Planning Committee Wednesday 21 November 2012 at 7.00 Pm

Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 November 2012 at 7.00 pm

Council Chamber, Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire NN8 1BP

1. Apologies for absence. Ι 2. Declarations of Interest (completed forms to be handed to the committee clerk). Ι 3. Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 17/10/2012. Ι 4. Applications for planning permission, listed building consent, building regulation approval and appeal information. Ι 5. Planning Appeal Decision: 3 Orlingbury Road, Little Harrowden. 6. Any other items that the Chairman decides are urgent. Ι Enclosed

Site Viewing Group for Tuesday 20 November 2012 will be Councillors Ward, Griffiths, Waters, Timms and Maguire.

John T Campbell Chief Executive

Date issued: 13 November 2012.

For further information contact Fiona Marshall on 01933 231519; fax 01933 231543; [email protected]

If you wish to address the Committee on an agenda item you can register by: • going on-line to ‘on-line forms’ then ‘addressing Council meetings’; or • completing the appropriate form which is available at reception desks; or • contacting Fiona Marshall

Membership: Councillor Ward (Chairman), Councillor Griffiths (Vice Chairman), Councillors Beirne, Bell, Dholakia, Maguire, Morrall, B Patel, Scarborough, Timms and Waters.

Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire NN8 1BP Tel: 01933 229777 Fax: 01933 231684 www.wellingborough.gov.uk BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM 2 PLANNING COMMITTEE 21ST NOVEMBER 2012

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT

When the Chairman calls for declarations of interest in matters to be considered at the meeting you must declare orally: • any relevant ‘Registrable Interest’ that is not in the register of interests, • any relevant ‘Other Interest’. Registrable interests in the register of interests do not need to be declared orally to the meeting.

Members are reminded that if they have a registrable Interest that is a disclosable pecuniary interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting they cannot participate, or participate further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting; or participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting unless they have first obtained a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting.

An extract from the Code of Conduct relating to declarations of interest is printed on the reverse of this form.

Please write down your interests in the table below. If you have no registrable interests to declare, please state ‘none’ on the form. You are still required to declare your interest orally at the meeting.

Councillor name: Committee/date/ Title Type of interest Reason for interest minute number (please tick) Registerable DPI Other Registerable DPI Other Registerable

DPI Other Registerable DPI Other Registerable DPI Other

Registerable DPI Other Please place this completed declaration form in the basket (on the table next to the exit) at the end of the meeting to ensure your declaration is recorded accurately.

Declaration of interests: page 1 of 5 Extract (modified) from the Code of Conduct 2012 Part 2 – Interests

4 Registerable Interests 4.1 You must within 28 days of this Code being adopted by or applied to the authority; or your election or appointment to office (where that is later), notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of the details of your interests within the following categories, for inclusion in the authority’s register of interests: 4.1.1 any disclosable pecuniary interests you are required to disclose. You have a disclosable pecuniary interest if it is of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State (see Appendix A) and either: (a) it is an interest of yours, or (b) it is an interest of: (i) your spouse or civil partner; (ii) a person with whom you are living as husband and wife, or (iii) a person with whom you are living as if you were civil partners and you are aware that that other person has the interest. 4.1.2 details of any body of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by your authority 4.1.3 details of any body exercising functions of a public nature, any body directed to charitable purposes or any body one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion or policy (including any political party or trade union), of which you are: (a) a member, or (b) in a position of general control or management; 4.2 You are expected to ensure that your register of interests is kept up to date and notify the Monitoring Officer in writing within 28 days of becoming aware of any change in respect of your disclosable pecuniary interests and other registerable interests. 4.3 You may inform the Monitoring Officer if you consider that disclosure of the details of the interest could lead to you, or a person connected with you, being subject to violence or intimidation. If the Monitoring Officer agrees with your view, the interest is treated as a “sensitive interest” for the purposes of the Code 4.4 If a sensitive interest is entered in the authority’s register, copies of the register that are made available for inspection, and any published version of the register, will not include details of the interest (but may state you have an interest the details of which are withheld).

5 Disclosure of Interests and Participation at Meetings 5.1 If you attend a meeting and 5.1.1 have and are or become aware, or should reasonably be aware, that you have an interest of the type described in paragraph 4.1 above in any matter to be considered, or being considered, at that meeting, and 5.1.2 the interest is not entered in the authority’s register of members’ interests, you should (and must if the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest) disclose to the meeting the fact that you have an interest in that matter and the nature of that interest, at or before the consideration of the item of business or as soon as the interest becomes apparent. 5.2 Where your interest is a “sensitive interest” for the purposes of the Code, you need not disclose the details of the sensitive interest to the meeting, but merely the fact that you have an interest in the matter concerned. 5.3 If you have and are aware or become aware, or should reasonably be aware, that you have 5.3.1 a disclosable pecuniary interest in any matter to be considered, or being considered, at a meeting, or 5.3.2 any other registerable interest in any matter to be considered, or being considered, at a meeting, and (a) the matter to be considered, or being considered, at that meeting: (i) affects your financial position or the financial position of a person or body through whom the interest arises ;or (ii) relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to you or any person through whom the interest arises, and (b) the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgment of the public interest1, you should not, and must not if the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest,: 5.3.3 participate, or participate further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting other than to the extent permitted by the authority’s Procedure Rules in respect of registerable interests other than disclosable pecuniary interests2; or 5.3.4 participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting unless you have first obtained a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting. In addition, i f the authority’s Procedure Rules require you to leave the room where the meeting is held while any discussion or voting on the matter takes place, you must do so. 5.4 “Meeting” means any meeting organised by or on behalf of the authority, including: 5.4.1 any meeting of the authority, or a committee or sub-committee of the authority (including joint committees and joint sub- committees) 5.4.2 meetings of working parties 5.4.3 any briefing by officers (e.g. to political groups or lead advisers); and 5.4.4 any site visit to do with business of the authority 5.5 If you seek to discuss with an officer a matter that, if it were to be considered at a meeting of the authority, you would not be able to participate in the discussion of, or voting on, by virtue of the matter relating to a registerable interest of yours, you are expected to inform the officer of that interest in advance of any discussion and accept that the officer has discretion as to whether or not to discuss the matter with you; save that he or she cannot treat you less favourably than he or she would treat a member of the public wishing to discuss a matter of the same type.

6 Other Interests 6.1 In addition to the requirements of Paragraph 5, where you have an interest described in paragraph 6.3 below in any business of the authority, and 6.1.1 where you are aware or ought reasonably to be aware of the existence of that interest, and 6.1.2 you attend a meeting of the authority at which the business is considered, you are expected to disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent. 6.2 Where your interest is a “sensitive interest” for the purposes of this Code, you need not disclose the details of the sensitive interest to the meeting, but merely the fact that you have an interest in the matter concerned. 6.3 You have an interest for the purposes of paragraph 6.1 of this Code where:

1 A registerable interest that satisfies the tests in paragraphs 5.3.2 (a) and (b) shall be known as a prejudicial interest for the purpose of declarations of interest at a meeting. 2 These rules are to the effect that if the matter is one on which an ordinary member of the public would be allowed to address the meeting you are provided with the same opportunity. If an ordinary member of the public is not allowed to speak on the matter, you cannot do so. Declaration of interests: page 2 of 5 6.3.1 a decision in relation to that matter might reasonably be regarded as affecting the well-being or financial standing of you or a member of your family or a person or body with whom you have a close association to a greater extent than it would affect the majority of the Council Tax payers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the ward or electoral area for which you have been elected or otherwise of the authority’s administrative area, or 6.3.2 it relates to or is likely to affect any of the interests listed in the Table in the Appendix A to this Code, but in respect of a member of your family (other than a “relevant person”) or a person with whom you have a close association and you are aware that that other person has the interest and that interest is not a disclosable pecuniary interest or any interest you should register in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Code. 6.4 If the matter to be considered, or being considered, at that meeting: 6.4.1 affects your financial position or the financial position of a person or body through whom the interest arises ;or 6.4.2 relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to you or any person through whom the interest arises, and 6.4.3 the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgment of the public interest3, you should not: 6.4.4 participate, or participate further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting other than to the extent permitted by the authority’s Procedure Rules for such interests4; or 6.4.5 participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting unless you have first obtained a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting. In addition, i f the authority’s Procedure Rules require you to leave the room where the meeting is held while any discussion or voting on the matter takes place, you must do so. 6.5 If you seek to discuss with an officer a matter that, if it were to be considered at a meeting of the authority, you would not be able to participate in the discussion of, or voting on, by virtue of the matter relating to an interest of yours of the type described in paragraph 6.3, you are expected to inform the officer of that interest in advance of any discussion and accept that the officer has discretion as to whether or not to discuss the matter with you; save that he or she cannot treat you less favourably than he or she would treat a member of the public wishing to discuss a matter of the same type.

------

Appendix A

Disclosable Pecuniary Interests The duties to register, disclose and not to participate in respect of any matter in which a member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) are set out in Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011. Breaches of the rules relating to DPIs may lead to criminal sanctions being imposed. Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011 provides that a pecuniary interest is a “disclosable pecuniary interest” in relation to a member (M), if it is of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State and either: (a) it is an interest of M’s, or (b) it is an interest of: (i) M’s spouse or civil partner, (ii) a person with whom M is living as husband and wife, or (iii) a person with whom M is living as if they were civil partners, and M is aware that that other person has the interest. DPIs are defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 (SI No. 1464) as follows: Interest Prescribed description Employment, office, trade Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain. profession or vocation Sponsorship Any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from the relevant authority) made or provided within the relevant period in respect of any expenses incurred by M in carrying out duties as a member, or towards the election expenses of M. This includes any payment or financial benefit from a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992). Contracts Any contract which is made between the relevant person (or a body in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest) and the relevant authority— (a) under which goods or services are to be provided or works are to be executed; and (b) which has not been fully discharged. Land Any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the relevant authority. Licences Any licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy land in the area of the relevant authority for a month or longer. Corporate tenancies Any tenancy where (to M’s knowledge)— (a) the landlord is the relevant authority; and (b) the tenant is a body in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest. Securities Any beneficial interest in securities of a body where— (a) that body (to M’s knowledge) has a place of business or land in the area of the relevant authority; and (b) either— (i) the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body; or (ii) if the share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest exceeds one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that class. For this purpose: “the Act” means the Localism Act 2011; “body in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest” means a firm in which the relevant person is a partner or a body corporate of which the relevant person is a director, or in the securities of which the relevant person has a beneficial interest; “director” includes a member of the committee of management of an industrial and provident society; “land” excludes an easement, servitude, interest or right in or over land which does not carry with it a right for the relevant person (alone or jointly with another) to occupy the land or to receive income; “M” means a member of a relevant authority; “member” includes a co-opted member; “relevant authority” means the authority of which M is a member; “relevant period” means the period of 12 months ending with the day on which M gives a notification for the purposes of section 30(1) or 31(7), as the case may be, of the Act;

3 An other interest that satisfies the tests in paragraphs 6.4.1 to 6.4.3 shall also be known as a prejudicial interest for the purpose of declarations of interest at a meeting. 4 These rules are to the effect that if the matter is one on which an ordinary member of the public would be allowed to address the meeting you are provided with the same opportunity. If an ordinary member of the public is not allowed to speak on the matter, you cannot do so. Declaration of interests: page 3 of 5 “relevant person” means M or M’s spouse or civil partner, a person with whom M is living as husband and wife, or a person with whom M is living as if they were civil partners; “securities” means shares, debentures, debenture stock, loan stock, bonds, units of a collective investment scheme within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and other securities of any description, other than money deposited with a building society.

