

BEN

3 8 3

4 n

a S

ER 5 ND E l SA OS CL 700 700

9 SE LO

S C R 6 DE AN El Sub Sta

S WB

9 2 269900 269900

489800 899 490000

a t

b Scale 1:1250 u S

5 l

1 E

o t

9 7 2 El Sub Sta

S A 26

• The use is not in keeping with existing uses in Bentley Court and would be detrimental to the development as a whole. • Environmental problems including noise and air pollution. • Insufficient parking and vehicle access. Current parking problems would be exacerbated by the proposed use. • Degrading of road surfaces. There will be potential for oil and fuel leaks which could degrade the road surface and enter nearby surface water drains.

ASSESSMENT: Policies E1 and UE1 generally encourage B1, B2 and B8 uses in such locations providing that they do not have a significant adverse impact on the surroundings. This application is for a use which falls under B2. In principle therefore the proposed use is in accordance with this general aim. It is accepted that B2 uses such as that proposed in this case do have more of an adverse impact on the surroundings than B1 or B8 uses. However a condition is recommended in this case to prevent the storage of materials outside of the unit. A condition can also be imposed in relation to the storage of liquids used in the motor repairs business in order to try and prevent any pollution incidents. Although it is considered that there will be some impact on the amenity of the surrounding uses overall this is not considered to be sufficient or sustainable grounds for refusal in this case. With regards parking, according to the guidelines of the Highways Authority 3 spaces are required (1 space per 55 metres square). In this case the unit has 4 dedicated spaces which is in excess of the requirements of the Highways Authority. On balance it is considered that this proposal should be recommended for approval with conditions imposed on the grant of any consent.

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 areas for parking, turning, loading and unloading in front of the unit shall be permanently set aside and reserved for these purposes and no storage of materials or other operations associated with this development shall be carried out in this area. 3. All liquids to be kept on site shall be stored in containers within a satisfactorily constructed and maintained bunded area with a spare capacity in excess of 110% of the volume of the largest container to be stored within it.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway/s. 3. In order to prevent pollution of ground or surface water.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with regional guidance and the applicable 27

development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically Regional Spatial Strategy 8 and the following policies: E1, UE1 and G1 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: Location Plan 12/09/2006 28

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0568/F

PROPOSAL: Change of use of redundant farm barns to B1.

LOCATION: Manor Farm, Strixton, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: D Hutchinson Esq.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: A working farm within the village of Strixton, which has previously been granted planning permission for the conversion of a group of redundant, traditional curtilage listed buildings to restricted B1 office use, forms the application site. A single lane track with passing places provides access into and out of the site and is the only means of access to the village. This application seeks planning permission to convert a redundant grain store to part office use (B1) and part storage and distribution for a lighting firm currently occupying an office unit within the complex (B8).

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2002/0133/F Change of use. Agricultural - B1 – approved with conditions. WP/2004/0170/LB Conversion of barns to B1 use – approved with conditions.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: G1, G5, G10 and E3 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Strixton Parish Council – objects to the proposal on the following grounds:

• Inappropriate land use and would be detrimental to the character, amenity and peaceful nature of the village. • The single lane track will be insufficient to cope with the increased traffic flow. • Highway safety risk and detrimental to the fabric of the delimited single lane track. • Lighting assembly and distribution exceeds the definition of B1 usage for which the application has been made. • Increase in traffic and increase in heavy vehicles will add to traffic problems. • Barn is of no historical or architectural merit. • The expansion requires the resiting of a modern storage facility which would have to be determined in consultation with villagers.

618 618

9 6 8

& 5 Tanks 7

11 4 & 2 10 3

Strixton Manor Business Centre

Wind Pump

617 617

k c a r T

261600 261600

489900 D 490100 900 Scale 1:1250 29

2. Highways Authority – originally requested that the converted building be restricted to office use. Following reconsideration of the proposal the Highways Authority does not wish to raise an objection providing that the storage and distribution use by the lighting company is restricted to the part of the building served by the loading door. The Highways Authority has considered seeking a financial contribution towards the resurfacing of the access road however in light of the amount of contribution that would be requested and the cost of securing this by formal agreement there is doubt that this would be cost-effective.

3. Conservation Officer – no objections to the proposal.

4. Environment Agency – no objections. Informative comments have been made.

5. Third Parties – five letters of objection and one letter of concern have been received. Comments are summarised as follows:

• Additional growth unacceptable. • Development out of proportion with the size of the village. • Proposed lighting assembly use is out of keeping with this location. • Fabric and character of the village would be totally changed. • Development would result in a significant increase in traffic that would be detrimental to the village. • The existing road is unsuitable for this level of increase, being too narrow and unsighted for much of its length. • Safety would be detrimentally affected with the dangers presented by the existing road being exacerbated by the development. • Loss of parking to cottages at the bottom of the lane. • Access to the rear of the farm from the Grendon Road would be a better solution. • Increase in noise. • The building has no architectural merit. If it is redundant it should be demolished. • Conversion would require major new build element. • Granting of permission would set a precedent.

6. Five letters of support have been received from both businesses within the existing business centre and the Duchy of Lancaster.

• Businesses currently occupying the office development are thriving in this location. The expansion offers businesses the opportunity to grow without having to relocate. • Opportunity to grow within the same location offers stability for employees and the opportunity to employ more people from the local area. • The location is ideal for small businesses. • The business centre is well run and issues are dealt with by the owners without any resources from the local council. • Expansion will enhance the complex. • The use of redundant buildings for commercial use should aid the sustainability of the rural economy. 30

ASSESSMENT: This application seeks planning permission for the conversion of a redundant grain store to part office use and part storage/distribution. The latter use will be occupied by a lighting company that currently occupies an office unit within the business complex at Strixton Manor and wishes to expand without relocating.

A ‘Dutch Barn’ built in 1893, originally an open hay barn and most recently used as a grain store, positioned within the farm complex has become redundant and is no longer required in connection with the agricultural use operating at the site. The barn can be described as functionally obsolete as it does not comply with current standards and legislation (a copy of a non-conformance report has been submitted by the applicant). Even if the barn were up to the required standard it would not be needed for agricultural purposes. Grain storage requirements have reduced due to the farm being awarded a 10 year Higher Level Environmental Stewardship contract which involves taking over 100 acres of intensive land out of production for the preservation of archaeological features and key species. It is intended that the majority of units that will be created will be used by those businesses currently located at the business centre which require additional space for growth and expansion.

Policies G1, G5, G10 and E3 are of relevance to this application. Policy E3 advises that, in the settlement of Strixton, proposals such as this are to be restricted to the conversion of suitable buildings in accordance with Policy G10. G5 also advises that development is not normally permitted in this location other than the reuse or conversion of suitable buildings where the design and materials used in external works sensitively reflect the quality of the village environment.

In this case it is considered that the proposal will not require substantial rebuilding works but will however require internal works and the insertion of openings externally to successfully convert the building. It is also considered that due to the structure predating 1900 it does have some historical merit and on balance is worthy of retention. It is however accepted that the building does not have outstanding architectural merit and is not curtilage listed as were those previously converted to form the business centre. It is recommended that a condition be imposed on the grant of permission to ensure that external design details, including the windows and doors to be formed, should be submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development. In principle however there is no objection to the external design changes proposed.

As discussed previously the barn is no longer required in connection with agricultural activities. The conversion of the redundant building to an alternative use will not result in the loss of the farm complex which still runs to the west of the redundant barn. Therefore the proposal will not result in any demand for a new farm complex.

One of the most important provisions of Policy G10 is point 2 which advises that permission will be granted for the conversion of buildings to other uses provided that the nature and scale of the new use will not have an adverse impact upon the surrounding area. The change of use itself will not result in any adverse impact, however the traffic generated by the use would have an impact on the village and its occupiers. The Highways Authority has been consulted on this application and 31

considers on balance that the proposal is acceptable providing that restrictive conditions are imposed. The Highways Authority has considered seeking a financial contribution from the applicant to resurface the road leading into the village. The level of contribution that would be sought in light of the cost of securing the contribution by way of formal legal agreement is not considered to be cost-effective and is therefore not being requested. It is also considered that the site benefits from adequate space for parking accommodation.

Overall it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the relevant policies of the development plan and there are no other material planning considerations which constitute sustainable grounds for refusal.

