Agenda Item No: 5
Democratic Services PO Box 136 County Hall Northampton NN1 1AT
Development Control Committee
Minutes: 6 December 2010
Venue: Council Chamber, County Hall, Northampton
(Meeting held in public)
PRESENT:-
Councillor Michael Clarke (Chairman) Councillor George Blackwell Councillor Dennis Meredith Councillor Don Edwards Councillor Ron Pinnock Councillor Graham Lawman Councillor Rupert Reichhold
Also in attendance (for all or part of the meeting)
Councillor Bob Seery Councillor Ben Smith Roy Boulton Chief Planner Debbie Carter Highways & Planning Manager, Legal Services Jenny Rendall Committee Assistant (minutes) Phil Watson Development Control Manger
9 members of the public also attended.
93/10 Apologies for non-attendance
Apologies were received from Councillors David Hugheston-Roberts & Alan Wright.
94/10 Notification of Requests from Members of the Public to Address the Meeting
Notifications were received detailed below:
Item 6a – Erection of a 1.8metre high security fence including a boom barrier at Helmdon Primary School, Station Road, Helmdon, Brackley, NN13 5QT Ms Clare Hedley, Helmdon Primary School
Item 7a - Extraction of sand and gravel mineral reserves to enable the construction of a 100 berth marina basin for recreational and leisure use at Lilford Lodge Farm, Lilford, Oundle, Peterborough, PE8 5SA. Stephen Rice, Fischer German Councillor Bob Seery
95/10 Declaration of Members’ Interests
Item Councillor Type Nature 6c George Blackwell Personal Grendon is part of the Earls Barton Application: Division. 10/00073/CCD 7b George Blackwell Personal Member of Borough Council of Application: Wellingborough, Earls Barton 10/00066/EXT Parish Council and resident of Earls Barton. 7a Rupert Reichhold Personal Member of Nene Valley Association
There was no declaration of whip.
96/10 Chairman’s Announcements
On behalf of the Development Control Committee, best wishes were sent to Committee Assistant, Barbel Gale on the birth of her son.
97/10 Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 November 2010:
The minutes of the meeting held in public on 1 November 2010 (copies of which were previously circulated) were agreed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.
The minutes of the meeting held in public on 1 November 2010 (copies of which were previously circulated) were agreed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.
County Council Planning Applications:
98/10 Erection of a 1.8 metre high security fence including boom barrier at Helmdon Primary School, Station Road, Helmdon, Brackley, NN13 5QT (10/00052/CCD & S/2010/0943/RG3):
The Chairman invited the DCM to introduce the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) who highlighted the following: Many school sites now included security fences, many of which did not require planning permission because they were below 2 metres in height and did not face on to a public highway. The Parish Council had objected to the application and a photograph was included in the report of how the boom barrier might appear which would be 1.2metres high when closed and 6metres when open. Concerns raised by South Northamptonshire District Council (SNDC) had also led to a change in the design of the fence to a bow top design. SNDC and Helmdon Parish Council had also voiced concerns about the intrusion of the barrier on the street scene. Whilst SNDC were happy with the new design Helmdon Parish Council still felt the fence created a prison-like approach to the school. They also queried the need for the fence as the school had not experienced problems in the past and it was not a requirement of Ofsted. Many schools aspired to improve their security.
The Committee were provided with a copy of an e-mail from the Clerk to Helmdon Parish Council in which their objections were outlined as well as the fact they would have appreciated an invitation to speak at the meeting. The Chairman noted that whilst it was helpful for speakers to register their intention to speak, it was not necessary. The DCM confirmed he had written to Helmdon Parish Council inviting them to the committee as was the normal practice to all those objecting to an application. This invitation had been repeated by e-mail that morning.
The Chairman then invited Ms Claire Hedley to address the Committee who stated: As Bursar of Helmdon Primary School she represented staff, parents, pupils and residents of Helmdon Village. She had raised the issue of security over 5 years previously as a new parent and particularly as the school had a large playing field. Parents had regularly voiced concerns about security as well as staff who were concerned about children being taken from the school field. The school was sited on the main road in the village and experienced a large number of buses and traffic including large lorries coming to and from a nearby saw mill. Concerns were raised that the school’s special needs pupils could easily become involved in an accident. The school worked as closely as possible with neighbours and village groups and the design of the boom barrier had been amended in response to concerns raised by the Parish Council. An Ofsted inspector had been asked for advice and recommended the boundary in Station Road be fenced to safeguard children. There had been an incident of a child in the past running out of the car park entrance on to the road in front of a vehicle as well as some near misses. The perimeters of the school had been carefully considered and the western and southern boundary would be fenced whilst retaining most of the hedging. The fence would not be in front of the school buildings up to the car park entrance, but this area was out of bounds for children and more easily supervised than the other boundaries.