Declaration of interests: page 4 of 5 DECLARING INTERESTS FLOWCHART – QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF

What matters are being discussed at the meeting?

Do any relate to my interests? A Does the matter affect my registerable interests? OR B Does it: • affect the well-being or financial standing of me or a member of my family or a person or body with whom I have a close association to a greater extent than it would affect the majority of the Council Tax payers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the ward for which I have been elected, or • relate to or is likely to affect any of the interests listed in the Table in Appendix A of the Code, but in respect of a member of my family (other than a “relevant person”) or a person or body with whom I have a close association AND that interest is not a registerable interest?

Is the interest on Disclose the existence and You cannot the register of participate in the NO nature of your interests? interest. meeting and vote unless you have a dispensation. YES Also, withdraw from the meeting by leaving Is it a disclosable You can the room. YES pecuniary interest? participate in In the interests of the meeting transparency tell the and vote. Chairman your reason NO

Does the matter:

You should not • affect my financial position or the financial position of a person or body participate in the through whom the interest arises; or meeting and vote, unless you have a • relate to the determining of any approval, dispensation. consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to me or any Also, withdraw from the person through whom the interest arises, meeting by leaving the YES AND room. Is the interest one which a member of the In the interests of public with knowledge of the relevant facts transparency tell the would reasonably regard as so significant Chairman your reason that it is likely to prejudice my judgment of for withdrawing the public interest?

Declaration of interests: page 5 of 5 Agenda item 4

Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Committee Wednesday 21st November 2012 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

INDEX

Page No. SITE VIEWING GROUP

WP/2012/0251/F - 9 Townwell Lane, Irchester. 1 WP/2012/0427/O - Land adjacent 41 Debdale Road, Wellingborough. 9 WP/2012/0430/F - 7 Hardwater Road, Great Doddington. 15 WP/2012/0434/F - Land fronting Middle Street and rear of 20 Church Street, Isham. 20

DISTRICT

WP/2011/0518/F - The Woodyard, Hardwick Village, Hardwick. 28 WP/2012/0175/FCOU - 240 Sywell Road, Mears Ashby. 36 WP/2012/0320/F - Vivian Arms, 153 Knox Road, Wellingborough. 40 WP/2012/0366/FCOU - Harper Services, 240 Sywell Road, Mears Ashby. 58 WP/2012/0396/F - 76 Doddington Road, Earls Barton. 62 WP/2012/0441/F - 10 Fellows Close, Wollaston. 72 WP/2012/0443/RMM - Land rear of 1 to 73 Compton Way, Earls Barton. 85

OTHER BOROUGH

WP/2012/0417/OB - Land to North of Burton Wold Farm, Wold Road, Burton Latimer. 94

OTHER BOROUGH/COUNTY

WP/2012/0495/C - Sewage Works, A45 Nene Valley Way, Ecton. 99

- 1 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 20th November 2012 at 12.00 noon)

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0251/F

PROPOSAL: Erection of dwelling in garden. Amended Plans.

LOCATION: 9 Townwell Lane, Irchester, Wellingborough. NN29 7AH

APPLICANT: Ms Jan Trembecki.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillor Elliott who has also requested that the site be visited by the Site Viewing Group.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described. The first paragraph of the Design and Access Statement which accompanies the application states that the proposal is for ‘small single storey dwelling’ but the plans that illustrate the scheme depict a one and a half storey dwelling.

The application site is part of the rear garden area associated with no. 9 Townwell Lane which is located at the eastern end of the lane. The site is set down noticeably from no. 9 Townwell Lane and the other adjacent residential gardens and there is a large amount of landscape planting on the boundaries. Adjoining the site to the east is a field. The application site lies outside the adopted village policy line for Irchester.

Additional plans were received on 2 October 2012 which clarified the proposal.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WR/1967/0043 House – conditionally approved. WR/1967/0157 House – conditionally approved. The plans that accompany the applications above illustrate the residential curtilage associated with the dwelling being restricted to the front portion of the site. BW/1988/1328 Detached double garage and conversion of existing – conditionally approved. The site plan that accompanies this application shows that the residential curtilage had been extended without the benefit of planning permission to include the area of land that is outside the village policy line and is the subject of this application. WP/2011/0166/F Erection of a dwelling in garden. Affordable housing for elderly parent – withdrawn. 1 WP/2012/0251/F

Industrial 13

64.6m Estate

11 86 Nursing Home

82 78 Manor House LB

68 63.0m

Cottage 66 75

Amb

Hall 69 62a

62 Spring Cott

_ 1b _

9 1

5 G

Liby PH

65.3m TOWNWELL LANE

52 57 16

50 48

47 38

34 Vicarage

15 39 HIGH STREET 19

37 5 13 68.4m

33 35

31 Issues

1 A

2 18 63.6m STATION ROAD

8 60

56 22 White House Farm Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend ALEXANDER COURT This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/2012/0251/F - 9 Townwell Lane, Irchester - 2 -

Although the application was described as an affordable house, there was no indication contained within the application that it met the requirements as then set out by the defunct Planning Policy Statement 3; Housing to be considered as an affordable housing scheme.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY, NATIONAL GUIDANCE AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy: 1 (Strengthening the network of Settlements) 13 (General sustainable development principles) and 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) 15 (Sustainable housing provision) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: G4 (Development within the limited development and restricted infill villages) G6 (Development within the open countryside) H4 (Housing in restraint villages and the open countryside) Supplementary Planning Documents: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design, Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime and Parking.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Irchester Parish Council – objects to the application because it is outside the village policy line and would be infill development. A visit from the Site Viewing Group is requested.

2. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority –

“I refer to your letter of 3 October 2012 and note the amended plans submitted in connection with the application for the above development.

Although the plan indicates the path of a vehicle within the development it does not address my concern with regard to the means of access from Townwell Lane and the laying out of the shared private drive to a width of 4.5m for a distance of 10m from the highway boundary.

As the applicant has still failed to demonstrate or give adequate information to determine my full view the proposals are unacceptable to this authority and refusal is recommended on highway safety grounds.”

3. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Protection Service – identifies the application was accompanied by an Environmental report and confirms the site has been visited. No further information is required concerning contamination on the site.

4. Northamptonshire County Council Archaeological Advisor – provides a brief historical context of the site and opines that there is the potential for archaeological remains to survive. The Advisor identifies that the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on any archaeological deposits that could be present, but under the circumstances, it does not represent an - 3 -

overriding constraint. A condition for an archaeological programme of works in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF is suggested.

5. Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Policy – no comment received.

6. Borough Council of Wellingborough Landscape Officer - no comment received.

7. Anglian Water Services Limited – no comment received.

8. Neighbours – concerns and objections have been received from the occupiers of 1 - 3, 7, 10, 12 and 14 Townwell Lane. The writers mention the following issues:

• loss of privacy • Townwell Lane is narrow and currently struggles to cope with the vehicles which use it; this issue could be made worse. Existing problems for emergency, large delivery and refuse vehicles which could be slowed or impeded further by new development • increased danger to pedestrian safety due to cars parked on the pavement • nuisance caused by disturbance from construction in the quite cul-de-sac • dwellings could be sold as separate units in the future with potential traffic problems with increased number of vehicles • concern regarding precedent for potential purchase of further land with the aim of more development • detrimental effect on drainage and sewer system in Townwell Lane • current guidelines discourages building in gardens • 8 foot fence required if the development is approved

9. Councillor Elliott – makes reference to the planning history of the site. Understands that new planning guidance discourages development within gardens and this development would encourage creeping infill into a scenic part of the village. There are drainage and sewer problems in the area after heavy rain which would be made worse.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are:

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

Compliance with policy With regards to the Development Plan, Policy 1 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that in the rural areas development will take place on sites within - 4 - village boundaries, subject to criteria to be set out in development plan documents. Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan defines the village policy lines and classifies Irchester as a restricted infill village. The application site is located outside the village policy line in the open countryside and Policy H4 of the local plan specifies restrictive criteria for housing development to be suitable in such locations. Acceptable proposals in such locations would involve the replacement of an existing dwelling or a dwelling that is justified for reasons of agricultural or forestry necessity. Policy G6 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan also sets out restrictive criteria for development to be acceptable in the open countryside.

With regards to local plan Policy H4, the application does not involve the replacement of a dwelling, nor was it accompanied by an agricultural or forestry justification to indicate that the scheme should benefit from any of the exemptions to this constraining open countryside policy. In relation to local plan Policy G6, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is any overriding need for the development to be in the open countryside and the proposal is, therefore, also considered to be contrary to Policy G6.

Respondents have mentioned the change in Government guidance with regards to proposals which seek to develop garden land. It is the case that domestic garden land has been removed from the definition of previously-developed or brownfield land, and hence from the weight given to re-use of such sites. However, this does not amount to a complete embargo on their development. Proposals still fall to be considered in the light of all relevant objectives and polices, including the encouragement in the National Planning Policy Framework to approve development where it accords with the development plan without delay. Development within a village such as Irchester also has to accord in principle to the relevant policies of the development plan mentioned above.

The village policy line for Irchester is in the process of being reconsidered under the Site Specific Plan which could alter the policy line to include the application site at some time in the future. However, at the present time the current status of the Site Specific Plan holds no material weight.

No material evidence has been submitted by the applicant to suggest that the proposal meets with the requirements for the scheme to be considered as an exceptional affordable housing development which could be permitted outside the village policy line.

It is clear that the application site is located outside the village policy line and is, therefore, in planning policy terms in the open countryside. In the absence of any special mitigating circumstances the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy 1 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and saved Policies G6 and H4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

Highway safety and parking Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that new development should provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards. Policy 13 (n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

- 5 -

The comments of the local residents are noted and they relate in the main to the existing access difficulties in Townwell Lane itself which they perceive will be made worse as a result of the proposed development due to its historic substandard layout.

Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority has recommended that the application be refused on the grounds of danger to highway safety. However, it should perhaps be identified that its recommendation focuses on the design of the access onto the highway, and it does not make reference to the effects the development could have on the reported highway problems in Townwell Lane.

The view of the Highway Authority is acknowledged, however, it is considered that its safety concerns with regards to the access arrangements could be assuaged by way of negotiation or a suitable condition attached to any consent. However, it is thought that to negotiate on this issue would be inappropriate because the site itself is located outside the village policy line which renders the proposed development unacceptable in terms of planning policy.

With respect to vehicles parking on a footpath; this is an offence under paragraph 218 of The Highway Code and it is incumbent on Northamptonshire County Council, as parking authority, to enforce against the offenders as necessary. Details of the way in which parking enforcement is controlled in the Borough of Wellingborough can be found on www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/parking where a document entitled ‘Don't Get A Ticket’ can be down-loaded. The information includes a telephone number, 0845 6800153, and an email address [email protected] to which members of the public can report their parking concerns to Northamptonshire County Council.

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

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

Effect on neighbours’ amenities Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that new development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area by reason of loss of light or overlooking.

The comments and objections which have been received from nearby neighbours who perceive that their existing standard of amenity will be impaired by way of loss of privacy are acknowledged. However, it is considered that the proposed scheme would not unacceptably harm the existing standard of privacy that is enjoyed by the surrounding occupiers for the following reasons:

• adequate intervening privacy distances between the proposed first floor windows and adjacent dwellings • amount of landscape screening growing on the common boundaries • set-down of the plot in relation to the neighbouring dwellings and its one and a half storey configuration

- 6 -

Archaeology The need to record any archaeological remains on the site could be taken forward by an appropriate condition.