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 areas shown on additional plan 1 and 2 received 16/11/2006 for office use shall be used for B1 office use and for no other purposes (including any other purpose in class B1 of the schedule to the Town and Country (Use Classes Amendment) Order 2005, or in any other provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that order). 3. The area shown on additional plan 2 received 16/11/2006 for use as storage and distribution in connection with the lighting assembly business decribed in the application and for no other puropose (including any other purpose in class B8 of the schedule to the Town and Country (Use Classes Amendment) Order 2005, or in any other provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that order). 4. 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. 5. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 6. Prior to the commencement of development full details of external elevational changes, including all new external openings, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or as amended) no development shall be carried out without express planning permission from the local planning authority, other than those expressly authorised by this permission.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of highway safety. 3. In the interests of highway safety. 4. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway/s. 5. In the interests of visual amenity. 6. In the interests of amenity. 7. In the interests of amenity.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with regional guidance and the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically Regional Spatial Strategy 8 and the following policies: G1, G5, G10 and E3 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: Location Plan 15/09/2006 Site Plan - 0620/1 15/09/2006 Plans and Elevations - 0620/2 15/09/2006 Additional Plan 1 16/11/2006 Additional Plan 2 16/11/2006 3. The applicant should be advised that the Environemnt Agency has made informative comments in relation to this application in a letter dated 09/10/2006. A copy of this letter is attached for the information of the applicant. 33

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0583/F

PROPOSAL: Demolition of garage and shed, construction of single storey granny annex and new double garage and retention of wooden fence- revised plan.

LOCATION: 5 Bradshaw Way, Irchester, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Mapley

This application comes before the Regulatory Committee because more than 3 letters of objection have been received from neighbours in reference primarily to the safety and convenience of the public highway.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The application site is set within the village of Irchester and is located on the unclassified Bradshaw Way. The property forms a development of detached properties built in the late 1960’s.

The proposed development comprises firstly; the demolition of an existing south-west side garage and the erection of a single storey extension, with a pitched roof in its place. Secondly; the construction of a double, single storey garage to the north-east side of the property, which is to be accessed via the existing entrance and lastly the retrospective retention of a 1.8m high fence to the northern side of the property.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WR/72/414 Extensions – approved.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policies: G1 and H12. Minor Planning Applications that have an effect on the highway - 3.4.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Highways (NCC) - recommends that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document ‘Minor Planning Applications that have an effect on the highway’ be applied to this application.

) um th ( Pa

Recreation Ground

1 109 2 R 1

AW WAY

BRADSH

4 4

3 0

656 656

7 3

16 2 1

4 BRA 1 D S HAW

WAY

5 2

3 1

655 1 655 5 3

16 1

98 2 10 04 85.9m TCB 1 ( B 2 2 11 69 B 5 22 0

1 12 9 3 1 6 Sh 5

elt Gipsy Lane B

e 1 6 r 9 B Turn 5

7 3

265400 1 265400 8 5

491800 492000

1 919 1

Scale 1:1250 8 9 34

2. Irchester PC – ‘no objections’

3. Summary of responses from 147, 149 & 151 Bradshaw Way:

• The fencing leads to a ‘black-spot’ on the bend and can be classed as a hazard for people living opposite and incoming and out coming traffic. • The fencing has resulted in the loss of common land.

In addition, 3 Bradshaw has objected to the southern side extension due to its increased height and concerns over the description of the application.

ASSESSMENT: Affect upon Neighbours Amenity The existing flat-roofed garage attached to the southern side elevation of the application property is to be demolished and replaced with a single storey side extension with a pitched roof. The extension is to protrude no further forward than the existing and therefore will have no additional loss of amenity to properties fronting the site. The extension will be screened from the view of the properties to the north-west of the site by the existing property and boundary fencing and vegetation. There are no windows proposed in the side elevation of the extension, although there is a velux window proposed in the front roof elevation, however due to its height is intended for light only, therefore there are no overlooking implications with regard the neighbouring property to the south-west of the site; 3 Bradshaw Way. No. 3 is set on a staggered plot set 8 metres further forward, although there is a conservatory to the rear elevation on the side with the application site. It is concluded that the proposed extension will not have any additional overshadowing implication to the rear of no. 3 than currently exists from the two storey dwelling. In addition, due to no. 3 being located to the south-east of the property there is no loss of direct sunlight as the extension does not dissect the arc of the sun.

The application also includes an attached double garage and the retention of 1.8m high fence to the properties northern elevation and will therefore be screened from no. 3 by the existing dwelling. As the proposed garage is single storey, the boundary fencing to the side and rear and the distance of the properties to the northern side of the site there are no loss of amenity issues with regard the garage or the fencing.

It is therefore considered that there are no loss of light or overlooking issues with regard this application and is therefore in accordance with Policy G1 of the Local Plan.

Loss of Amenity Space The extension to the properties south elevation results in no additional loss of amenity as it involves the demolition of the existing garage. Due to the property being located on a corner plot there is a relative large proportion of amenity space to the side of the property, this area is where the double garage is to be positioned and therefore the front and rear garden will remain unaffected by the proposed extensions. Therefore the loss to the properties amenity space is considered sustainable within the site and therefore does not lend its self to refusal of the application.

Character and Setting of Locality As the property is of no particular architectural importance similarly the neighbouring properties the proposed works will not be to the detriment of the character of the property or the area it is located in. The properties in the vicinity vary in scale and type with semi-detached properties to the north and bungalows fronting the site, many of the properties have had additions over the years. It is therefore considered that the application is in accordance with policy G1 and H12 of the Local Plan in relation to the impact on the streetscene.

Planning Out Crime Implications Having consulted Supplementary Planning Guidance IV: Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire there are no crime implications with regard the extensions and fencing. The erection of the double garage restricts access to the rear of the property, which in encouraged in the Planning Out Crime SPG.

Highway Implications The southern side extension is to go no closer to the highway than the existing dwelling, although the location of the double garage is to be closer to the highway, its location does not impact upon the visibility to the safety and convenience of highway. The access to the garage is to remain as presently exists and is to pass to the front of the dwelling; this access is ensured via conditioning as should access be permitted immediately to the front of the garage this would pose a risk to the safety of the highway.

Having consulted the NCC document ‘Minor Planning Applications that have an effect on the highway’ 3.4 and appendix 4, in respect to the location of the 1.8m high fencing. It is accepted that the fencing is to be located on the intersection in Bradshaw Way. Given that the speed limit is 30 mph on a minor road and that the design of Bradshaw Way is aimed at preventing vehicles turning into on-coming traffic in addition to the ‘tangential’ visibility splay drawn from the northern and western axis of the road junction affording a clear view of the highway or sight line, it is considered therefore that there are no highway grounds on which to refuse the application.

Response to Representations The advice given by the highways authority has been taken into account and the relevant guidance applied as discussed above, which has also discussed the concerns of the residents on highway matters. The impact of the extension upon no. 3 has also been discussed above.

Summary Having considered the above, there are no material planning considerations to justify refusal of this application and is therefore in accordance with policies G1 and H12 and highway guidance and is hereby recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 36

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 development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plan(s) deposited with the local planning authority on 01 November 2006. 4. There shall be no point of access to the garage other than from the existing access to the southern boundary.

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0615/F

PROPOSAL: Single storey side extension.

LOCATION: 20 Church View, Ecton, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr M Littlewood.

This application is subject to the Regulatory Committee due to the comments of the Ecton Parish Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: An existing detached, hipped roof bungalow and its surrounding curtilage located within the village confines of Ecton form the application site. A turning head is positioned adjacent to the existing dwelling at no. 20. No. 19 Church View is found to the north east of the site.

This application seeks planning permission for a single storey flat roof extension to the north eastern side of the existing dwelling at no. 20.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: It is considered that there is no planning history relevant to the determination of this planning application.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: G1 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Ecton Parish Council – the following representation has been received:

“We would request further information on the proposed materials to be used. From the information received we feel that an extension that will increase the size of the property by 50% is somewhat out of keeping with the surrounding properties. A pitched roof, lipped to the building would be more acceptable.”

2. Third Parties – one letter of comment from a neighbouring occupier.

No objection but a number of concerns including: Martin's Pit 482700 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. WP/2006/0615/F D 482900 Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 21/11/2006 828 264000 Martin's Pit 264000 0 50 Ponds A 4

B m 0.6 10 D

1 639 9 639 20 D B 95.7m

( GP 1 2 A

A a

2 2

El Sub Sta 23 25 W W E VIE H L CHURC L I 1 rld's End N 8 G

(PH) B 1 Tr

O a c k R 8

O 638 U 638 G

D O 1 R 3 T H A Playground MP T 7 O N R O A ty l n o D u o o h C c n S o ry a War im r Meml

B 2 2 94.2m L ARSONS C 1 P

263700 1 263700 3

482700 482900

2 828 2 Scale 1:1250

2 4 4 1

3 7 5 SUNNY 38

• Materials should be in keeping with the existing bungalow and those surrounding the site. • Proposed drainage – will it link to the main sewer? • Difficulties for construction vehicles accessing and parking on site. • Potential obstruction of the highway and driveways by construction vehicles.

ASSESSMENT: Residential Amenity It is considered that the proposed single storey side extension will not have a detrimental effect on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of no. 20 Church View or any other properties which neighbour the site.

Proposal Design It is considered that the design and scale of the proposed extension is acceptable and that a recommendation for refusal on design grounds is not sustainable grounds for refusal in this case.