The DCM provided further clarification as follows: The existing hedgerow would not have to be removed to erect the new fence. A condition had been included that no machines should be used to erect the fence and that post holes should be hand dug to minimise the impact on the hedgerow and trees. Bow top fencing had been used successfully at other school sites including one that was located in an area of conservation. Whilst the barrier was an unusual feature the gradient on the site made it difficult for gates to swing open. A gate set to swing inwards would also restrict movement in the small car park.
In answer to queries on the report the following was confirmed: Councillor Meredith’s comments that such a fence was a good way of maintaining security and ensuring pupils remained within the school were noted. To Councillor Meredith’s suggestion that there be further negotiations between the school and parish council it was noted a meeting between the 2 organisations had taken place. The fence would be screened by vegetation and the plans had been amended following the parish council’s original objection. To Councillor Pinnock it was noted the exact position of the fence had been considered but it was felt setting it back within the school grounds would create an area between the fence and road that would be difficult to maintain. Condition 5 of the proposed planning conditions requested a method statement for the erection of the new fencing and risk assessment of the potential for damage to the existing tress prior to commencement of works. As part of the method statement consideration to
setting the fence slightly back to avoid damage to existing vegetation might be necessary. To Councillor Pinnock it was confirmed the current proposal was to site the fence along the line of the existing fence which was missing in places. In some areas the vegetation was quite thick but in other areas there were gaps. A landscaping condition could be required to fill gaps and replace any damage that might be caused. SNDC had also suggested vegetation could be allowed to grow through the fence and a condition for landscaping would help to secure this. Councillor Blackwell’s comments that safety of the pupils was paramount were noted. To Councillor Edwards it was confirmed all properties surrounding the school had been notified of the application. None of these had objected. No parents had objected to the application. Councillor Reichhold’s concerns that the Parish Council’s objections did not include adequate planning grounds for rejecting the application were noted. Councillor Lawman agreed with the report and suggested that condition 3 included a requirement that no construction traffic should be permitted to enter or leave the site during regular pupil arrival and departure hours. This should be added to the proposed planning conditions.
RESOLVED by a vote of 5 in favour and 1 against that: the Development Control Committee granted planning permission subject to the conditions specified in Appendix A along with the following additional conditions: a) That the area around the fence be landscaped to enable vegetation to grow in front and through it; and b) that construction traffic should not be permitted to enter or leave the site during the times when pupils arrive and leave the school premises.
99/10 Erection of a single storey extensions to provide 6 new classrooms, DSP unit, new hall, WC’s, stores, office and staff room, internal and external refurbishment works to the existing school and associated external works including a new covered play areas, MUGA, car parking and a new vehicle access off John Clark Way at Denfield Park Junior School, Victoria Road, Rushden, NN10 0DA (10/00057/CCD: ENC Ref: 10/01574/NCC):
The Chairman invited the DCM to introduce the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) who highlighted the following: Denfield Park Junior school was currently located on 2 sites, the one in the application having room for expansion. Current vehicle access was in Victoria Road which was very narrow and difficult to drive through when cars were parked on one side. This would be maintained as a staff car park and for deliveries with parents and pupils using new access in John Clarke Way. Whilst earthworks would be required to create the new access, it would also provide an area for vehicles to turn and a car park that could be used by those accessing other facilities outside of school hours. No issues had emerged at the time the report was written. A late response had been received from East Northamptonshire District Council and all of their issues had been covered in planning conditions. The Wildlife Trust had raised no issues. Natural England had not been originally consulted but they had raised concerns about bats and several trees that required felling. Bats were a protected species and Natural England who were the appropriate organisation to provide advice on protected species had objected pending suitable research by a qualified ecologist. the advice should be amended to the effect that, providing Natural England’s objection was resolved, the application be approved subject to the conditions
specified in Appendix A and any further conditions required by Natural England. This would enable the application to be dealt with in principle whilst officers liaised with Natural England regarding their issues. One possible outcome might be that the dead tree could be left until a later date as the building works did not require it to be removed at this stage whilst other smaller trees could perhaps be removed in order to enable the new access to the site to be constructed.
In answer to queries on the report the following was confirmed: In response to Councillor Lawman’s concerns that it would be difficult to stop parents using the staff access road, it was confirmed a condition could be added for the school to submit a scheme for gates with an entry system only accessible to staff. Councillor Pinnock’s comments that the project would be welcomed as it would relieve congestion around the school were noted.
RESOLVED that: subject to satisfactory completion of a consultation with Natural England which results in its objection being overcome the Development Control Committee granted planning permission subject to the conditions specified in Appendix A and any further conditions required by Natural England.
100/10 County Council planning applications determined and outstanding
The Chairman invited the DCM to introduce the report (copies of which had been circulated previously).