Effect on visual amenity and character of the street scene The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (h) says that new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings. Meanwhile, as mentioned above Policy 15 (f) states that higher densities will be sought particularly in the locations most accessible on foot, cycle and public transport, although increases in density should not detract from the traditional streetscape and built form where this is worthy of safeguarding. With regards to Policy G4 of the local plan it states that development will be granted planning permission if it will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the size, form, character or setting of the village.

The application site is set well back from the highway and will not materially affect the appearance of the village. There are examples nearby of tandem development and the proposed scheme would, therefore, not be out of character with the local development pattern. In addition, there is no clear building style locally and the design of the proposal is not contentious.

Drainage No comment has been received from Anglian Water Services Limited to substantiate the belief that its infrastructure cannot cope with any extra demand which could be caused by the proposed development.

Other issues The Council is time barred from taking any enforcement action, even if it were minded to do so, over the apparent breach of planning control that could have occurred by extending the residential curtilage associated with no. 9 Townwell Lane.

Conclusion It is acknowledged the proposed development is unobjectionable in some respects, but the fact remains that in planning policy terms the application site is located in the open countryside outside the adopted village policy line. The applicant has not advanced any substantive or material reasons to exempt the proposed development from the restrictive open countryside housing policy. The primacy of the development plan, with its presumption against residential development in such locations except in special mitigating circumstances, has not been meaningfully challenged by the evidence and circumstances put forward by the applicant. The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The application site is located in the open countryside and in the absence of any special mitigating circumstances or justifiable reasons, the proposal is contrary to Policy 1 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, Policies G6 and H4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

- 7 -

POLICY G6

DEVELOPMENT IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE WILL NOT BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION UNLESS:

1. IT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED OTHER THAN IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE; 2. IT INVOLVES NO MORE THAN A LIMITED NUMBER OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES AND THESE ARE SMALL SCALE; 3. IT INCLUDES LANDSCAPE SCREENING, AS APPROPRIATE, AND ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ARE DESIGNED, SITED AND OF MATERIALS TO MINIMISE ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE INTRINSIC CHARACTER OF THE COUNTRYSIDE; 4. IT WILL NEITHER INDIVIDUALLY NOR CUMULATIVELY WITH EXISTING OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, RESULT IN A LOCAL PROLIFERATION OF NEW BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES; 5. WHEN IT INVOLVES A USE WHICH IS PRINCIPALLY TO SERVE THE TOWN, IT IS LOCATED IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO EXISTING OR PROPOSED URBAN DEVELOPMENT; AND 6. IT WILL NOT RESULT IN THE URBAN GROWTH OF NORTHAMPTON TO ITS EAST OR WELLINGBOROUGH TO ITS WEST.

POLICY H4

PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT BE GRANTED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN EITHER THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE OR THE RESTRAINT VILLAGES OF EASTON MAUDIT, STRIXTON OR SYWELL OLD VILLAGE. EXCEPTIONS MAY, HOWEVER, BE MADE FOR ESSENTIAL AGRICULTURAL OR FORESTRY WORKERS DWELLINGS, REPLACEMENT DWELLINGS, THE CONVERSION OF SUITABLE BUILDINGS IN RESTRAINT VILLAGES AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE ON THE EDGE OF OTHER VILLAGES WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY H9.

Policy 1: Strengthening the Network of Settlements

To achieve greater self-sufficiency for North Northamptonshire as a whole, development will be principally directed towards the urban core, focused on the three Growth Towns of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. The smaller towns of Burton Latimer, Desborough, Higham Ferrers, Irthlingborough, Rothwell and Rushden will provide secondary focal points for development within this urban core. The emphasis will be on regeneration of the town centres, through environmental improvements and new mixed use developments, incorporating cultural activities and tourism facilities, in order to provide jobs and services, deliver economic prosperity and support the self sufficiency of the network of centres. New sustainable urban extensions to the growth towns will provide major locations for housing and employment growth and reinforce the roles of these settlements.

Development in the rural north east will be mainly directed to a rural service - 8 -

spine comprising the Rural Service Centres of Oundle, Raunds and Thrapston, with a secondary focus at the Local Service Centre of King's Cliffe. This will be supported by the regeneration of Raunds town centre, the enhancement of Thrapston and Oundle town centres and improvements to public transport to link the service centres with their wider hinterlands.

In the remaining rural area development will take place on sites within village boundaries, subject to criteria to be set out in development plan documents. Development adjoining village boundaries will only be justified where it involves the re-use of buildings or, in exceptional circumstances, if it can be clearly demonstrated that it is required in order to meet local needs for employment, housing or services. Development will be focussed on those villages that perform a sustainable local service centre role.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 9TWLA 2 October 2012

- 9 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 20th November 2012 at 10.15 a.m.)

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0427/O

PROPOSAL: Outline application (with all matters reserved) to construct a single detached dwelling within the grounds of existing house.

LOCATION: Land adjacent 41 Debdale Road, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mrs V Bigley.

Site visit requested by Councillor Warwick.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: This site lies within Hatton Park, an area typified by large detached dwellings set within extensive mature gardens. Many of the mature trees are the subject of Preservation Orders which contribute to the areas distinctive green low density environment.

The site lies to the south of Lyndhurst an imposing three storey semi-detached Edwardian dwelling and is currently laid out to formal garden although there are extensive areas of hard standing along with a detached garage/carport and garden room.

The principle of residential development was established in 2008 with the grant of outline planning permission for a single detached dwelling (see WP/2008/0007). This application seeks to renew that permission which expired in 2011.

Consent is sought to create a building plot with a 15metre frontage onto Debdale Road and running the depth of the existing site, some 47 metres to accommodate a single detached dwelling. All matters are reserved although indicative details have been submitted along with a Design and Access Statement.

This part of the site contains a number of semi mature Oak trees the majority of which are subject to a Preservation Order, the existence of the trees has necessitated setting the proposed dwelling back some 30 metres from Debdale Road and approximately 6 metres from the rear boundary.

There are no on-street parking restrictions in the immediate vicinity.

A WP/2012/0427/O

Landsdowne THE PROMENADE

Parkgate

90.8m

Fircroft Westleigh House 34

47 DEBDALE ROAD

Hatton Court

Newlands 1 to 4 to 1

Lyndhurst 39

Legend HATTON PARK ROAD WP/2012/0427/O - Land adjacent 41 Debdale Road, Wellingborough Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Description Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. This map is accurate Applicants Property HARDWICK CLOSE 1:745 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 Application Site - 10 -

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WU/1966/0150 Three detached houses and garages - approved with conditions. WP/2007/0568 Outline application for single residential unit – withdrawn. WP/2008/0007 Outline application for single detached dwelling within the grounds of an existing house. Re-submission following the withdrawal of WP/2007/0568 - approved with conditions

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 – General sustainable development principles Wellingborough Local Plan Policy U11 – Hatton Park Supplementary Planning Guidance I: Trees on Development Sites IV: Planning Out Crime V: Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northamptonshire County Council – Highways - has replied with proforma advice, some confusion over whether or not the new dwelling is to be an annex to the existing house, if so it should be conditional upon remaining so in perpetuity. If it is to be an individual dwelling the access must be suitably enhanced to meet the requirements of the Highway Authority. Conditions are suggested.

2. Design and Conservation Officer - development acceptable in principle but suggests that any planning permission does not extend to the submitted architectural details

3. Landscape Officer – “the Oak trees are covered by a Tree Preservation Order but they have not been well served with the hard standing around them. The individual nearest to the road could be a problem with the suggested improvements to the access. It should be retained if at all possible and if consent is granted there should be a condition to protect the trees in accordance with BS3998”.

4. Two third party objections –

• Object to the practice of in-building within the gardens of long established properties in residential areas that have an established character • Properties purchased, often at a premium, on the basis of their surroundings and environment it is unfair to grant planning permission to significantly change the environment • Devaluation of property • Loss and invasion of privacy • Property should be in-line with existing properties on Debdale Road not sited to the rear • Property sited so as not to invade Applicants privacy but Applicant happy to invade privacy of others - 11 -

• Original application was for a considerably lower property than that now proposed which will result in the over looking of property to rear, situation worsens in the winter when existing foliage is exceptionally sparse • Property not in-keeping with surrounding area, an eye sore to local residents and to the area in general • Left vulnerable and anxious that the development will have a detrimental affect on objectors lifestyle • News of proposal has had a serious impact on objectors health and well being

ASSESSMENT: • Compliance with Policy • Effect on neighbours residential amenities • Effect on character of the area • Highway safety • Crime and disorder

Compliance with Policy Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) and the SPD on Sustainable Design require new development to be of a high standard of design, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings, and not result in an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties or wider area; by reason of noise, loss of light or overlooking. The NPPF echoes the above policies by stating that development should contribute positively to making places better for people.

The special character of Hatton Park is recognised through Policy U11 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan which states that;

Planning permission will only be granted for new dwellings within the Hatton Park area, as defined on the proposals map, where both individually and cumulatively, this will not have an adverse impact on the character of the site and surrounding area.

Objections have been received from neighbours to the principle of building within gardens of established residential areas thereby changing the character of that area. Members will be aware that desirable areas such as Hatton Park are coming under increasing pressure to redevelop garden areas but providing there is no adverse impact on the character of the site or its surroundings then this form of development is in line with both national and local planning policy.

The proposed development is not considered to have an adverse impact and is therefore considered acceptable in principle and in conformity with Policy.

Effect on neighbour’s residential amenity Policy 13 (l) of the NNCSS states that development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking.

Concerns have been expressed by neighbours that the proposed dwelling is larger and higher than originally approved which will result in over looking particularly in the winter - 12 -

months when the intervening foliage is scarce, this in turn will result in a loss and invasion of privacy. Furthermore the design of the property is not in keeping with the surrounding area constituting an eyesore to local residents and to the area in general.

It must be emphasised that this is an outline application with all matters reserved for future approval. Whilst indicative details of the siting, layout, design etc of the proposed dwelling have been submitted they have not been subject of any pre or post application discussions. The Design and Conservation Officer has recommended that the applicant be advised that any subsequent planning permission does not extend to the submitted architectural detail.

At present there is mature, if deciduous, planting along the rear boundary virtually all of which is outside the application site and therefore not in imminent danger of removal as a result of the proposed development. If this planting were allowed to mature further and was supplemented it would provide an even more effective screen than it does at present.

The concerns of neighbours have been noted and can all be addressed at reserved matters stage this application is to re-establish the principle of development following the lapse of planning permission WP/2008/0007 in 2011. There has been no material change in planning circumstances since that time to justify refusal.

Effect on character of the area The NNCSS states in Policy 13 (h) that development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings.

The applicant’s attention has been brought to the concerns relating to the accuracies of the information submitted in support of planning permission WP/2008/0007/O regarding the TPO trees and reproduced as part of this application. This matter can be rectified by means of a planning condition.

A site visit in the company of the Landscape Officer has confirmed the site can be developed by the erection of a modest dwelling without impacting further on the trees. However what was of concern was that tree T6 has disappeared despite an application for its removal being refused in 2001. It is not know when or who removed this tree and under these circumstances further action is not deemed feasible.

Approval for the means of access to the site does not form part of this application although it is indicated that the existing access will be used by both the existing and the new dwelling. County Highways have commented that if this is to be the case then they will require the access to be widened and the provision of pedestrian visibility splays, unfortunately tree T4 is located within the pedestrian visibility splay. The loss of T4 is to be avoided.

Debdale Road is wide and lightly trafficked with no on street parking restrictions. The applicants attention should be drawn to the need to either negotiate a relaxation of the highway requirements to allow the existing access to be utilised without the need to fell tree T4 or to agree an alternative form of access along the 34 metre frontage to Debdale Road under the applicants control. - 13 -

The position of the proposed dwelling some 30 metres back from the Debdale Road frontage will have little or no impact on the street scene whilst design, massing, height, materials etc can all be agreed at reserved matters stage to ensure a high standard of design which respects and enhances the character of the surrounding area.