Summary It is considered that this application is in accordance with Policy G1 of Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and there are no other material planning considerations which constitute sustainable grounds for refusal.

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.

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

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with Regional Guidance and the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically Regional Spatial Strategy 8 and the following policy: G1 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 39

2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: Location Plan Existing and Proposed Plans and Elevations 12/10/2006 40

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0621/F

PROPOSAL: Change of use: Builders offices + workshop to become 2 no. flats + laundrette.

LOCATION: 151 Knox Road, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr W Chauhan.

This application is referred to the Regulatory Committee for determination because more than two objections have been received.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above.

The application site consists of a range of buildings that comprise of single and two storey elements with pitched roofs and flat roofed additions. It is located on the corner of Vivian Road and Knox Road and on the other corner is the Vivian Arms Public House. The adjoining buildings are both residential properties and the predominate land use nearby, excluding the public house, is dwellings. Locally there are no on street parking restrictions.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Long and varied planning history that include the following uses: • Retail • Pottery studio/lecture room and storage • Plumbers and decorators store

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Regional Spatial Strategy 8. Northamptonshire County Structure Plan - GS5, H1, H2 and H6. Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan - G1, G10, H1, H16, UH1 and UH5. Supplementary Planning Guidance – Parking, Building Better Places and Planning Out Crime. Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development. Planning Policy Guidance 3; Housing. Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport. Planning Policy Guidance 24; Planning and Noise.

1 6

1 5 6

2 8

3 7 5

9 Playground 4 3

a 2 5

13 489900 490100 1 1 5

Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 21/11/2006 9 4 C

4 900

1 3

8 7

268200 V 6 268200

I V 1 5

0 A

1 2 8 N

1 4 R

O M Factory A E

D L

4 1

O 5 6 7 N

3 O 1 3

1 A

D 3

1 0

1 2 T

UR 9

O 5 L C 3 WEL 3

OM 155

3 2

2 2

9 8

3 1 rks Wo 4 137 1

7 1 1 4 4

1 4

1 4 E 2 2 a D

1 0

0 4

5 151 1 ton Lang 4 681 681

V 9 3 14 I

I A @ N

( 1 R 2

1 1 O a 13 2

2 B 71 4 1 9 M A

4 6 D 1

4 5

5 16 . 1 5

5 7 KN

11 m

3 0

1 2 64.4m 8

B 163

2 1 6 1 4

t 3

o 5

1 1 1 1 2 0

0 2 5

151 63.4m 45 1 B St Mary's Church

33 1 63.0m B 1 k

119

1 4 2

107 1

3 3 10 AD 2 RO B ock X M dd NO s Pa K ry' 6 t Ma

2 S

. 2

1 2

2 1 0 8

2 1

1 0 6 ( @

680 680

3 1 Day 2 ck ursery addo y's P

Mar

9 St

1 2

1 7

103 7 1

1 1

89 2 59.4m

B 9

75 8

9 4

7 8

185

1 6

1 5

Lindens 267900 267900 B

489900 56.7m 490100 900 175

171

1 5 Scale 1:1250 8 165 53.9m B 55.2m

1 5 4

( m Hotel @ 4.79

BM 5

1 4 41

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. NCC Highways – refer to NCC publication for highways advice.

2. Environmental Protection Service – no comment received at time of writing the report.

3. Northants Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor – reports that there is no evidence to suggest that launderettes attract anti-social behaviour. The Police do say however that vending machine crime has escalated in the area and it would not like to encourage an increase in anything that is coin operated.

4. Neighbours – letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 149, 151 Knox Road and 48 Vivian Road; the objectors cite the following reasons for opposing the application:

• Do not want to be next door to flats. • Noise and disturbance from the premises. • Impact of pipes on visual amenity. • Increase in traffic. • Query regarding hours of operation; and opinion that the later the opening hours the more likely the attraction for undesirable people. • Already a launderette nearby and there is no need for another one.

ASSESSMENT: Material planning considerations: • Compliance with policy • Effect on neighbours amenities • Effect on visual amenity • Parking • Crime and disorder • Other issues

Compliance with policy The proposal site is situated on a brownfield site within the built up area of a town and the scheme is therefore considered to be in accord with elements of Government guidance and development plan policies with regards to directing new housing development to brownfield sites within urban areas. The element of the proposal that intends to introduce a launderette will strengthen a mixed use development that is promoted by both Government advice and development plan policy.

Effect on neighbours’ amenities It is accepted that there could be some loss of amenity for the occupiers of the dwellings that surround the site but it is considered that the potential amenity loss will not be sufficient to withhold the granting of planning permissions for the following reasons:

• The part of the premises that will be given over to the laundrette use is relatively small and will therefore not generate large numbers of clients which could cause undue noise and disturbance. • The details of any necessary pipes and vents can be submitted and agreed before development takes place. • The hours of operation can be limited by condition to ensure that the premises are not open at hours that could be overly harmful to the nearby residents.

Effect on visual amenity The proposed scheme illustrates minor changes to the elevations and it is considered that the alterations that are necessary to facilitate the proposed uses have been designed as far as is possible to enhance the appearance of the building. As mentioned above, the details of any new pipework can be conditioned for approval which will allow the opportunity to further assess the impact on the visual amenity of the street scene.

Parking There pressure for on street parking spaces in this part of Knox Road is perhaps not so great as it is in the terraced street of Vivian Road. This is because the St. Mary’s Paddock development has its vehicular access onto Knox Road further to the east which allows for the highway alongside the blank rear wall of the development to be utilized for on street parking.

Crime and disorder The comments of the Police are noted but it is should be noted that part of the launderette use includes an office. Also, it would be in the interests of the laundrette operator to put into place procedures that minimise the risk of cash being on the premises for any length of time and target hardening of coin operated machines. On balance therefore, it is considered that the proposal cannot reasonable be refused on the grounds of crime and disorder.

None material consideration Need for a launderette.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to 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 alteration shall be constructed with materials of the same type, texture and colour as the external walls and roof of the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 3. Before development commences details of all extraction systems shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. 4. The hereby approved laundrette use shall not operate outside the hours of 08:00 - 18:00 Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of visual amenity. 3. In the interests of visual amenity and to protect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers. 4. To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties.

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 Northamptonshire County Structure Plan - GS5, H1, H2 and H6 Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan - G1, G10, H1, H16, UH1 and UH5 Supplementary Planning Guidance - Parking, Building Better Places and Planning Out Crime Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Guidance 3; Housing Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport Planning Policy Statement 23; Annex 2: Development on Land Affected by Contamination Planning Policy Guidance 24; Planning and Noise. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: 0625/4 and 0625/5 15th November 2006 0625/3 17th October 2006 44

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0622/F

PROPOSAL: Amendment to Application Ref. WP/2006/0410/F: Re-siting of new dwelling (Plot C).

LOCATION: Manor Farm, Wellingborough Road, Hardwick, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: TJW Farmers.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: (As above). This application proposes a minor amendment to the planning permission (Plot C) granted on 23rd August 2006 (application reference: WP/2006/0410/F) so that the dwelling can be re-sited. This amendment has arisen because the owners of the farm are currently experiencing difficulties in trying to sell Plot B (which is the neighbouring property to the application proposal). All the potential purchasers who have expressed an interest in Plot B, have declined to make an offer citing the overbearing impact of the dwelling already granted planning permission at Plot C. This is because, as approved, the western elevation of the garage at Plot C (which runs almost the entire length of the common boundary) is just one metre from the shared boundary with Plot B and the western elevation of the dwelling house itself, is just 3 metres from the rear elevation of Plot B.

The current new planning application proposes that the dwelling at Plot C should be re- sited further to the north-east. The dwelling would then be 4 metres from the shared boundary and 8 metres from the rear elevation of Plot B.

By moving the dwelling of Plot C two corners of the building would extend beyond the Village Policy Line boundary. This would amount to one corner extending 3 metres beyond the boundary line and the other just one metre (amounting overall in terms of area to 7.5 sq m of site curtilage (1 sq m ‘built footprint’).

The Village Policy Line in the vicinity of Plot C does not equate to any physical features on the ground and it has been drawn somewhat arbitrarily. This occurred in order to reflect the area that it has long been assumed would mark the extent of the intended redevelopment/conversion area of the farmstead buildings.