RESOLVED that: the Development Control Committee noted the report.
Minerals and Waste Planning Applications:
101/10 Extraction of sand and gravel mineral reserves to enable the construction of a 100 berth marina basin for recreational and leisure use at Lilford Lodge Farm, Liford, Oundle, Peterborough, PE8 5SA (NCC Ref: 09/00079/MIN District Ref: EN/10/00013/NCC):
The Chairman invited the DCM to introduce the report (copies of which had been circulated previously) who made the following points: At the request of Councillor Reichhold additional information was provided regarding highways issues. Information from Casualty Reduction confirmed there had been 3 slight accidents in 5 years, none at the turn into Oundle. In an e-mail from the Development Control & Adoptions Manager, Chris Bond, it was stated he felt ‘the proposed marina and its mineral extraction would not have a material impact on the accident forms recorded and that the numbers and severity were so low that, from discussions with Casualty Reduction, the junction would not warrant detailed investigation or improvement works based on the current figures.’ The marina would not be a residential marina and would include additional facilities such as toilets, showers and a laundry room for those using the marina and adjacent fishing lakes. Constructing the marina would require recovery of sand and gravel 5 metres deep. However, this would be too deep for the marina so waste soils would be imported and used to bring it up to 2 metres deep. No objections had been received in principle but a number of concerns had been raised. The report addressed those raised by East Northamptonshire District Council (ENDC). Barnwell Parish Council had raised concerns about traffic, particularly the A605 as an accident blackspot, additional traffic near the Barnwell Turn and dust and noise in the area. They were also concerned that a precedent would be set for additional
extraction in the valley and queried whether the marina would ever be built. An agreement or bond could perhaps alleviate this last concern. The Environment Agency had no objection in principal and Natural England and the Wildlife Trust had welcomed proposals which were likely to result in a net gain in biodiversity. The Nene Valley Association had objected about the possible setting of a precedent for large scale extraction of gravel in an area not designated for that purpose, loss of water meadows and the spread of marinas and berths which would affect an unspoilt part of the valley. Fairline Boats had stated they felt it should be 2 separate applications. Objections from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) were addressed via various planning policies listed in section 7 of the report. The primary objective of the application was the marina but the related minerals and waste development necessitated a number of proposed operations. The County Council and not the local district council were required to consider the application because of the mineral extraction. The usual minerals policies would not normally permit extraction in this part of the valley but should the case for the marina be proved, there would be a need to consider those policies seeking to avoid sterilisation of minerals. The plan was considered to be sustainable in terms of location, accessibility, impact on natural resources and ecology. The Marina would be connected to Oundle (approximately 2 miles away) via a public foot path along the river. ENDC had not objected to the marina in principle as they considered the area to be in a tourist area which already included Oundle Marina, Barnwell Country Park and Barnwell Mill. It was also noted an application for a hotel at Barnwell Mill had been granted. As shown in Appendix B to the report there were no significant environmental issues. The marina was a one-off project that was not expected to lead to multiple marinas in and around Oundle or this part of the river.
The Chairman then invited Mr Stephen Rice to address the Committee who declined this offer as he felt all of his comments had been dealt with.
The Chairman then invited Councillor Bob Seery to address the Committee who highlighted the following: He shared concerns raised by the local parish council regarding the adverse affect of traffic using the A605. He felt the A605 was unable to deal with Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic as demonstrated when an accident occurred and traffic was diverted along roads in adjoining villages also unable to accommodate HGVs. Many local people and groups had campaigned for a long time for issues along the A605 to be addressed. A planned roundabout at Barnwell had not been completed and when he had discussed this with the Highways Department earlier that year he had been informed it was not the best time of year to pursue the issue. The Chairman of Barnwell Parish Council had approached him asking that the Council specifically consider a contribution from Developers to address issues along the A605. He felt this should be further investigated. He had no major objections to the proposal but was deeply concerned about highway issues and he felt conditions should be imposed upon the application to ensure traffic was controlled. He therefore suggested that: 1) Effective management was put in place to ensure conditions relating to traffic movements were enforced; and 2) proper consideration be given to extended Section 106 funding to include a
financial contribution to the construction of Barnwell roundabout, including a timeline for undertaking such work.
At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor Reichhold stated he was strongly supportive of a scheme to improve the present T Junction in Barnwell in relation to the A605. It was noted traffic on this road included those transporting children between Barnwell and Oundle School. It was felt there was a strong case for consideration of the wider needs of infrastructure in the area and a Section 106 contribution could assist in this case.