On balance the application is considered to conform to Policy 13 (h) of the NNCSS.

Crime and disorder There are not considered to be any crime and disorder issues associated with this development

Conclusion The principle of residential development on this site has already been established by the grant of planning permission WP/2008/0007. National and local planning policy both give priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings in urban areas to meet housing requirements. In these circumstances the application is considered to be in conformity with policy.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions.

1. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates: (a) the expiration of three years from the date of this permission; or (b) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. 2. Before any development is commenced, detailed plans, drawings and particulars of the layout, scale, external appearance and the means of access thereto, together with landscaping and screen walls/fences shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance therewith. 3. 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. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting the Order) no buildings, extensions or alterations permitted by Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. 5. Prior to any equipment, machinery or materials being brought onto the site, details of the measures to protect (during construction) the trees shown to be retained on the approved landscaping plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter maintained until the completion of the construction work. These measures shall include fencing in accordance with British Standard (BS5837).

- 14 -

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. To secure satisfactorily planned development. 3. In the interests of amenity. 4. To afford the local planning authority the opportunity to control future development on the site having regard to the nature of the site and in the interests of safeguarding the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. 5. In the interests of the visual amenity of the area

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: Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and U11 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: Site location Plan 400-P-01 17th September 2012 3. The applicant is advised that planning permission does not automatically allow the construction of the vehicle crossing, details of which require the approval of the Highway Authority. In this regard you should contact the Team Leader Regulations, Sustainable Transport, Riverside House, Riverside Way, Northampton NN1 5NX prior to any construction/excavation works within the public highway. 4. The applicant is advised that no permission is granted nor implied for the architectural detail which accompanied this application. The applicant is advised to seek pre application advice from the local planning authority before submitting reserved matters. 5. The applicant is reminded that this site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order, no permission is granted nor implied for the removal of or works to the protected trees. In particular the applicants attention is drawn to tree T4 which is located adjacent to Debdale Road and could potentially be affected by the proposed access arrangements, the applicant is advised to seek the advice of Northamptonshire County Council as Highway Authority before submitting reserved matters for the means of access.

- 15 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 20th November 2012 at 11.20 a.m.)

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0430/F

PROPOSAL: Extensions and Alternations to existing dwelling to create first floor accommodation above the existing bungalow and re-modelled interior, together with associated external improvement works. Additional Information.

LOCATION: 7 Hardwater Road, Great Doddington, Wellingborough. NN29 7TB

APPLICANT: Mr Richard Brawn.

Site visit requested by Great Doddington Parish Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site is located at the westernmost edge of the village occupying an elevated position in relation to Hardwater Road. The property sits towards the rear of the plot with a large lawned garden to the front. There are two gated accesses providing an entry/exit system via a hard surfaced horseshoe driveway

This detached bungalow was constructed in the late 1960’s and has been extended on numerous occasions over the intervening years including the provision of first floor accommodation over the existing double integral garage. These extensions have resulted in a property with a discordant appearance and little architectural merit.

The proposed extension will cover the ground floor of the original bungalow and provide a master bedroom suite, two further bedrooms, a bathroom, store and circulation/seating area.

The proposed extension is of a modern and contemporary design which gives the existing property much needed cohesion.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/1965/0137 Bungalow and garage - approved with conditions. BW/1977/0745 Garage - approved with conditions. BW/1981/0184 Single storey rear extension to form kitchen/utility/bathroom - approved. BW/1986/1215 First floor extension over garage to form store and two bedrooms – approved. WP/2012/0430/F

EARLS BARTON ROAD

2a 2

Lay-By 97

24 1a 1

5 2 74.7m

32 42

68.0m 11

HARDWATER

14 ROAD

A 17

58.8m

WP/2004/0013 New dormer window to be inserted to rear in first floor box room to provide additional space to create shower room - approved with conditions. WP/2009/0145 erection of a single storey timber framed glazed conservatory – approved.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4 - Development within Limited Development and Restricted Infill Villages Supplementary Planning Guidance: IV: Planning Out Crime

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Great Doddington Parish Council - the Parish Council has reservations with this application being well aware of strong opposition to the development from the residents of the property immediately to the N.E. in Glenfield Drive and expresses concerns over the visual impact upon these residents and considers that the ridge height of the new roof should be re-examined. A site visit is requested.

2. Five Third Party Objections -

• Formally object in relation to the impact of the proposed development on daylight and sunlight, loss of privacy and outlook from rear windows • Substantial increase in height and bulk substantially reducing daylight and sunlight to garden, patio and rear windows • Creation of an unacceptable outlook • Introduction of 5 additional windows at first floor level reducing privacy to patio area and existing windows • No assessment of the impact on adjacent properties • Plans do not show recent extension to adjacent property • Overlooking • Planning condition should be imposed to ensure removal of first floor low level window on North West elevation • Invasion of privacy as adjacent property will be seen through the tree branches • Direct views into adjacent habitable rooms

ASSESSMENT: • Compliance with Policy • Effect on neighbours residential amenities • Effect on character of the area • Crime and disorder

- 17 -

Compliance with Policy Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) and the SPD on Sustainable Design requires new development to be of a high standard of design, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings. The NPPF echoes the above policy by stating that development should contribute positively to making places better for people.

The site lies within the infill village of Great Doddington where ‘saved’ Policy G4 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will be granted for development providing it “will not, either individually or cumulatively with other proposals, have an adverse impact on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs”. The proposed extension is considered to be in conformity with Policy G4

The proposed extension is of a high standard of modern design and is considered to respect the form and character of its surroundings. As such the proposed development is deemed to be in accordance with the Development Plan.

Effect on neighbours residential amenities Policy 13 (l) of the NNCSS states that development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking.

The Design and Access Statement which accompanies this planning application highlights the several design and layout iterations the proposed extension went through in order to minimise its impact upon the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties.

A back to back distance of 21 metres is commonly accepted as the minimum permissible between habitable rooms to avoid loss of privacy, over looking etc. The minimum distance currently being achieved in this development is 26 metres between the proposed extension and no. 28 and 30 Glenfield Road. In addition there is also mature boundary planting consisting of an evergreen hedge (approx 3 metres in height) interspersed by individual trees to further reduce the impact albeit the trees are not quite so effective during the winter months.

The impact is further reduced by the fact that there is not a direct back to back relationship, these properties are aligned at an oblique angle to each other.

Neighbours are concerned about the 5 proposed first floor windows but if we look at the rooms they serve we will see that 2 windows serve a store room, one serves a landing area both of which are considered non habitable rooms. Of the two remaining windows one is a bathroom and is to be obscure glazed whilst the fifth serves a spare bedroom. The distance between this bedroom window and no. 30 Glenfield Drive is in excess of 27 metres. A planning condition can be imposed requiring these windows (with the exception of the bedroom) to be obscure glazed with limited opening.

Concern has also been expressed by neighbours about the potential impact of the increase in height and massing of the proposed extension. The ridge height of the existing building is stepped rising from 4.8 metres over the existing bungalow to 5.8 metres above the garage.

- 18 -

The proposal is for the ridge height above the garage to remain the same but the roof structure over the bungalow will be replaced with a double asymmetrical gable with ridge heights of 7metres and 7.9 metres respectively. Neighbours are concerned that the massing of this element of the proposed extension will result in loss daylight and sunlight to rear gardens and create an unacceptable outlook.

The first floor extension does not follow the existing ground floor line but is set back some 3.7 metres south east corner, giving a first floor set back from the boundary of circa 6.5metres. Given the back to back distances outlined above the impact of proposed extension on neighbouring properties is considered to fall within acceptable parameters.

The proposed extension is well designed and of an attractive modern appearance, whilst it will create a different outlook from that currently existing it does not automatically equate to an unacceptable outlook.

On balance therefore the proposed extension is considered to have an acceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties and as such is considered to be in conformity with Policy 13 (l) of the Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

As previously mentioned the existing dwelling has little architectural merit, the proposed extension is modern and contemporary in design the precedent for which has already been established in the immediate vicinity by the redevelopment of 1, 1a and 3 Hardwater Road (see WP/2008/0476) and 2 Hardwater Road (WP/2005/0675).

It is therefore considered that there will be no harm to the character and appearance of the area as a result of the proposed extension which is considered to be in conformity with Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Crime and disorder There are not considered to be any pertinent crime and disorder issues relevant to the determination of this application.

Conclusion The proposed development is considered to be in conformity with national and local planning policy. It is of a modern and contemporary design which gives the existing property much needed cohesion whilst respecting the form and character of its surroundings.

Any development will have an impact upon neighbouring properties as it changes the status quo but given the distances between existing properties and their orientation the impact in this instance is considered acceptable given the prevailing presumption in favour of development.

- 19 -

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. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. 3. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plan, details of the glazing and extent of opening for the first floor windows located in the north east elevation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before development commences. These windows shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

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 order to protect the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties.

INFORMATIVE/S Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

- 20 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 20th November 2012 at 10.40 a.m.)

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0434/F

PROPOSAL: Demolition of the existing garage and erection of a pair of 2-storey semi-detached dwellings.

LOCATION: Land fronting Middle Street and rear of 20 Church Street, Isham, Kettering.

APPLICANT: Mr John Davis.

Visit by Site Viewing Group requested by Parish Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: Located to the rear of 20 Church Street this site has a frontage onto Middle Street and is also situated within the Isham Conservation Area. The principle of residential development has been established since 2002 when planning permission was originally granted (see WP/2002/0229).

Planning consent was most recently granted in 2009 but has now expired (see WP/2009/0010).

The site is currently over grown and accommodates a red brick garage which is in a very poor state of repair with little architectural merit to justify its retention.

A pair of semi-detached dwellings is proposed, one will have three bedrooms and the other four. Although located to the rear of 20 Church Street the site will be accessed via Middle Street to which the site has the benefit of a 20 metre wide frontage. The existing access and stone boundary wall will be partly demolished and extended to provide a new access. These works have previously had the benefit of Conservation Area Consent (see WP/2006/0126/CA) but this has expired.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2002/0229 Residential development - approved with conditions. WP/2005/0227 Renewal of outline consent for single dwelling - approved with conditions WP/2006/0060 Residential development of two dwellings – amended plans - approved with conditions WP/2006/0126 Alteration of vehicular access through stone boundary wall as part of planning application reference WP/2006/0060 - approved with conditions. WP/2012/0434/F

10 Track Isham

THE SORRELS 5

THE MILLGLADE

2 1 The Lilacs (PH) 11 MILL LANE

33 35 1 Isham Chapel Farm

STREET

CHURCH 26

22 12

25 30

54 32

10 18a 43 50

39 8a

46 8

All Saints Pear Tree Cott 25 House

Jubilee1 Terrace

19 PARK CLOSE 38

17 1 36a

STREET 8

2 15 LB 11 3

MIDDLE 7 6

4 6 5 9

7 2

2a 1 28

3 SOUTH STREET 8 1a Tithe Barn

Manor 18

House 10

Farm 12

2 14

MANOR CLOSE

16 6 The Brambles

Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 WP/2012/0434/F - Land fronting Middle Street and rear of 20 Church Street, Isham ± GetMapping PLC 1999 - 21 -

WP/2009/0010 Residential development comprising two dwellings (semi-detached) – amended proposal following the approval of WP/2006/0060 - approved with conditions

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4 – Development within Limited Development and Restricted Infill Villages Supplementary Planning Guidance: IV: Planning Out Crime

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northamptonshire County Council – County Archaeologist –

• Site located within the area of historic settlement. • Romano-British activity is indicated in the area based on fiend retrieved in the vicinity of the site. There is therefore the potential for archaeological remains to survive on site. • The development will have a detrimental impact upon any archaeological deposits present but this is not considered to be an over-riding constraint provided that adequate provision is made for the investigation and recording of any remains that are affected. • Consent previously granted without any archaeological condition but this occurred when there was no provision within the County for archaeological advice on smaller sites. • In line with NPPF para 141 a condition for an archaeological programme of works is recommended.