The approved application is for a single ‘L’/’T’ shaped detached dwelling with an attached integral double garage. It was approved following extensive pre-application WP/2006/0622/F 45

discussions with the Conservation Officer who fully supports the scheme. The principle of the development has therefore already been established by the granting of planning permission on this site. The site is part of an historic farmstead set on the south- eastern part of the hamlet beyond the church and to the north of the Manor House. The application has therefore been subject to statutory advertisement. There is open countryside beyond the farmstead. The building granted planning permission is for a fairly large 6 bedroom dwelling which has a pitched roof double garage attached at the northern end. Plot C is only part of a larger scheme to convert/redevelop the whole of the historic farmstead to residential use with planning permission having been granted for a replacement modern farm building complex in open countryside beyond the village to the west. The approved dwelling is a two-storey building with pitched roofs set at different heights in respect of the separate elements of the overall building. It is neo vernacular in style and features a single storey ‘garden room’ to the south-east elevation. Fenestration is of the small element traditional form with only vertical mullions forming the divisions to the window openings. Materials are to be of stone, shiplap cladding to one gable, pantiles and slates for the roof.

This application is referred to the Regulatory Committee for decision as there is an objection to the development beyond the Village Policy Line by the Parish Meeting.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: There is an extensive planning history overall for the whole Manor Farm complex (see the history cards) dating from 1981. This in part relates to agricultural facilities but mostly concerns residential conversions and development.

WP/2006/0401/F Form new dwelling (Plot C) with garage/annex and associated access and landscaping - approved.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: County Structure Plan - GS1, GS2, GS5, H3 and AR6. Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan - G1, G4, G9, H3 and H5. PPG 15.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Conservation Officer – no objections. I feel both in terms of the in-site layout and the wider landscape implications the scheme will benefit from greater extensive circulation space between units. This will therefore serve to enhance the setting of the listed Manor House and the character of the village which is shortly to be considered for Conservation Area status.

2. English Heritage – do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion and indicate that it is not necessary for them to be consulted again on this application. It should be determined on the basis of national and local policy guidance and also on the basis of the Borough Council’s specialist conservation advice..

3. County Highway Authority – the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document 'Minor Planning Applications that have an effect on the Highway'.

4. Hardwick Parish Meeting – a majority of those residents present at the meeting were not happy to consider development beyond the existing Village Policy Line.

ASSESSMENT: The only issue arising in this instance relates to planning policy considerations.

The area proposed to be developed beyond the Village Policy Line is very marginal in scale. In addition, it appears that the Village Policy Line has been drawn to accommodate the expected extent of the redevelopment of the farmstead and it does not equate to any prominent or separately defined natural features on the ground. Furthermore the proposed site adjustment is not of such a scale that it will create further development opportunities for a new separate dwelling unit. On this basis it is considered that there can be no objection to allowing the amendment to take place.

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. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or as amended) no garages, sheds or other buildings shall be erected without express planning permission from the local planning authority, other than those expressly authorised by this permission. 3. Full details of the drainage arrangements for the scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing before the commencement of the development. 4. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 5. A scheme for screen fencing/walling shall be agreed with the local planning authority before the start of construction. The agreed scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the houses are occupied. 6. 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. 7. Development shall not begin until a scheme to deal with contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an investigation and assessment to identify the extent of contamination and the measures to be taken to avoid risk to the public/buildings/environment when the site is developed.

8. To promote safe pedestrian access to the site of the development, the footway terminating on the frontage of 6 Hardwick must be extended (at the expense of the applicant) in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council, to the entrance of the Manor Farm site, prior to the occupation of the dwelling that is hereby permitted. 9. Full details of all new windows and doors together with details of their surrounds shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any work is commenced. 10. Rainwater goods shall be of cast iron or metal type.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. To ensure that the site is satisfactorily drained. 4. In the interests of visual amenity. 5. In the interests of amenity and privacy. 6. In the interests of amenity. 7. To avoid any detrimental effects from contamination. 8. In the interests of highway safety. 9. To protect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 10. In the interests of the character of the surrounding area..

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the Regional Guidance and 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: GS1, GS2, GS5, H3 and AR6 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and G1, G4, G9, H3 and H5 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 24C 16/10/2006

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0638/TC

PROPOSAL: A 15 metre monopole lattice telecommunication base station with 1 equipment cabin, 1.8 metre high chain link fence and ancillary development.

LOCATION: A509/A45 Junction, Wilby Way, Great Doddington, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: O2 Limited.

This application for prior approval is to be heard by the Regulatory Committee due to the objection of the Great Doddington Parish Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: This application seeks prior approval for the siting and appearance of a 15 metre monopole lattice telecommunication base station with 1 equipment cabin, 1.8 metre chain link fence and ancillary development. The application site which is in open countryside is positioned to the north west of the roundabout junction of the A45 with the A509, which is to the south west of Wellingborough. The site is reached by a track which slopes up to agricultural land which is higher than the adjacent roads. Trees run along the top of the embankment adjacent to the A45 and A509. The site is also located adjacent to a public right of way. A residential area, with a commercial centre, is found to the north east of the site. These residential properties appear to be those in closest proximity to the site. It appears that the land slopes down from the application site towards the village of Wilby and slopes up from Wilby towards the industrial and residential areas on the western side of Wellingborough.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2005/0471/TC The installation of a radio base station consisting of a 15 metre high telecommunications tower, three antennas, one 600mm and two 300mm diameter dish antennas, radio equipment housing and development ancillary thereto – approved with conditions.

WP/2006/0457/TC 15 metre lattice telecommunication base station with 1 equipment cabin, 1.8 metre high chain link fence and ancillary development – withdrawn.

WP/2006/0638/TC 49

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: T12 and G6 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Highways Agency – awaiting formal written response.

2. Great Doddington Parish Council – the following objection has been received.

“We commented on a previous application as to why it was deemed to be necessary to have another base in this vicinity. We once again ask the question as to why O2 are not able to use the existing mast that is on this site rather than another mast being erected and would object to this application on these grounds.”

No other comments have been received at the time of writing this report.

ASSESSMENT: The proposed installation is required to enable O2 to provide second generation (2G) coverage to the south western area of Wellingborough. In addition the proposed installation will absorb capacity from existing adjoining cells in accordance with the applicant’s statutory duty to provide 2G coverage to the major areas of population and transportation routes in the UK.

Policy T12 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan promotes a sequential approach to the erection of masts. The policy is in line with government guidance to approve telecommunication masts subject to making sure that the proposal can not utilise an existing mast. The application site is located within the open countryside and as a result the development has to also be assessed in the context of Policy G6.

Alternative locations for this development have been rejected as they are either unavailable, technically unsuitable or located in more sensitive locations. The local planning authority requested that this particular site, adjacent to the junction of the A45 and A509, be investigated as this location was previously considered acceptable for a similar development with prior approval being granted for a 15 metre high mast approximately 45 metres to the north of the proposed site (full details are contained within the planning history section of this report). Both site sharing and mast sharing in this location has been considered by the agent with the former being progressed as an application.

The agent for the application has verbally responded to the objection of the Great Doddington Parish Council. The agent considers that the sharing of the mast that has an existing permission in close proximity to site is not the most appropriate environmental option. The shared structure would require a height of at least 20 metres to ensure the adequate separation of antennae and would be bulkier in appearance as bigger headframes would be required. A shared structure would therefore be more prominent within the landscape and would have a greater impact on the character of the open countryside location which the site occupies. The local planning authority agrees with this view and considers that a separate slimline structure at a height of 15 metres represents the best environmental option in this particular case for the reasons outlined above. Overall the local planning authority is satisfied that a location has been chosen 50

which minimises visual intrusion and is located away from residential properties and other sensitive land uses. Trees and hedgerow provide some screening to the site and will help to minimise the visual impact of the development. It is considered that the monopole design will be in keeping with the surrounding landscape which includes electricity poles in close proximity to the site and lighting along the highway adjacent to the site and is of a similar design to the mast previously approved in this locality.

With regard to health concerns PPG 8 states the following:

“However, it is the Governments firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Governments responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Governments view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.”

The applicant has submitted a certificate of compliance with ICNIRP. It is considered that heath considerations should not be considered further in this case. It is considered that prior approval should be granted in this case.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with condition.

1. A scheme for the colour of the mast shall be agreed with the local planning authority and implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

Reasons: 1. In the interests of visual amenity.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with regional guidance and the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically Regional Spatial Strategy 8 and the following policies: T12 and G6 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: P/35195J/001/B P/35195J/002/B P/35195J/003/B 19/10/2006 3. The public footpath shall be kept clear, unobstructed, safe for users, and no structures or materials placed on the right of way. 4. There shall be no interference or damage to the surface of the right of way as a result of the development. 51

5. Any damage to the surface of the path shall be made good by the applicant, specifications for repair or any resurfacing work must be approved by the Northamptonshire County Council Rights of Way Office. 6. If as a result of the development the right of way needs to be closed a Traffic Regulation Order will be required. An application form for such an order is available from Northamptonshire County Council, a fee is payable for this service and a period of six weeks notice will be required. 52

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0649/LB

PROPOSAL: Inclusion of external stair to give access to attic space over garage.

LOCATION: The Grange, Church Way, Ecton, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mrs E C Edge and Mrs J A Edge.