In answer to queries on the report the following was confirmed: To Councillor Blackwell’s concerns regarding setting a precedent it was confirmed mineral extraction would be a by-product of the application. The relevant planning policies supported the extraction of minerals in sites like this. To Councillor Lawman’s concerns about how the traffic routeing Section 106 Agreement would be worded given that HGV traffic would be visiting the local concrete and recycling sites, it was noted that the wording in the agreement would allow movements to these premises but not beyond. This would prevent HGV’s from travelling through Oundle. Signs could also be erected alongside the road to remind vehicles the correct route when turning in and out of the road and this could be included in the conditions. In respect of highway improvement works it was noted conditions which were related to the development and reasonable could be included but would require support of the Highways Authority. In this instance it was not reasonable to require improvements to the A605 Oundle and Barnwell turns. It was confirmed the marina would not include permanent residential moorings and traffic would be created by the leisure use. HGV traffic would be limited to the marina construction period. To Councillors’ Seery and Reichhold’s suggestion that Section 106 funding could be requested to provide infrastructure improvements it was noted there was no requirement for such a request with this type of application. However, the applicants might feel minded to voluntarily assist in some way. The Chairman invited the applicant, Mr Dijksterhuis, to comment and he confirmed at this point that he would be willing to provide land for the building of a roundabout. The DCM confirmed he would liaise with the applicants and take account of the applicant’s offer to contribute by providing land for a roundabout and include this in the Section 106 Agreement. The Highways & Planning Manager, Legal Services, Debbie Carter agreed to consider the legal implications. It was also noted that Councillor Meredith was pleased to see wildlife would be protected, particularly by the provision of a pond for great nested newts. He also felt the development would benefit Northamptonshire residents.
RESOLVED that: subject to the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to control traffic routeing and secure a land or other appropriate contribution for future A605 Road improvements at the nearby Barnwell and Oundle junctions the Development Control Committee approved the application subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix A of the report. The Section 106 traffic routeing controls to secure the following: 1) that all construction traffic (including mineral and waste) did not use the road into/from Oundle beyond the locations of the facilities at Supreme Concrete and nearby waste recycling centre, when either arriving or leaving the site. 2) That all traffic associated with construction (including minerals and waste) did not arrive or leave the site via the town of Oundle.
102/10 Minerals and Waste Planning applications determined and outstanding
The Chairman invited the DCM to introduce the report (copies of which had been circulated previously).
RESOLVED that: the Development Control Committee noted the report.
103/10 Enforcement action undertaken by County Planning Authority
The Chairman invited the DCM to introduce the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) and made the following points: There was no further update on the issue at Blackbridge Farm. The Environment Agency was currently pursuing the issue of an unauthorised deposit and would update the Council in due course. Daventry District Council had been successful in their latest court case against Mr Daleman. They were now closer to being able to take joint action with NCC and officers from both authorities would discuss how this would be pursued, and legal counsel instructed.
In answer to a query from the Chairman it was confirmed that once the appeals processes had been exhausted the Council would pursue jointly with Daventry District Council an enforced sale of land against Mr Daleman. Officers were hopeful this would be successful as the value of the land was higher than the sum owed.
RESOLVED that: the Development Control Committee noted the report.
104/10 Urgent Business
At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor Ben Smith provided an update on the appeal by Augean PLC highlighting the following: Officers were thanked for the first class support offered to the appeal, particularly the Highways & Planning Manager, Legal Services, Chief Planner and DCM. The appeal had been concluded and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, The Right Honourable Eric Pickles MP would make a decision in due course. He would be attending a feedback meeting with relevant officers to ensure the Council learned from the experience. The main lessons included: Recognition of contentious applications at an early stage; On balance reasoning to be clear in committee reports; The ability of the Chairman to determine reasons for refusal when this conflicted with officers’ advice was vital, especially when it was in a public arena; All those involved should be clear about their remarks, especially when a meeting was recorded; When a decision is taken to appeal, the Chairman becomes the client in terms of ensuring the appeal was correctly contested; The Council’s representative at the appeal must be fully informed to be able to answer technical questions as referring these to supporting officers would not be acceptable during the appeal; and The Council should maintain a good relationship with the local community. Consideration should also be given to maintaining a good relationship with district and borough councils with whom the Council might be required to liaise in future. He expected the inspector’s report (due to be published on 21 February 2011) would state that the community had been very well supported and the Council had done everything it could.
The DCM announced the next site visit would possibly take place on Friday 21 January 2011 or possibly Monday 24 January 2011 and the next meeting take place on Tuesday 25 January 2011 at 10.00am.
RESOLVED that: the Development Control Committee noted the update provided by Councillor Ben Smith on the appeal by Augean PLC
There being no further business, the meeting concluded at 3.40pm.
Jenny Rendall Committee Assistant December 2010
This information can be made available in other languages and formats upon request, including large print, Braille, audio cassette and compact disk. Please contact the Democratic Services, tel. (01604) 237560 Fax (01604) 236223 E-mail: [email protected]
Signed: ......
Date: ......