2. Northamptonshire County Council – Highways –

• Has replied with proforma advice. • As it will serve two dwellings the means of access into the site must be laid out as a shared private drive. • The existing vehicular crossing must be closed and a new one provided with all affected highway surfaces made good, work to be carried out under a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980. • First 5m of the driveway must be paved with a hard bound surface and positive means of drainage installed to ensure surface water from the development does not discharge onto the highway.

3. Design and Conservation Officer –

• These units have been designed by a competent conservation architect and are unobjectionable in principle in terms of the aesthetics of built form and general materials detailing. - 22 -

• Suggests details of windows, doors, eaves, verges, rainwater goods, porches, boundary screening and frontage hard-surfacing be reserved by condition. • Applicant asked to consider solar panels on the frontage.

4. Isham Parish Council –

• The Parish Council requests a site viewing.

5. Four third party objections –

• Proposed development will overlook adjacent properties with loss of privacy and loss of light. • Planning conditions have been applied in the past to adjacent developments stipulating single storey development and no windows to overlook neighbouring properties. • This application involves major changes to that previously approved, 7 bedrooms now proposed between the two dwellings, totalling 8 windows and two roof lights all of which overlook neighbouring properties. • Surprised at the scale of development on such a small plot which will cause further parking and access problems on Middle Street which is very narrow and congested. • No objection to a single dwelling with off road parking and more sympathetic consideration of neighbouring properties, more suitable for the size and location of this site. • If permission is granted would strongly request the north west elevation be kept the same as WP/2009/0010, i.e. limited to 2 upper floor windows in each property. • Property should be built at a lower level on this sloping site to reduce its impact. • Inaccurate portrayal of the privacy given by trees to the rear (north) of the proposed dwellings. • Loss of privacy and general disruption caused by proximity of proposed development to rear boundary wall and surrounding dwellings. • Overbearing nature of the proposed development for the size and nature of the plot. • Loss of light and negative impact on surrounding area.

ASSESSMENT: • Compliance with policy • Impact on Neighbour’s Amenities • Impact on the character and appearance of the area • Crime and Disorder

Compliance with Policy Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) and the SPD on Sustainable Design require new development to be of a high standard of design, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings, and not result in an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties or wider area; by - 23 - reason of noise, loss of light or overlooking. The NPPF echoes the above policies by stating that development should contribute positively to making places better for people.

The site lies within the restricted infill village of Isham where ‘saved’ Policy G4 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will be granted for development providing it “will not, either individually or cumulatively with other proposals, have an adverse impact on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs”. The proposed dwelling is considered to be in conformity with Policy G4.

The design of the proposed dwellings are considered appropriate for this conservation area location and as such the proposed development is deemed to be in accordance with the Development Plan.

Impact on Neighbours amenities Policy 13 (l) of the NNCSS states that development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking.

Objections have been received from neighbouring properties to the proposed development, the main grounds for objection relate to overlooking and loss of privacy, scale of the development and increase in the number of first floor windows, site levels and potential access/parking problems on Middle Street.

At present it is difficult to assess the levels due to the over grown nature of the site however, it is evident that 18A and 22 Church Street have been constructed/extended at significantly lower levels. 18A is a bungalow. Whilst the Applicant has provided basic information on levels full information on the existing and proposed levels will be sought by means of a planning condition.

A back to back distance of 21 metres is commonly accepted as the minimum permissible between habitable rooms to avoid loss of privacy, over looking etc. The minimum distance currently being achieved between the proposed dwellings and No 22 is 22.5 metres. The impact is further reduced by the fact that there is not a direct back to back relationship, these properties are aligned at an oblique angle to each other.

The distance between no 18A and the proposed development is less at 13 metres but the properties angle away from each other more acutely.

Neighbours point out that 8 first floor windows and two roof lights are now proposed in the rear (north) elevation but only 4 first floor windows were approved by planning permission WP/2009/0010. In response to this objection the Applicant states that whilst there are more windows the total amount of glazing remains the same as the proposed windows are smaller.

The first floor fenestration now proposed is considered to have a greater impact upon neighbouring properties than that approved in 2009. This is mainly because the footprint of the building has been reversed. In the 2009 scheme the design of the buildings presented a ‘U’ shape with the ‘flat’ elevation onto Middle Street and two storey wings projecting to the rear onto the Church Street properties. This gave a - 24 -

sense of relief as whilst there were first floor windows in each of the projecting wings the windows in the ‘return’ or ‘set back’ were further away.

The footprint now proposed has the two storey wings fronting onto Middle Street with the ‘flat’ elevation facing onto the Church Street properties.

The 2009 planning permission is considered to be more sympathetic in reducing the impact of the development on neighbouring properties however on balance the changes now proposed are not considered to be so materially different as to justify a refusal.

There are also concerns that the proposed development will exacerbate the access and parking problems associated with Middle Street. The Applicant does not consider there to be any issues in this respect nor do County Highways raise any objection to the proposed development but has recommended the use of appropriate planning conditions and informative.

On balance the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of neighbour is considered acceptable and as such is considered to be in conformity with Policy 13 (l) of the Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area The NNCSS states in Policy 13 (h) that development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings.

The site is located within the Isham Conservation Area, the Design and Conservation Officer has commented on the application and states “These units have been designed by a competent conservation architect and are unobjectionable in principle in terms of the aesthetics of built form and general materials detailing”.

Crime and disorder There are not considered to be any pertinent crime and disorder issues relevant to the determination of this application.

Conclusion It is very unusual for there to be a single design ‘solution’ to developing a site, often a number of alternative designs will be acceptable. For the reasons outlined above neighbours would appear to prefer the detail of the planning application approved in 2009 however the detail of the current application is considered acceptable and in accordance with policy

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

- 25 -

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Before development commences a plan that illustrates the proposed access details shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan and maintained as such thereafter. 3. 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. 4. Before development commences the finished floor and site levels of the hereby approved dwellings in relation to the surrounding site shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and maintained as such thereafter. 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, no window, other than expressly authorised by this permission shall be inserted above ground floor level in any elevation without the consent in writing of the local planning authority. 6. Full details of verge soffits, eaves, windows, porches, doors, rainwater goods, boundary screening and frontage hard surfaces together with the details of their surrounds shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before work is commenced and shall be maintained as such thereafter 7. The new rooflights shall be the 'Conservation Rooflight' complete with non- reflective glass and fitted so as not to protrude materially above the plane of the roof. 8. The new stonework, including the front boundary wall, shall be laid in level courses to match the existing with a mortar mix normally comprising lime putty (to BS 890) and well-graded and washed sharp sand to a ratio of 1:3 by volume, and with the mortar brushed back to the back arrises of the stonework whilst still green. This mix and finish shall be used for any repointing work. 9. The rainwater goods shall be aluminium. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. No development shall take place within the application site until the applicant, or their agent or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local - 26 -

planning authority. 13. Before the development hereby permitted is occupied the existing vehicular access and crossing must be closed, the new vehicular crossing constructed and all highway surfaces, where affected by the proposals, reinstated to the satisfaction of Northamptonshire County Council as Highway Authority. 14. To ensure that loose material is not carried onto the public highway the first five metres of the driveway measured from the rear of the highway boundary shall be suitably hard surfaced with adequate provision made to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water from the driveway onto the public highway. These details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the dwellings are occupied and maintained as such thereafter 15. The means of access into the site shall be laid out as a shared private drive having a width of 4.5 metres over the first 10 metres from the rear of the highway boundary. Pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2 metre by 2 metre above a height of 0.6 metre must be provided and maintained on each side of the point of access.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of highway safety and to preserve and enhance the appearance of the conservation area. 3. In the interests of amenity. 4. In the interests of visual amenity and to preserve and enhance the appearance of the conservation area. 5. In the interests of privacy. 6. To protect the character and appearance of the conservation area. 7. To protect the character of the conservation area. 8. To protect the character of the conservation area. 9. To protect the character of the conservation area. 10. In the interests of visual amenity. 11. To avoid any detrimental effects from contamination. 12. To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded. 13. In the interests of highway safety. 14. In the interests of highway safety. 15. In the interests of highway safety.

3. The applicant is advised that planning permission does not automatically allow the construction of the vehicle crossing, details of which require the approval of the Highway Authority. In this regard you should contact the Team Leader Regulations, Sustainable Transport, Riverside House, Riverside Way, Northampton NN1 5NX prior to any construction/excavation works within the public highway.

- 28 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0518/F

PROPOSAL: Retention of temporary mobile home.

LOCATION: The Woodyard, Hardwick Village, Hardwick, Wellingborough. NN9 5AN

APPLICANT: Mr John Pepper.

NOTE: Decision on application deferred at Planning Committee on 12th September 2012:-

“5. PLANNING APPLICATION WP/2011/0518(F) – THE WOODYARD, HARDWICK LODGE COTTAGE, HARDWICK VILLAGE, HARDWICK

The annexed circulated report of the Head of Planning and Local Development was received, on planning application WP/2011/0518(F), including late correspondence, for the retention of a temporary mobile home at the Woodyard, Hardwick Lodge Cottage, Hardwick Village, Hardwick for Mr J Pepper.

The report detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal.

The Head of Planning and Local Development recommended that a temporary planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Site Viewing Group visited the site on 11/09/2012, and a record of the visit was set out in the circulated notes.

A request to address the meeting had been received from the applicant.

The Chairman allowed the speaker to speak for a maximum of 3 minutes. The committee was then given the opportunity to ask questions of clarification.

Having heard the views of the speaker and taking account of the officer’s report, the Chairman invited the committee to determine the application.

Concerns were raised about drainage from the site although this had yet to be proven. The Environment Agency said it was fine for temporary use. WP/2011/0518/F

125.9m

125.0m

27 Hardwick 26 _ _

125.0m

Ponds

Hardwick Lodge _ _

Legend Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright WP/201 /0518/F - The Woodyard, Hardwick Lodge Cottage, Hardwick Village, Hardwick and database right 2012. 1 Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Description This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: Application Site when reproduced at A4 GetMapping PLC 1999 ± Tenanted land - 29 -

It was moved by Councillor Waters that planning permission be approved but this did not find a seconder.

Councillor Scarborough after reading the late letter for this application felt there was a much fuller story involved with this application. The business had been there for a very long time and was a small sustainable business using forestry parks and also an agricultural related business. He felt that the planning permission should be for a significantly longer period and suggested that the Council grant an application for 5 years.

Councillor Maguire proposed an amendment that planning permission be extended to 5 years and this was seconded by Councillor Morrall. This was not put to the vote.

Councillor Scarborough then proposed a further amendment that the planning permission be granted until 2017. This was seconded by Councillor Ward. This was not put to the vote.

The Head of Planning and Local Development then advised the committee that the application be deferred, rather than to grant the permission until 2017 due to the drainage concerns and also to enable a more comprehensive report to be prepared before a decision was made.

Councillor Ward said that some of the issues concerning this application were private and needed to be looked into and that he would recommend the 12 month permission.