This application is being reported to Committee for decision as a result of an objection from Ecton Parish Council which feels that the proposed work is out of character in the village conservation area.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: At the Regulatory Committee of 1 February 2006 Members approved a scheme to extend and convert The Grange to form a domestic annexe including construction of a new attached garage with studio flat over (reference WP/2005/0807/LB). The applicants had initially shown an external stair on the east gable of the flat to allow access to the unit, but subsequently withdrew this element of the scheme.

The present application is indeed for the external stair access.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: There is no other substantive planning history on this site.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G12. County Structure Plan Policy AR6.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Wellingborough Civic Society – no objection.

2. Ecton Parish Council –

“The materials to be used, shiplap boarding and stainless steel metalwork are not in keeping with the existing or surrounding properties and would therefore be out of character in a conservation area.”

W W E VIE H L CHURC L I 1 rld's End N 8 G 482700 482900

D O 1 R 3 T H A Playground MP T 7 O N R O A ty l D n o u o o h C c n S o ry a War im r Meml

B 2 2 94.2m L ARSONS C 1 P

637 1 637

2 2

2 4 4 1

3 7 5 SUNN YSIDE se 1 n Hou 2 rde Old Estate Office

8 a 1

6 G

1 T 5 h

l d

B a 11 r n 10

Blacksmiths Yard

1 5 6 1 The Ecton 1 Grange

3 House a

17 6

6 Ecto 1

1 636 636

8 91.7m 1 B T CH

E UR

2 C E 2 H 1 WA R Y

T 2 3 Pear Tree S

24 Cottage

1 T a

2 5 E D

3 D 3 W 1 BM 92.99m 1

@( 5

3 4 5

7 2 St Mary Magdalen's C

3 4 k

1 3

1 7

0 4

1 4 5

8 9 1 9

2 1 2

2 1

4 9 4 Rectory Farmhouse 4 E PH

5 3 1 263500 263500 482700 482900

3 6 828 1

5 4 5

2 7 Scale 1:1250 4 1

a 3

6 3 4

8 4 53

ASSESSMENT: It is considered that although the materials proposed (natural slate, timber and stainless steel), are perhaps a little unusual, in conservation terms they are good quality and will display appropriate weathering characteristics over times. It should also be borne in mind in any case that the new staircase is approximately 60 metres back from the public highway and so will not be prominent in the street scene.

With due respect to the views of the Parish Council, the officer opinion is that the new proposed works will be aesthetically acceptable and will not be discordant in the local conservation area setting and that of the listed Grange.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant listed building consent, with conditions.

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. Full details of the following elements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any work is commenced: i) canopy brackets; ii) balustrade/handrails; iii) stairs, including facing materials.

Reasons: 1. In order to comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 2. In the interests of visual amenity and to protect the character of the listed building and designated conservation area.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0660/F

PROPOSAL: Erection of 3 bedroom house.

LOCATION: 43 Land adjacent Queens Road, Wollaston, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: D W Developments.

This application is referred to the Regulatory Committee for determination because three objections have been received.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above and the plans illustrate a 2½ storey dwellinghouse with a conservatory on the rear elevation together with a pitched roof dormer window that facilitates the habitable use of the roof space.

The site is a vacant gap between nos. 39 and 43 Queens Road. No. 43 is an imposing and attractive detached two storey dwellinghouse that is situated on the corner of South Street. No. 39 is a detached 1½ storey bungalow that has two outbuildings of no architectural merit built upto the common boundary. Beyond the rear boundary are school playing fields. Apart from the adjacent bungalow the housing development in this part of Queens Road predominantly comprises of good examples of two storey terraces, although there is more of a variety of dwelling types at the eastern end of Queens Road.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WR/60/58 Garage – approved. WP/2006/0020/F Detached new dwelling with detached garage adjacent to no. 48 Queens Road – conditionally approved. WP/2006/0524/F Erection of 3 bedroom house (amended scheme) – withdrawn.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Regional Spatial Strategy 8. Northamptonshire County Structure Plan - GS5, H3 and H6. Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan - G1, G4, H1, H2, H12 and T9. Supplementary Planning Guidance – Parking, Trees on Development Sites, Planning Out Crime and Building Better Places.

6 IRC

7 4 8

8 8

908 8 262900 4 262900

5 8 1

7 7

9 1

3 7

Hall orks 1

3 W Works 15

B 1 9 13

76.8m 1

2 5

m a

0 T

6 EAS

0 T 1 T 6 FIE

9 E

. E 0 7 1

7 E E 3

R 3 2 R M @ 1 B ( T T

S S

Me 4

th E 1 6 C H

B 4 ha p T el G E U

i L 1 l 6

d m 7

O 2 L e 5 r WOLLASTON 's . a 6 O S rd 7 C Factory (

6 LB T 0

E 3

628 5 628 R 4 15 T S Wollaston

Primary HOLYOA

GH K 3 I 8

H 2 2 School 1

Hall Works

1 5

0 Works El

6 1 Sub Sta 1

17 39 4 49

3 53

7 4 5

6 QUEENS 9 63

4 S R 2

4 1 O

1 AD

2 T 2

2 4 M 4 1

IC 5

H 1 k 6

6 A 7 r 6 o

E 7

2 L

627 2 ' 23 627 0 5

2 S

4 8

1 L

t A

C N

2 2 1 n E 5 Surgery

o o 4

t t 0 l 8 1 2 e 6 0

2 3 5

3 h 8 1

8 26 2 2 2 3 30 0

3 4 1 3 1 3 4 2 4 10 4 2a 4a Wks 6 8 ( NEW

TON 3

T RO 2

HRIF AD D

T 1

9 4

S TCB A

T 3

1 R 2

E 5

1 E 1

2 9

2 T

O 2 7

y 1

0 R

3 r

PO 5

T a

2 9 r 0

4 D

E b 2 2

4 i 4

R E L

A 7 R 1

T W

S 1 5 8 O 1

I H 1

n 6 C o h t 1

1 s C N

a t 1 l l U 5 p 9

1 a 1

O 0 4 7 W B 262600 17 C 71 73 262600 S ' 490700 CO 490900

908 URT 1 74.7m 0 D

R 2 Scale A 1:1250 B 11 13

W 6 1

nk 0

B 4

Ba O 47

4 7

1 8 8 .0

2 m

8 2

4 1

2 2 B PH 3 6 78.3m 5 69 55

Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development. Planning Policy Guidance 3; Housing. Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Planning Policy Statement 23; Planning and Pollution Control.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. NCC Highways – refer to NCC publication for highways advice.

2. NCC Built and Natural Environment – considers that no conditions relating to archaeology need to be attached to any planning permission.

3. Environmental Protection – requests that a contamination condition be imposed.

4. Wollaston Parish Council – no comment received at time of writing the report.

5. Environment Agency – no comments.

6. Neighbours – letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 38, 39 and 42 Queens Road and the writers cite the following reasons for opposing the application:

• Proposed three storey building will be out of character with its surroundings. • Increased parking problems and suggestion of a permit parking scheme. • Safety issues for pedestrians with regard to delivery vehicles together with scaffolding and building materials being placed on the footpath. • Loss of view.

A letter of no objection has been received from the occupier of 43 Queens Road.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are: • Compliance with policy • Highways, traffic and parking • Effect on neighbours amenities • Crime and disorder • Effect on the visual amenity of the area

Compliance with policy The site is brownfield in nature and palpably within the built up confines of a limited development village. The proposal therefore is considered to accord with elements of national guidance and development plan policies with regards to achieving new housing development on previously developed sites within the recognised confines of villages in the rural area. With regards density Policy H6 of the County Structure Plan requires that new housing development be built with a minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare and Planning Policy Guidance 3 promotes a density of between 30 – 50 dwellings per hectare. The proposal represents a density of 47 units per hectare which is considered to be acceptable.

Highways, traffic and parking There is off road parking approved under permission WP/2006/0020/F and adequate off road parking provision for both the existing and proposed dwellings can be achieved by way of an appropriately worded condition.

Effect on neighbours’ amenities It is acknowledged that the proposal will have an effect on the standard of amnieites that are currently enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby residential property. It is considered however that any diminution will not be sufficiently harmful to warrant withholding planning permission for the following reasons:

• The proposal will not cause an undue loss of privacy because there is one rearward facing bedroom at first floor level and a bathroom in the roof space. • No. 43 has a blank flank wall facing the proposed development. • The residual amount of light available to the occupiers of the surrounding development will be commensurate with a built up frontage in a relatively densely developed area.

Crime and disorder It is considered that there are no crime and disorder issues pertinent to the determination of this application.

Effect on visual amenity Policy G1.1 and H12.2 of the Local Plan and Policy GS5 of the County Structure Plan all promote the need for new development to have regard for achieving good design that will respect and enhance the character of its milieu. Furthermore, 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.