Councillor Scarborough then proposed a further amendment that the application be deferred for more information to be provided. He said issues regarding the drainage need to be looked at and we should ascertain if the business is a forestry related business. This was seconded by Councillor Morrall. This was not put to the vote.

It was felt that the 12 month permission would not achieve what was required with this application and that the application should return to committee within 2 months. It was then suggested that the application be deferred for 3 months to give officers adequate time to return to committee with a more comprehensive report.

Councillor Morrall then proposed an amendment that the application be deferred for a more comprehensive report to be presented to the committee within 3 months. This was seconded by Councillor Scarborough. On being put to the vote, the motion was carried unanimously

RESOLVED that the planning permission be deferred for a more comprehensive report to be presented to the committee within 3 months.”

Since then Council’s Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that satisfactory drainage could be arranged:- - 30 -

“Further to the meeting of the Planning Committee on the 12 September 2012 I have discussed the existing drainage with Mr Pepper and Chris Willis from the Environment Agency.

Mr Pepper has agreed that if approval is granted for a longer period of 5 years as proposed at the committee he would replace the existing tank with one which meets the requirements of the Environment Agency.”

Applicant has supplied details of forestry working:-

“I write in support, and to provide further information, with regards to John Pepper's planning application currently submitted to the Borough Council of Wellingborough for a mobile home at his property just to the north of Hardwick Lodge.

I write as Managing Director of Lockhart Garratt Ltd. Lockhart Garratt is a forestry and woodland consultancy based in Corby, Northamptonshire, managing over 8,000 hectares of woodland throughout the Midlands and East Anglia. John Pepper has undertaken regular contracting work for our clients since the company was founded in 1998. Such clients within east Northamptonshire include:

• Wellingborough Golf Club • Thorpe Malsor Estate • Cottesbrooke Estate • Castle Ashby Estate • Longbrook Farm, nr Oundle

John undertakes a wide variety of forestry operations but specialises in the felling of large timber at which he is very proficient. There are few others that we can call upon to do such work within the area.”

A letter has been received from occupier of a neighbouring property as follows:-

“I have read with interest the letter from Lockhart Garratt supporting Mr Peppers application for full planning permission of temporary mobile home on the site owned by TJW Farming Ltd.

There is no evidence of forestry operations or heavy forestry equipment on the said site. The only work done to my knowledge is the cutting of firewood which is mainly for his own use.

Forestry work can only be carried out where the timber is situated so how can this site be classed as forestry.”

RECOMMENDATION: Temporary planning permission.

If committee is minded to grant permission for more than 1 year a drainage condition would be appropriate.

- 31 -

1. This permission shall expire on 31st December 2013. At or before that time the mobile home shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its former condition. 2. This consent shall enure for the benefit of the applicant only. 3. Within 6 months of the date of this consent a drainage system to the satisfaction of the local planning authority shall be installed.

Reason: 1. The mobile home is inappropriate as a permanent feature. 2. To maintain control of the use of the site. 3. To ensure adequate drainage.

INFORMATIVE: The development is contrary to planning policies but a temporary permission is thought reasonable to allow time for the unauthorised development to be brought to an end. - 32 -

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 12/09/2012

Report of the Head Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2011/0518/F

PROPOSAL: Retention of temporary mobile home.

LOCATION: The Woodyard, Hardwick Lodge Cottage, Hardwick Village, Hardwick, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr John Pepper.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As above.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Permissions granted relative to nearby cottage(s).

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): Policy 1 (Network of Settlements) Policy 8 (Delivering Economic Prosperity) Policy 9 (Distribution and Location of Development) Policy 13 (General sustainable development principles) Policy 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: Policy G4 (Restricted Infill Villages) Policy G6 (Development within the open countryside) Supplementary Planning Documents: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles Sustainable Design Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Hardwick Parish Meeting – no response.

- 33 -

2. Environment Agency – current drainage arrangements only acceptable as temporary measure.

3. Natural England – standard advice.

4. Third Parties – comments received that caravan and site is an eyesore and too close to road. Concern also expressed about drainage arrangements. Comments also received about possible incorrect address.

ASSESSMENT: Mobile home has been placed on site without planning permission with consent of landowner. The site is in open countryside and no justification for the home in agricultural or forestry terms has been provided. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to planning policies. It is considered reasonable to allow a temporary permission in order that the applicant can make alternative arrangements.

RECOMMENDATION: Temporary planning permission.

1. This permission shall expire on 30th September 2013. At or before that time the mobile home shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its former condition.

Reason: 1. The mobile home is inappropriate as a permanent feature.

INFORMATIVE: The development is contrary to planning policies but a temporary permission is thought reasonable to allow time for the unauthorised development to be brought to an end.

- 34 -

LATE LETTER'S LIST BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee - 12th September 2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

WP/2011/0518/F The Woodyard, Hardwick Lodge Cottage, Hardwick Village, Hardwick.

Letter on behalf of applicant from applicant’s nephew –

“I am the nephew of Mr Pepper, and he has asked me to make representations on his behalf concerning his continued occupancy of the above, which I understand is to be discussed by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 12th September. The following information is within my own recollection.

Mr Pepper has carried on the business of skittle maker and woodman on land immediately adjoining the caravan site since the 1970’s, taking over the business from his father. I understand that there is no planning issue as to his continued use of the adjoining land for those business purposes. The caravan, the subject of this discussion, was brought onto the site in May 2009, originally to provide sanitary facilities in connection with his business.

He moved into cottage 27 Hardwick Lodge in February 15th 1978, and lived there with the consent of the then owner until his death in May 2002 . The owner’s daughter then inherited the property, and he continued in residence at 27 until 2010. The daughter (the new owner) then sold the property, together with the adjoining cottage, 28 Hardwick Lodge.

The purchaser decided to redevelop both properties. On the understanding, then given to Mr Pepper by the purchaser, that he would be allowed to live at 28 when the redevelopment was complete, he moved out of number 27. It was at that point that he and his partner moved into the caravan as a residence. It was intended as a temporary measure, until number 28 was ready for occupation after 3 to 4 months.

However, the situation subsequently changed. The purchaser decided to develop the two properties as one. The matter was the subject of County Court proceedings, which resulted in the purchaser gaining occupation of number 27 and 28.

Mr Pepper’s occupation of both the business site and the caravan site is with the consent of the landowner (a different person from the owner of the cottages), who has confirmed that he can remain there for the rest of his life. The caravan is connected to both water and electricity services, and is provided with a proper - 35 - sewage disposal system. The land immediately surrounding the caravan has been cultivated as a garden. The caravan therefore provides a safe and comfortable home for both Mr Pepper and his partner and raises no environmental problems.

The business Mr Pepper runs at Hardwick Lodge is the only work available to him, and provides his only source of income. There are no other suitable properties available in the area that are within his means, and from which he could carry on his business Were he required to leave the caravan, it would cause both him and his partner exceptional hardship.

I therefore ask, on Mr Pepper’s behalf, that he is permitted to remain on the site where he has, to all intents and purposes, lived and worked for the best part of 40 years.”

- 36 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0175/FCOU

PROPOSAL: Use of land to provide secure storage for touring caravans.

LOCATION: 240 Sywell Road, Mears Ashby, Northampton. NN6 0DL

APPLICANT: Mr Robert Laundon.

NOTE: Decision on application deferred at Planning Committee on 4th July 2012:-

The annexed circulated report of the Head of Planning and Development was received on planning application WP/2012/0175(FCOU), for the use of land to provide secure storage for touring caravans at 240 Sywell Road, Mears Ashby for Mr R Laundon.

The report detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal.

The Head of Planning and Development recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Site Viewing Group visited the site on 03/07/2012, and a record of the visit was set out in the circulated notes.

A request to address the meeting had been received from a supporter.

Before the speaker was invited to speak it was moved by Councillor Bell and seconded by Councillor Maguire that the application be deferred for a further review of the site. This was due to other apparent activities that may need consideration.

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that planning permission be deferred for a further review of the site.”

After the Committee application WP/2012/0366/FCOU was submitted seeking to regularise existing activities noted on occasion of Members site visit. WP/2012/0175/FCOU

112.2m

111.2m

111.5m

116.7m

Nursery

Glebe House

Nursery

Pond

Tank

Drain

Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:2,500 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/2012/0175/FCOU - 240 Sywell Road, Mears Ashby - 37 -

Parish Council response – “The Parish Council is concerned at the increased number of caravans being parked on this site without planning permission, this is particularly noticeable since the holiday season has finished.

We note that the planning application was deferred and now is not yet decided but the Parish Council considers that as the activity is in breach of it's current planning permission some action is urgently required.”

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with condition.

1. 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 within 3 months of the date of the consent. 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.

Reason: 1. In the interests of visual amenity.

INFORMATIVE/S Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policy: 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. - 38 -

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 3rd July 2012 at 11.15 a.m.)

Planning Committee 04/07/2012

Report of the Head Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0175/FCOU

PROPOSAL: Use of land to provide secure storage for touring caravans.

LOCATION: 240 Sywell Road, Mears Ashby, Northampton.

APPLICANT: Mr Robert Laundon.

Request for matter to be considered by Committee and for a Members site visit by Councillor Bass.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As above.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None relevant.

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

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northants County Council, Highways – need more details.

“Although it is evident that the area allocated for the storage of caravans, subject to the present application, is unlikely to generate numbers of vehicle movements that would cause a problem you will be aware that my concern is with the effect that further, similar applications for other parts of the site may have in highway capacity or safety terms.

It is not anticipated that an objection will be raised to the application on highway grounds but it would be helpful to obtain the capacity of the storage area to ascertain the total number of caravans likely to be stored at any time.”

- 39 -

2. Village resident –

“As can be seen from Highfield Road there are already a significant number of caravans on this site, presumably stored rather than occupied.

Is this application intended to legitimise or to disguise the activity already occurring on the site?

ASSESSMENT: Use is for touring caravans – one fairly common on farms to avoid persons keeping touring caravans on house driveway, often in breach of covenants on property deeds. Traffic generation is low for this type of use. Screening is, however, an issue and more landscaping would be appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with condition.

1. 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.

Reason: 1. In the interests of visual amenity.

INFORMATIVE/S Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policy: 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

- 40 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0320/F

PROPOSAL: Change of use and sub-division of existing building to two 2-bed residential units and a terrace of three 3-bed new build houses - amended plans received 23/10/12.

LOCATION: Vivian Arms, 153 Knox Road, Wellingborough. NN8 1HU

APPLICANT: Bassetform Limited.

NOTE: Decision on application deferred by Planning Committee on 17th October 2012:-

“The annexed circulated report of the Head of Planning and Local Development was received on planning application WP/2012/0320(F), for a change of use and sub-division of existing building to two 2 bed residential units and a terrace of three 3 bed new build houses at Vivian Arms, 153 Knox Road, Wellingborough for Bassetform Limited.

The report detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal.

The Head of Planning and Local Development recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Site Viewing Group visited the site on 16/10/2012, and a record of the visit was set out in the circulated notes.

Requests to address the meeting had been received from an objector, a local resident and the architect.

The Chairman allowed the speakers to speak for a maximum of 3 minutes. The committee was then given the opportunity to ask questions of clarification.

Having heard the views of the speakers and taking account of the officer’s report, the Chairman invited the committee to determine the application.

A suggestion was made that the 3 new build houses be located further back on the site and parking spaces could then be included in the scheme. Concerns 162

WP/2012/0320/F57 94 3a Playground

2 5 150

88 49

CR 4

VIVIAN ROAD 67

15 10

8 41

MELTON ROAD

Factory 76

14 65

7 11 33

30 ELSDEN ROAD

20 59

64 155

141

28 139a

139 137a

Works 41 49

148

13 144

142a 142 40

51 151

Langton 4

VIVIAN ROAD 3 149 47

179 A 129a

129

131 42 171

1 165 130 KNOX ROAD

64.4m 128

163

118

120 to 126 to 120 114

106 to 112 to 106 153 52

151 63.4m 145 St Mary's Church 133 63.0m 1

119

142 6 132 KNOX ROAD

St Mary's Paddock 120

112

14 106

119 27

103 22 to 17 112 89

59.4m

96a

96 Vicarage 94

191 185

183

Elsden Park 166

159

56.7m 175 160

Linden Manor 171 Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 WP/2012/0320/F - Vivian Arms, 153 Knox Road, Wellingborough ± GetMapping PLC 1999 - 41 -

were raised about problems with parking in the area. Discussions also took place about parking permits/schemes. Councillors were supportive of deferring this application.

It was moved by Councillor Bell and seconded by Councillor Ward that planning permission be deferred for this application to be looked at further in relation to the architect submitting new plans for the development for the 3 new build houses being located further back on the site and to include off road parking and also to look at the parking issues/permits/schemes in this area.

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried unanimously to defer the application.

RESOLVED that planning permission be deferred for this application to be looked at further in relation to the architect submitting new plans for the development for the 3 new build houses being located further back on the site and to include off road parking and also to look at the parking issues/permits/schemes in this area.”

Agent has revised scheme as follows:-

“At the Planning Committee meeting held last Wednesday 17 October 2012 and recorded in the Report of the Planning Committee published today, the Committee resolved that planning permission be deferred for this application (WP/2012/0320F - Vivian Arms, 153 Knox Road, Wellingborough) to be looked at further in relation to the architect submitting new plans for the development for the 3 new build houses being located further back on the site and to include off road parking and also to look at the parking issues/permits/schemes in this area.

Further to the above, please find attached my Application drawings numbered 391-01-P3, General Arrangement Proposed Site Plan, 3961-03-P3, Existing Building Elevations and 391-04-P3, Proposed New Build General Arrangements; all revised to locate the new build houses further back on the site and to include off road parking as requested. In order to achieve the new arrangement, the new build houses have also been moved toward the retained former Vivian Arms public house thus increasing the distance from the gable of No155 Knox Road to avoid overshadowing and to achieve the standard spacing between the kitchen windows of the back additions.

I am unsure how best to address the parking issue/permits/schemes in the area. Whilst I acknowledge that car parking congestion in the east end of Knox Road is, largely, attributable to commuters avoiding parking charges in the railway's car parks and that it has become worse since the introduction of an adjacent residents parking scheme, I am not convinced that the issue concerns many of the residents in this part of Knox Road. It appears that only three local residents, Nos 155, 161 and 163 Knox Road, raised objections to the planning application based upon parking issues. Given that commuter parking does not appear to extend in to Melton Road, Vivian Road or Knox Road west of the junction with Vivian Road, it would seem unlikely that the requisite 50% response from all residents would be received to create a new Residents Parking Scheme. I am - 42 -

unsure if it is actually possible to amend the existing adjacent scheme to include the east part of Know Road in their scheme however, given that only three residents feel strongly enough to raise the issue, there may not even be sufficient support in the area to be included in the adjacent residents parking scheme. In my opinion, resident parking schemes are expensive to establish, administer and police. They can also be very inconvenient to residents having repair men, builders, decorators, indeed any form of visitors requiring occasional access or even two car families. If there actually is local support to reclaim the street, I would reiterate my suggestion that a simple one hour parking restriction would be far easier to introduce, require the minimum of policing and allow the residents a far greater freedom to use their street for their benefit.

Irrespective of the parking issues/permits/schemes in this area, the Application site is at the extreme west end limit of the congestion generated by the commuter parking. There does not appear to be any reason why the vehicle movements associated with this development would aggravate the parking problems further along the road except, perhaps, that the on-street parking in front of the former Vivian Arms car park would be sterilized as would be the case if the public house had managed to keep trading.

Please would you accept this e-mail and the attachments as amendments to the submitted scheme for re-consideration by the Planning Committee at their next meeting.”

Northants County Council – Highways –

“Vehicular crossings must be constructed, existing redundant vehicular crossings closed and all highway surfaces affected by the proposals reinstated in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable agreement under the Highways Act 1980.

5.2 Pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2.4m x 2.4m above a height of 0.6m must be provided and maintained on each side of all points of vehicular access.

5.3 To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway the driveways must be paved with a hard bound surface for a minimum of 5m in rear of the highway boundary.

5.4 A positive means of drainage must be installed to ensure that surface water from the vehicular access or private drive does not discharge onto the highway. The Application Site is not affected by a Public Right of Way.”

E-mail received from 161 Knox Road and on behalf of 155,157,163 Knox Road -

“Please accept this email as a further objection against the proposed development of 153 Knox Road.

Our reasons are the same as previously stated.”

- 43 -

RECOMMENDATION: Full planning permission.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Before development is commenced representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials. 3. Before development commences a scheme for screen fencing/walling shall be submitted to the local planning authority fro approval in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the dwellings are first occupied. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) the dwellings shall not be extended without the express planning permission of the local planning authority. 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no outbuildings shall be erected within the curtilage of units A and B (public house conversion) without the express planning permission of the local planning authority. 6. Before development commences details of the porous hard surfacing for the off road car parking provision shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials. 7. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plan(s) deposited with the local planning authority on 23rd October 2012.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. In the interests of visual amenity, privacy and security. 4. In order to prevent overdevelopment of the site and to protect the amenities of the occupiers of the approved development and the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings. 5. In order to prevent overdevelopment of the site and to protect the amenities of the occupiers of the approved development and the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings. 6. In the interests of highway safety and sustainable urban drainage. 7. To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the agreed amendments.

sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): Policy 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) Policy 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) 15 (Sustainable housing provision). 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the drawings received on 23 October 2012. 3. The applicant is advised that planning permission does not automatically allow the construction of the vehicle crossing, details of which require the approval of the Highway Authority. In this regard you should contact the Team Leader Regulations, Sustainable Transport, Riverside House, Riverside Way, Northampton NN1 5NX prior to any construction/excavation works within the public highway. 4. The Public Health Act 1875 and the Town Improvement Clauses Act 1847 at S.64 Prior to occupation of the newly created premises(s), the street numbering for this development must be agreed with the Street Naming and Numbering Officer. When issued, the number allocated must be clearly displayed on the outside of the property. Application forms for Street Naming and Numbering are available at www.wellingborough.gov.uk - 45 -

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 16th October 2012 at 10.15 a.m.)

Planning Committee 17/10/2012

Report of the Head Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0320/F

PROPOSAL: Change of use and sub-division of existing building to two 2-bed residential units and a terrace of three 3-bed new build houses - amended plans received 23/10/12

LOCATION: 153 Vivian Arms Knox Road, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Bassetform Limited.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillor Emerson who has also requested that the site be visited by the Site Viewing Group.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above.

The application building is a vacant public house with a car park to the side and a ‘beer garden’ to the rear which at the time of Officer Inspection had been cleared.

The development in locally on Knox Road and Vivian Road is predominantly terraced dwellings with no off road car parking space, but opposite the site is the St. Mary’s Paddock development which is self contained with its own off street car parking provision. At the time of Officer Inspection is was plainly evident that the roads around the application site were being used by train station commuters and many of the vehicles were parked not in accord with the provisions of the Highway Code i.e. on footpaths.

Amended plans were received on 6 August 2012. The amended design for the proposed terrace includes the following changes:

• a reduction in the ridge height • substitution of roof lights for dormer windows • realignment of the footprint of the building • deletion of off-street parking spaces

- 46 -

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2012/0197/F Conversion from commercial (public house) to residential (no alterations proposed to the access and parking arrangements – withdrawn.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Department for Transport: Manuel for Streets North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): Policy 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) Policy 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) 15 (Sustainable housing provision) Supplementary Planning Documents: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework; Development and Implantation Principles, Sustainable Design, Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime, Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED TO THE REVISED SCHEME: 1. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority 13 August 2012 –

“Vehicle crossings must be constructed, redundant vehicular crossings closed and all highway surfaces affected by the proposals reinstated in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable agreement/licence under the Highways Act 1980.

Pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2.4m x 2.4m above a height of 0.6m must be provided and maintained on each side of the points of access.

To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway the driveways must be paved with a hard bound surface for a minimum of 5m in rear of the highway boundary.

A positive means of drainage must be installed to ensure that surface water from the driveways does not discharge onto the highway.

As the three dwellings fronting onto Knox Road are not provided with off street parking accommodation you must satisfy yourself as to the suitability of the arrangements proposed. On street parking cannot be regarded as dedicated parking accommodation.”

2. Northamptonshire County Council Sustainable Urban Drainage - no comment received.

3. Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue - no comment received.

4. Northamptonshire CAMRA – no comment received.

5. Borough Council of Wellingborough Conservation and Design Officer – no comment received. - 47 -

6. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Protection Manager – no comment received.

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

8. Borough Council of Wellingborough Property Services – no comment received.

9. Borough Council of Wellingborough Housing – no comment received.

10. Anglian Water Services Limited – no comment received.

11. Northamptonshire Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor – has no formal objection to the application. The Police have offered advice on specifications in the interests of crime prevention. The Police go on to say that they are disappointed the in-curtilage parking has been removed in favour of linear on street parking which it suspects cannot be designated for residents use.

12. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (JPU) – supplied a detailed critique of the original scheme.

13. Neighbours and third parties – objections have been received from the occupiers of 155 and 161 Knox Road. The objectors cite the following reasons for opposing the application:

• Recognition that the amended scheme which aligns with the existing houses is more in keeping with the area • Limited parking in the area and there will be a great impact upon it. The area is greatly affected by commuter parking for 12 – 14 hours a day, which was the case before permit parking came into place and the situation has only got worse since • Only happy for the development to go ahead if the section of Knox Road between Elsden or Melton Road to Vivian Road is granted permit parking. The fact that the Council is looking into this is not sufficient • Concerns regarding the width of the alleyway which will run alongside no. 155 Knox Road which will prevent access for maintenance, create an ongoing noise nuisance, create a possible nuisance by wheelie bins being left in the alleyway against the adjacent house • Would be satisfied if the developers could include a clause in the property deeds to allow for unrestricted access along the side of the adjacent house and if the alleyway could be made sufficiently wide enough for ladders and scaffolding for maintenance • Loss of privacy • Loss of light

14. 163 Knox Road -

“As a resident of Knox Road I would like to reiterate the concerns that my neighbours have raised with regard to parking on Knox Road.

- 48 -

Whilst I do not object to the development of 153 Knox Road in principle I am extremely concerned at the negative impact it will have on the already limited area to park cars in the street. The average number of cars belonging to the residents in the properties 155 - 163 Knox Road is 2 per property. This develpment will inevitably increase the number of cars regularly parking in the area by a further 6-8 cars by my estimation. Where are they going to park? The Commuters have taken any additional space that we have.

We already have a serious issue with parking in the area. Whilst it is an inconvenience to myself and my neighbours it is also very dangerous. On week days the commuters start parking their cars to head off to the railway station as early at 5.30am and they do not return until the earliest 6pm but sometimes as late as 9pm at night. They do not always park in a manner that exhibits commonsense on their part!!!

We have seen a steady increase in the numbers of commuters over the years and have reached saturation point, a level that is in my opinion dangerous. We have lost the parking over the road since the double yellow lines have been installed at the entrance to St Mary's Paddock. With the increase in residential properties in the area this is going to make an existing problem unbearable.