The street scene has been described above and it is considered that the design of the proposal neither respects nor enhances its setting to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area for the following reasons:

• The design envisages a roof with its planes facing the front and rear of the site and with eaves that are set at a noticeably lower level than the eaves of the adjacent no. 43. Clearly the large amount of roof has been planned in this manner so that the roof space can be used for habitable accommodation. The result of such a large amount of roof plane however is to make the building appear as top heavy and unbalanced, and this feature is exacerbated when it is placed in its context next to no. 43 which has a well proportioned gable end facing the street nearest the proposal site. It is accepted that no. 39 also has a large roof, but it is a 1½ storey dwelling, is less dominant in the street scene and is separated from the development site by its associated outbuildings. The application building however is in close proximity with the older no. 43 and should be more respectful of its design together with the features of the other buildings that make up the terraces nearby. • The fenestration of the proposed dwellinghouse in the front and rear elevation is of a landscape design, whilst in contrast all the other dwellings nearby (with the exception of no. 39) have windows that are of a portrait configuration. This difference in the style of the windows of the proposed dwellinghouse represents a 57

detail in the design of the proposal that takes little recognition of vast majority of the surrounding development and thereby would represent an incongruous feature in the street scene. • The proposal site is close to the junction of Queens Road and South Street and is visible across the adjoining school playing field. This exposure at the rear would also have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the area.

It is considered that due to the inappropriate design of the dwellinghouse which does not respect or enhance the visual quality of the street scene the proposal is contrary to Policy GS5 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and Policies G1.1 and H12.2 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and is therefore recommended for refusal.

None material planning considerations • Pavement licences for scaffolding are issued by the County Council. • Storage of building materials on the highway. • Loss of view.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for being contrary to Policy GS5 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and Policies G1.1 and H12.2 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

1. Due to the inappropriate design of the dwellinghouse which does not respect or enhance the visual quality of the street scene the proposal is contrary to Policy GS5 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and Policies G1.1 and H12.2 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

POLICY G1

PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT WILL NORMALLY BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT:

1. IS OF A HIGH STANDARD OF DESIGN WHICH RESPECTS AND ENHANCES THE CHARACTER OF ITS SURROUNDINGS.

POLICY GS5

IN ORDER TO PROMOTE HIGH QUALITY DESIGN AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, ALL PROPOSALS WILL HAVE REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS:

y THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOCAL AREA;

y THE NEED TO ENCOURAGE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND THE RELATIONSHIPS OF DIFFERENT LAND-USE WITH EACH OTHER;

y THE NEED FOR MEASURES FOR PLANNING OUT CRIME; AND

y THE NEED FOR CONSERVATION OF ENERGY, RESOURCES AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND FOR DEVELOPMENTS AND DESIGNS WHICH GIVE PRIORITY TO MEANS OF TRANSPORT OTHER THAN THE PRIVATE CAR.

POLICY H12

PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROVIDED THAT:

2. A VISUALLY ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT IS CREATED.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: 0612/4A and 0612/5 30th October 2006 2. 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.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 06/12/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0690/C

PROPOSAL: New extension to form new shared reception with ancillary facilities for children's centre. Total size of extension is estimated to be 34 sq m. In addition, works include new hardstanding to internal courtyard and covered play area to nursery playground.

LOCATION: Highfield Nursery School, Finedon Road, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Northamptonshire County Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The application site is an existing nursery within Wellingborough. The nursery shares its site with two schools, Victoria Infants and Rowan Gate Primary. The site is positioned adjacent to land which is designated for residential use by the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. The site is located within a predominantly residential area.

This is an application being dealt with by the County Council for an extension to form a new shared reception with ancillary facilities to facilitate the creation of a children’s centre. In addition works are to include new hardstanding to an internal courtyard, external buggy store and covered area to the nursery playground.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: It is considered that there is no planning history relevant to the determination of this application.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: G1 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: As this is a ‘County Matter’ application, the Borough Council has not carried out any consultation on this proposal. At the time of writing this report, no details of views from any of the County Council’s consultees on this application had been received.

ASSESSMENT: Policy G1 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan accepts developments such as this if they are acceptable in design and do not have an adverse effect on their surroundings, including the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties. 3 2

AD O D 2

R 2 N 489700 O 489900

Rowan Gate D Allotment Gardens Primary School D

3.2m B ( D D

6 6 D

Delafield D

D D D D ld fie gh ry Hi se ur ol N ho D 686 D Sc 686

Victoria D D Infants School D D 1 1 D D E R T R O A D D 2 D 1

29 Scrap Yard D

D S D LEY

2 3 2 1 D D

D 6 4

D D a

2 3 4 1 D 11

685 685

C V

8 F 3

1 4 8

4 3 9 4

C 1 V V

Scrap Yard W D 9

A 2

O 1

R 1 V 4

S 4

8 Y 4 B E V

W VL

CF 4 V 3 5 VC 9 VW

8 0

6 o

4 7 1 3

5 1

2 7 8

1 4

8 M E L T O

N 2

7 R

6 O

2 8 6 A

67 D

5 Scrap Yard 0 N

6 8 1 O 7 3 a

6 9

6 9 a

268400 4 268400 8 8 5 489700 489900 8

7 898 0

0 8 1

6 a 7 8

9 1

6 0 8 Scale 1:1250 5 8 9

9 0 1 1 8

0 1 H IG

( 0 F 1

LB 1 IE 8 60

The application seeks planning permission for a proposed extension on the south western side of the building and for a covered play area on the north western side. Hardstanding is also proposed to an internal courtyard. It is considered that the proposal will not have any significant effect on any neighbouring properties in respect of visual impact, noise, loss of privacy or light. The proposal design is also considered to be acceptable. No objections are raised in relation to this county council application.

RECOMMENDATION: No objection is raised.

61 6th December 2006

REGULATORY COMMITTEE

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

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

WP/2005/0730/F P Crouch Land to rear of 32 Harrowden REFUSED Road, Wellingborough. 2 bedroom bungalow.

WP/2006/0269/F Matthew Nicholas 27- 31 Newton Road, AC Wollaston. To erect fabric retractable sun awnings to front of building.

WP/2006/0480/F The New Life Church The Swallow, 127 Nest Farm AC Crescent, Wellingborough. Conversion of pub to church run community centre.

WP/2006/0488/LB Dr Jones 39 Oxford Street, APPROVED Wellingborough. Take down single storey kitchen and utility extensions to the rear of the property and rebuild upon a new mini piled concrete raft to match existing.

WP/2006/0529/F Millshome Limited At rear of 47 Fairfield Road, REFUSED Isham. New house.

WP/2006/0533/F Mr and Mrs John Tilley 5 Sorrel Close, Isham. AC Two storey front extension and garage changed to study.

WP/2006/0534/F Mr and Mrs Chisnall 6 The Grove, Wollaston. AC Part demolition of existing double garage. Build 2 storey extension on existing garage floor slab (smaller version of approved scheme - WP/2005/0837/F).

WP/2006/0535/F Mr S Piercy 47 Meadow Head, Shepherds APPROVED Hill, Wollaston. Erection of a wind turbine.

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

WP/2006/0536/F Mr and Mrs Burke 37 Berrill Street, Irchester. AC Two storey side extension to form granny annexe.

WP/2006/0539/F Mrs K Osborne 199 Northampton Road, AC Wellingborough. Erection of conservatory to the rear of the property.

WP/2006/0540/O Mr G Kitchener 9 Fellows Close, Wollaston. AC Four bedroom detached house.

WP/2006/0541/F Mrs J Farrow Rear of 90 Orchard Road, AC Finedon. Conversion of existing workshop to 2 bed dwelling, erection of 4 bed dwelling.

WP/2006/0543/F Mr G Saddington 38 Finedon Road, REFUSED Wellingborough. Change of use from single dwelling house to 4 flats, minor extension to rear.

WP/2006/0548/F Mr N Mead 2 Torrington Crescent, AC Wellingborough. 4400 x 4000 mm conservatory to rear of house.

WP/2006/0549/F Mr and Mrs P Corke Plot adjacent to 22 AC Wellingborough Road, Mears Ashby. Demolition of existing garage and construction of detached dwelling in part of existing garden.

WP/2006/0550/LB Mr Harvey Sansome 23 Hickmire, Wollaston. AC Installation of a cast iron woodburning stove and flue system, rooflights and removal of plasterboard partition and false ceiling.

WP/2006/0552/LB Mr and Mrs John Bracey 1 Middle Street, Isham. AC Conservatory located at north side of existing house.

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

WP/2006/0553/F Mrs Duncher 6 Dolben Close, Finedon. AC Addition of dormer window over garage to front and rear elevation to create bedroom.

WP/2006/0555/F Mr and Mrs P Malone 15 Hope Street, Bozeat. REFUSED Extension to bungalow.

WP/2006/0557/F Mr and MrsT Sibcy 38 St Crispin Road, Earls AC Barton. Erection of glazed conservatory.

WP/2006/0558/F Mr B Brophy 2 Wellingborough Road, AC Ecton. Single storey study extension with pitched roof over existing study and entrance hall.

WP/2006/0559/F Mr P Griggs 153 Gold Street, AC Wellingborough. Ground floor extension to front.

WP/2006/0560/F Mr D Giampaolo 69 Cannon Street, REFUSED Wellingborough. First floor rear extension.

WP/2006/0563/AV Invesco PIT Limited Redhill Farm Neighbourhood AC Centre, Farm Road, Wellingborough. For consent to install signage to site to advertise retail units, public house and nursery (non-illuminated).

WP/2006/0564/F Mr and Mrs Simpson 381 Shelley Road, AC Wellingborough. Single storey extension to rear elevation - conservatory.

WP/2006/0565/F Mr Jon Dimmock 15 Whytewell Road, AC Wellingborough. Two storey extension to side and rear.

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

WP/2006/0566/F Saxby Farms Irchester Grange Farm, AC Farndish Road, Irchester. Material change of use of 3 no. stone build agricultural barns to use for B1 office/light industry and associated parking. Demolition of redundant pig barn.

WP/2006/0567/F Mr and Mrs Newbold 4 Askham Avenue, AC Wellingborough. Proposed detached garage and store.

WP/2006/0569/F Mr B and Mrs D King 7 The Avenue, AC Wellingborough. Proposed loft conversion.

WP/2006/0570/F Carn Homes Limited Land adj. 8 Bull Close, AC Bozeat. Single storey attached garage (60m3 in size).

WP/2006/0571/LB Mr and Mrs Forey 36 The Square, Earls Barton. AC Removal of a window, replacement of a window and installation of external doors.

WP/2006/0572/LB Mr D Hirst Wellingborough Golf Club, AC Harrowden Hall, Great Harrowden. Replacement of wall copings and alteration to walls.

WP/2006/0573/F Mrs T McLaughlin Wollaston House, 51 High AC Street, Wollaston. Swimming pool cabin and spa gazebo.

WP/2006/0576/F FX Currency Services Limited 50a Cheese Lane, Market APPROVED Street, Wellingborough. Change of use from A1 to A2 to trade as a Bureau de Change.

WP/2006/0581/F Mr and Mrs D Shepherd 11 Kenmuir Road, Finedon. AC Extension to 1st floor dormers.

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

WP/2006/0582/AV Lloyds TSB Bank Plc Lloyds TSB Bank, 48 Market AC Street, Wellingborough. Replace lettering, logo 'mark' and projecting sign with new style bank branding.

WP/2006/0584/F Mr and Mrs R Hopkins 58 King Street, Earls Barton. AC To erect a conservatory to the rear of the property.

WP/2006/0585/F Mr M Vicars 15 Goldsmith Road, AC Wellingborough. Single storey rear extension.

WP/2006/0586/F Wellingborough Whitworths Wellingborough Whitworths AC Football Club Football Club, London Road, Wellingborough. Floodlighting to main playing area and additional covered standing area.

WP/2006/0601/F Mr I McKenna 24 Burford Way, AC Wellingborough. Conservatory to side with swimming pool.

WP/2006/0603/F Mr and Mrs G & H Banks 22 Paddock Lane, Mears AC Ashby. Amendment to porch and garage designs from previously approved plan (WP/2006/0081/F).

WP/2006/0604/F Intelex Limited Unit 17-18 Regent Park, AC Booth Drive, Park Farm Industrial Estate, Wellingborough. Single storey extension to industrial unit.

WP/2006/0605/F Orchid Pubs Limited The Priory, 30 Bourton Way, AC Wellingborough. Extension to rear and six 3m jumbo umbrellas to front.

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

WP/2006/0612/AV Cesab Limited Unit 10 Regent Park, Booth AC Drive, Wellingborough. Stand off text on elevation of building. Graphics to roller shutters.

WP/2006/0617/F Mr and Mrs D Smith 5 Harrison Close, AC Wellingborough. Two storey side extension and front porch. (slightly amended proposal to Approval WP/2006/0382/F).

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, Environment and Economy Department, Croyland Abbey, Tithe Barn Road, Wellingborough.

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 21/11/06

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2005/2586/ Dramlott Properties 78 Erection of 5no. dwellings Avenue Road Rushden (maisonettes over car space) APPROVED C

FP/2006/1134/ B Mrs R Barnell 152 Windsor Single storey extension with Road Wellingborough bedroom/shower room APPROVED

FP/2006/2700/ A Mr T Norton C/o 18 Erection cottage and house Harrowden Road Orlingbury APPROVED C Kettering

FP/2006/2718/ A Steve Banks & Andrea Construction of extension to Barclay 14 Hatton Avenue kitchen. Provision of window to REJECTED Wellingborough flank wall. Construction of en-suite bathroom to 1st floor bedroom including new window.

FP/2006/2874/ * Mr P Desborough 10 Hayden Single storey extension to rear Avenue Finedon REJECTED Wellingborough

FP/2006/2883/ Mr B Leeson 8 Gipsy Lane Extension and internal alterations Irchester Wellingborough APPROVED C 68

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 21/11/06

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2006/3053/ Mr & Mrs Burke 37 Berrill Two storey side annexe to form Street Irchester granny annexe. REJECTED Wellingborough

DI/2006/3070/ Mrs M Page 18 Earls Barton Rear ground floor extension and Road Great Doddington front vehicular access. APPROVED C Wellingborough

FP/2006/3072/ Mr I Worboys 19 Church Extensions and internal alterations Way Grendon Northampton APPROVED C

FP/2006/3163/ Mr K Weed & Warner 22 Two storey extension Dale Close Wellingborough APPROVED

FP/2006/3283/ Rev M Ryall 29 Alma Street Erection 2 bedroom house Wellingborough REJECTED

FP/2006/3311/ Mr T Wetherall 5 Little Lane Additional work to provide first floor Wollaston Wellingborough bedroom and bathroom/wc in roof APPROVED space. 69

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 21/11/06

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2006/3340/ Fernbrook Builders Ltd 158 Refurbishment of existing industrial Washbrook Road Rushden unit APPROVED

FP/2006/3342/ Mrs T Parekh 67 Great Park Single storey side and rear Street Wellingborough extensions APPROVED

FP/2006/3369/ Mr Hudson 180 Station Road Two storey side extension Earls Barton Northampton APPROVED C

FP/2006/3372/ Olan Mills Olan Mills Portrait Internal work to create additional Studios Darby Close office space APPROVED Wellingborough

PS/2006/3433/ Aylesbury Vale District Construct study over existing Council Building Control and garage APPROVED Access Manager 66 High Street Aylesbury

PS/2006/3434/ North Kesteven District Remedial works and diversion of Council PO Box 3, District foul drains APPROVED Council Offices Kesteven Street Sleaford, Lincs 70

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 21/11/06

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2006/3498/ Mr & Mrs R Blacklee 8 Conversion of existing garages and Blackmile Lane Grendon store into granny annex. APPROVED C Northampton

BN/2006/3501/ S Baldachino 61 Replacement of interior wall with Sandringham Close supporting steel beam. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2006/3502/ Mrs Karen Leigthon 46 Taking down wall between kitchen Cotswold Drive and study. Building wall between ACCEPTED Wellingborough two garages, taking out garage door and putting in window.

PS/2006/3505/ East Northants District Replacement windows Victorian Council East block. APPROVED C Northamptonshire House Cedar Drive Thrapston

WI/2006/3510/ Mr Duncan Brown 12 Abbots Replace existing double glazed Way Wellingborough windows with new ACCEPTED

FP/2006/3513/ Standard Life UK Property Division of existing into 3 units Trust C/o 1 Great Tower with additional wc and office APPROVED C Street London accommodation 71

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 21/11/06

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2006/3519/ Mr and Mrs Yeends 58 Single storey extension to form Roberts Street granny annex APPROVED Wellingborough

DI/2006/3520/ Mrs M Gouffni 42 Pope Road Level access shower domestic Wellingborough ACCEPTED

BN/2006/3559/ Mr Knight 3 Orchard Close Change porch into new down stairs Wollaston Wellingborough toilet ACCEPTED

DI/2006/3629/ Mrs D Essex 12 Sweetacre Level access shower room Close Grendon Northampton ACCEPTED

FP/2006/3682/ Mr R Marks 8 Barnwell Conversion of domestic garage Gardens Wellingborough APPROVED

FP/2006/3683/ Grendon C of E Junior Internal alterations and external School Main Road Grendon steps. APPROVED Northampton 72

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 21/11/06

Application No. Name & Address Description DI/2006/3685/ Mrs D Thompson 38 Fulmar Convert bathroom to shower room Lane Wellingborough ACCEPTED

BN/2006/3688/ Mr N Robinson Nigel Installation of 2 no. windows Robinson 33 Grange Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough

WI/2006/3701/ Mr S M Lehane 16 College Replacement PVCU bathroom Street Wellingborough window ACCEPTED

PS/2006/3702/ East Northants District Removal and replacement of Council East existing Collyweston roof tiles and APPROVED Northamptonshire House their replacement with reclaimed Cedar Drive Thrapston slate. General maintenance works to internal structures and rewiring of building.

BN/2006/3704/ Mr B Lymn 206 Mill Road Replacement external door Wellingborough between utility and exempt ACCEPTED conservatory

PS/2006/3705/ Kettering Borough Replacement of existing windows/ Council Bowling Green Road doors to new and old school blocks. APPROVED Kettering 73

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 21/11/06

Application No. Name & Address Description DI/2006/3707/ Mr C Francis 12 Dalkeith Level access shower 1st floor Road Wellingborough ACCEPTED

BN/2006/3711/ Michael Flynn 88 Hardwick Extension to kitchen Road Wellingborough ACCEPTED BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 6th December 2006

Report of the Corporate Manager – Sustainable Development

CONSTITUTION PLANNING THRESHOLDS

1 Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to explain the reasons for the proposed raising of the planning threshold regarding the determination of planning applications by the Regulatory Committee.

2 Background

2.1 Proposals for amending the planning delegation thresholds in the Constitution were submitted to the Constitution Working Party for consideration. A report on the reasons for the proposed amendments was presented to the Working Party in August 2006, see Appendix 1. After extensive discussion and some amendments the draft proposals were included in the draft Constitution put before the Resources Committee on 17th October 2006.

2.2 At this meeting the revised thresholds were discussed extensively. It was moved by Councillor Timms and seconded by Councillor Payne that planning applications receiving written objections from six or more households be amended back to written objections from three or more households. The main concerns regarded rural areas and the number of objections by members of the public being raised from three or more to six or more and the raising of development size from 10,000 sq metres to 20,000 sq metres in these areas where they may not be many objectors to an application. However, when the amendment was put to the meeting it was lost.

2.3 The draft constitution was then presented to the Full Council meeting on 31st October 2006 at which it was resolved that the amendments relating to planning thresholds should be referred to the Regulatory Committee for further consideration. The amendments presented to Full Council are shown in Appendix 2.

2.4 At its meeting on 21st November 2006 the Resources Committee resolved that the Regulatory Committee should be requested to review the draft revised planning thresholds and report their recommendations back to the Resource Committee.

3 Discussion

3.1 A reduced number of reports being determined at the Regulatory Committee would enable members to concentrate on complex and contentious cases, rather than spend time on those that can reasonably be delegated to officers. For example, generally at least 50% of the cases presented are agreed as per the officer recommendation without discussion. The number of applications being determined by the committee is generally increasing over time and the suggested amendments are also seen as a way to manage this.

3.2 The Council’s performance is currently being scrutinised by a number of central government bodies including Government Office of the East Midlands and the Planning Advisory Service (PAS), due to our underperformance of the Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) targets. We have already been informed that for 2007/8 we will be classed as a Standard Planning Authority, which could potentially lead to more government intervention as the government has stated that all local planning authorities will be expected to achieve BVPI targets by April 2007. This will also have an impact on our CPA rating and our current Beacon Council bid.

3.3 The Council’s achievement against the Performance Indicator for delegated planning applications has been falling since 2004/5. The target of 90% was not achieved for 2005/6 and is not on target for this financial year either.

3.4 Changing the threshold by the proposed levels will ensure the target is exceeded. However, any increase in the threshold will help to alleviate this situation, whereas leaving the threshold as it is will mean the target is not achieved again.

3.5 Also the Development Control Service performance against the Best Value Performance Indicators for determining major and minor applications has deteriorated. The deterioration in minor application performance is mainly due to more of these applications being determined at Regulatory Committee as opposed to being delegated to officers. Achieving the BVPI targets for Development Control is important because it affects the amount of Planning Delivery Grant awarded to the Council and thus the funding available for improvements and resources.

3.6 It is intended that councillors will become more involved in pre-application discussions so that issues can be resolved before an application is submitted. Potentially, this approach would reduce the number of objections against applications. Representatives of PAS, that visited the Council in October, have indicated that this is essential to good performance.

3.7 The consultation notes provided to the public would be amended to emphasise that concerns regarding any planning application should be highlighted with the parish council or ward councillor within the consultation period specified for the application, but objections must be a planning consideration. For large developments, it is envisaged that in rural areas there is often community cohesion which will mean the number of objections raised will result in an application going to Regulatory Committee, also these application would be scrutinised by the parish council.

3.8 Any change to the thresholds would be reviewed after six months to evaluate the impact on performance and any issues regarding the inclusion of community concerns.

4 Legal Powers

4.1 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – defines the time limit for local authorities to determine planning applications.

5 Financial Implications

5.1 Non-achievement of BVPIs targets will mean a reduction in the amount of PDG awarded to the Council and thus the funding available for improvement and resources.

6 Risk analysis and Implications

Nature of Risk Consequences if Realised Likelihood Control of measures occurrence The thresholds Reduction in the amount of High Raise the remain as they PDG awarded to the Council. planning are now. Our bid for Beacon Council delegation status could be affected. thresholds. Our CPA rating will be lower than our previous rating. The Council could be subject to government intervention.

7 Recommendation

The committee is invited to review the proposed amendments to the planning delegation thresholds and report their recommendations back to the Resource Committee.

8 Author and Contact Officer Nadine Trotman Interim Development Control Manager

9 Consultees Executive Director – Sustainable Communities Corporate Manager – Sustainable Development Head of Financial Services

10 Background Papers Resource Committee Report 17th October 2006 : Updating the Constitution – Planning Thresholds Full Council Report 31st October 2006 : Minutes of the Resource Committee 17th October 2006 Draft Minutes of the Full Council Meeting 31st October 2006.

Appendix 1 - Regulatory Thresholds

The reason the amendments to the delegated applications process in the constitution have been suggested is to enable Regulatory Committee members to concentrate on complex and contentious cases, rather than spend time on those that can reasonably be delegated to officers.

At the committee meetings approximately 35 to 50% of the cases presented are discussed in any detail and / or challenged with the remainder being agreed as per the officer recommendation without discussion. The number of applications being determined by the committee is generally increasing over time and the suggested amendments were also seen as a way to manage this.

Regulatory Committee - Quarterly volumes

30 Appns No. of Appns of No.

0 Q1 05 Q2 05 Q3 05 Q4 05 Q1 06 Q2 06

NB. Q206 is to end July

Effect of raising thresholds. If the suggested thresholds had been in place the differences in the volumes of applications being determined by the Regulatory Committee for the latest 3 months information would have been :-

Committee date June 06 July 06 Aug 06 Original cases 16 18 12 Cases retained using New Thresholds 9 10 8 % Reduction 43 44 33

Parish Councils It is felt that the objections received via the Parish Councils for the villages are given more weight than objections received in the town. One objection received from the Parish Council automatically results in determination by the Regulatory Committee whereas currently three objections are required for development in the town to result in the same action.

It has been noticed that there is a rise in the number of applications being referred for site viewings and hence for the application to be determined by the Regulatory Committee by Parish Councils. Often the reasons given by the Parish Council for objections are not a material planning considerations. It is felt by the service that objections should only be counted towards the threshold for being determined by the Committee where a valid planning consideration has been put forward.

Number of decisions delegated to officers as a percentage of all decisions.

2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 Q1

92% 86% 80%

The number of delegated applications has been falling for the past 17 months and unless action is taken it will continue to do so. The suggested amendments to the constitution regarding the determination of planning applications is aimed at reversing this trend.

The level of delegated applications has been below the BVPI target of 90% since 2005/6 and continues to fall.

Number of ‘minor’ planning application determined within 8 weeks Other performance figures are also deteriorating, currently the number of minor applications being determined within 8 weeks are below the target of 65%. This is a measure that directly affects the funding received via the Planning Delivery Grant, which the service relies on.

2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 Q1

75% 77% 50%

Applications received The general trend up to the end of May has shown an increase in the number of applications being received with a fall in June, July and August to date. However this is not being reflected in the numbers of applications being referred to the Regulatory Committee.

Appendix 2 – Planning Threshold amendments presented to Full Council

Thresholds for planning applications to be referred to Regulatory Committee, rather than taken by officers. Other reservations to officer delegations remain:

The period for a councillor to request that a matter notified on the planning list be clarified to refer to 21 calendar days.

All Major applications to go to committee unless: • under 30 dwellings (was 20) • under 10,000 square meters for warehousing/light industrial (was 5,000) • residential development under 1 hectare (was 0.5 hectare) or

Applications receiving any of the following level of valid objections to be referred to the Committee: • written objection by a relevant parish council (as now) • petition signed by more than 20 local residents (was 10) • written objections from more than six local householder (was three)