The Developers of 153 Knox Road action of taking photographs of the parked cars on Knox Road, in an attempt to support their application is subjective in the least and is not an accurate reflection of the issue that we already have to live with every day. I appreciate that the numbers of cars fluctuate but we do have a serious problem which will exascerbated if the plans are passed. We need measures implementing to control the parking in the area before we can consider increasing the numbers of properties in the area. I strongly believe and support the argument for permit parking for residents in the sections of Knox Road most affected. These should be agreed and introduced before this planning application can be passed.

I hope that common sense rules in this instance and consideration for those of us who have lived here for many years is shown by those involved in the evaluation of this planning application.”

15. 155 Knox Road, Wellingborough -

“We wholeheartedly share Christina's concerns and observations with regard to the parking issues on our section of Knox Road.

The development of this site is welcome, but the Developer's ploy regarding the parking issue has to be seen as cynical and self serving.

It is worth noting that Developers have had to resort to using traffic cones to keep the site entry clear of commuter parkers.

They should fully ackowledge the problem and show support for the residents of Knox Road on this vital issue.”

- 49 -

- 50 -

- 51 -

16. Planning and Local Development, Policy and Regeneration – has supplied a timetable for a review of the existing residents Only Car Parking Scheme. The dates for the timetable are given below:

• Initial report to be prepared with input from Northamptonshire County Council to be presented to Development Committee on 11 December 2012 requesting further consultation • One month consultation period, which includes Northamptonshire County Council • Report to the Development Committee on 19 March 2013 with findings and a recommendation • Recommendation of the Development Committee goes forward to the Resources Committee for approval at its meeting on 12 June 2013 • Works requested July 2013

17. Councillor Emerson – notes the application has been amended and requests that the application site be the subject of a visit from the Site Viewing Group and states that one of his objections is the effect the development would have on the parking for residents in the streets in the vicinity of the application site which is already aggravated by commuter parking from the station.

Councillor Emerson identifies that there is going to be a review of and an enlargement of the residents parking scheme and makes particular reference to paragraph 5.5 of the consultation response from the Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority which is reproduced below for ease of reference.

‘As the three dwellings fronting onto Knox Road are not provided with off street parking accommodation you must satisfy yourself as to the suitability of the arrangements proposed. On street parking cannot be regarded as dedicated parking accommodation.’

Councillor Emerson is not satisfied as to the suitability of the arrangements proposed.

18. The applicant has supplied the results of a parking survey conducted on 13 September 2012 which, in short, suggests that the parking issues on the locality are caused by commuter parking and the situation would be improved by the Council adopting a Residents Only Parking Scheme.

19. Environmental Protection –

“The site is on the natural arsenic. An appropriate environmental risk assessment should therefore be carried out or a condition be included in any approval requiring a scheme to be submitted to the satisfaction of the LPA.”

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are considered to be: - 52 -

• Compliance with policy • Effect on neighbours’ residential amenities • Effect on the character of the area • Loss of a community facility • Highway safety • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity

Compliance with policy It is considered that the general principle of the development which involves the use of brownfield land within an urban area for housing could, upon the face of it, be in accord with housing policies contained in the development plan and NPPF guidance.

However, Policy 13 (f) of the core spatial strategy states that development should:

‘Not lead to the loss of community facilities, unless it can be demonstrated that they are no longer needed by the community they serve and are not needed for any other community use, or that the facility is being relocated and improved to meet the needs of the new and existing community.’

It is accepted that the NNCSS does not specifically mention public houses as being a community facility, however, it is considered that the types of use community uses which are mentioned in the body of the strategy is not a definitive or exhaustive list of what constitutes a community use.

With regards to the National Planning Policy Framework it states in paragraphs 69 and 70:

The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Local planning authorities should create a shared vision with communities of the residential environment and facilities they wish to see. To support this, local planning authorities should aim to involve all sections of the community in the development of Local Plans and in planning decisions, and should facilitate neighbourhood planning. Planning policies and decisions, in turn, should aim to achieve places which promote:

• opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, including through mixed-use developments, strong neighbourhood centres and active street frontages which bring together those who work, live and play in the vicinity; • safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and • safe and accessible developments, containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas.

To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should: - 53 -

• plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments; • guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs; • ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable, and retained for the benefit of the community; and • ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.

From the foregoing it is apparent that a public house can be rightfully thought of as a community use and there is clearly a tension between the policies and guidance on the one hand which promote the development of homes in sustainable locations and those which seek to retain community uses.

The applicant has supplied evidence that details the unsuccessful attempts which have been made to market the premises as a public house. Also, there is seemingly not the groundswell of public opinion expressing the desire for the retention of the public house or for the exploration of its use as another community facility.

The policies and guidance relevant to community facilities are acknowledged. However, it is considered that in the absence of persuasive evidence with regards to the need of the community to retain the public house, the policies and guidance which should be accorded more weight on this occasion are those which seek to promote housing development on brownfield urban land, subject to the compliance with more specific polices which are examined below.

Effect on neighbours’ residential amenities Policy 13 (l) of the NNCSS states that development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking;

The comments of the nearby neighbours are acknowledged and it is accepted the proposal, particularity the element which is the new terrace, will have an effect on the standard of amenity which is currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the surrounding dwellings. However, it is anticipate that the effects will not be so deleterious to warrant recommending the application for refusal.

The footprint of the new build now aligns with the front of the adjacent dwellings which has significantly reduced the length the new build would project past the rear of the nearest dwellinghouse no. 155 Knox Road, thereby lessening the effect it will have light reception. It is considered that the amended scheme would also allow the adjacent residential occupiers to still enjoy a reasonable standard of privacy.

The plans depict a private rear access path that measures as 1.2m wide which would serve two of the terraced dwellings. It is anticipated that normal residential use of the path would not unduly inconvenience the occupiers of no. 155 Knox Road. - 54 -

With regards to maintenance issues, it is considered that the illustrated access is wide enough to allow for access to maintain the end unit in the new terrace and the existing adjacent dwelling. It perhaps should be noted that there is a right under statute for land owners to enter onto adjoining land to maintain their property under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992.

Effect on visual amenity and character of the area The NNCSS states in Policy 13 (h) that development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings.

With regards the NPPF, in paragraph 56 the Government says it attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. It goes on to advise that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

It is considered that the illustrated alterations to the existing public house building which would be necessary to convert it to two dwellings would have a beneficial effect on the visual amenity or character of the area.

The amended plans which now have no car parking at the front have allowed the terrace to be brought towards the front of the site where the block now respects the clear ‘building line’ along this part of Knox Road. In addition, the design of the terrace is sympathetic to the mass and detailing of the neighbouring dwellings.

Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would have a positive impact on the visual amenity of the street scene.

Highway safety Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that new development should have a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards and Policy 13 (n) goes on to say that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

The comments of the third parties with regards to parking issues in general, and train station commuter parking specifically are noted, and the Officer at the Borough Council of Wellingborough responsible for Residents Only car parking schemes has been alerted to the views of the residents who live close to the application site.

The advice from the Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority is acknowledged, in particular paragraph 5.5 which has been highlighted by the Ward Councillor. Crucially however, nowhere in the advice does the Highway Authority say that it actually objects to the proposal. In addition, the Highway Authority has not provided any accident record for the area which could substantiate a claim that the proposed development would demonstrably cause a danger to highway safety or otherwise explained why the intended on street parking is not acceptable.

- 55 -

The Government’s standing highway advice with regards to schemes which have no dedicated off road parking can be found in the Department for Transport’s Manual for Streets. It is not adverse to on street parking as a matter of principle, but offers a balanced view by identifying the positive and negative effects of some of the parking of the proposed development being catered for on the highway.

Crime and disorder The Police comments are noted, as is its disappointment with the car parking design. However, the Police have not objected to the development as proposed and have not pointed to any particular current issues with regards to vehicle crime due to on street parking in the area.

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

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

Conclusion It is considered that the amended scheme is acceptable in most respects because it is in accord with policy, would not have an overly harmful effect on neighbours’ amenities and would be harmonious with the surrounding development.

One of the factors which would result in the new development being respectful of the character of the area is the fact that there is no off street parking for the new terrace, but clearly this would create an additional on street parking demand. The extra demand could be problematic for local residents because of the extra current demand due to commuters who do not want to pay for parking at the train station and have been displaced from roads closer to the train station by the existing Residents Only Car Parking scheme. However, it would seem that there is a timetable which could lessen the demand for on street parking locally which is caused by commuters.

It is thought that the parking difficulties that may result in any interim period between building the proposed development and adoption of the Residents Only Car Parking Scheme should not be accorded sufficient weight to refuse planning permission, bearing in mind how the scheme accords with policy in all the other respects and the well documented desire of the Government to promote new housing growth.

RECOMMENDATION Approve with conditions.

scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the dwellings are first occupied. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) the dwellings shall not be extended without the express planning permission of the local planning authority. 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no outbuildings shall be erected within the curtilage of units A and B (public house conversion) without the express planning permission of the local planning authority. 6. Before development commences details of the porous hard surfacing for the off road car parking provision shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.

INFORMATIVES 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: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): Policy 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) Policy 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) 15 (Sustainable housing provision). 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: 391-00 and 391-02 (P1) 11 June 2012 391-01 (P2), 391-03 (P2) and 391-04 (P2) 6 August 2012 3. The applicant is advised that planning permission does not automatically allow the construction of the vehicle crossing, details of which require the approval of the Highway Authority. In this regard you should contact the Team Leader Regulations, Sustainable Transport, Riverside House, Riverside Way, Northampton NN1 5NX prior to any construction/excavation works within the public highway. - 57 -

4. The Public Health Act 1875 and the Town Improvement Clauses Act 1847 at S.64 Prior to occupation of the newly created premises(s), the street numbering for this development must be agreed with the Street Naming and Numbering Officer. When issued, the number allocated must be clearly displayed on the outside of the property. Application forms for Street Naming and Numbering are available at www.wellingborough.gov.uk

- 58 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0366/FCOU

PROPOSAL: Change of use for part of the building from Horticultural building to B2 or light industry. This is the end unit of the warehouse and will be used for maintenance and repair of our horticultural plant equipment and our company plant equipment.

LOCATION: Harper Services, 240 Sywell Road, Mears Ashby, Northampton. NN6 0DL

APPLICANT: Mr Charlie Harper.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As above.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None related.

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

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

“The Parish Council is still not sure what sort of business is actually carried out on site. Any alteration from the original horticultural, nursery use is objected to.”

and

“This site is still causing concern to the Parish Council as there appears to be an increase in activity plus the fact that it would appear that someone is living on site.

The Parish Council confirms that it would object to any change from the original horticultural and nursery use.“

WP/2012/0366/FCOU

116.7m

Glebe House

Nursery

Tank

Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/2012/0366/FCOU - Harper Services, 240 Sywell Road, Mears Ashby - 59 -

2. Third parties –

200 Sywell Road –

“Both my wife and I have reservations about engineering works which involve the possibility of oil wastage incorrectly disposed of which may cause pollution to the stream on the lower boundary of the land. This is a high risk eco-environment and as previous owners we were vigilant about this aspect in compliance with the National Rivers Authorities Regulations.

Further, noise pollution is a worry since already we are frequently disturbed by mechanical banging and screeching noises often into the evenings and at weekends. We would like to hope that noise could be limited to within normal working hours on any change of use.

Lastly, CARAVANS (of which there are at least 25 as I write) and many other vehicles and large metal Containers make the whole area look like a gypsy encampment. Not a very desirable scene which is completely alien to a once green environment. Also, standing vehicles over a large area prohibits the once prolific wild life from inhabiting the land. This is all clearly seen from Highfield Road and is a scar on the Landscape.”

Mears Ashby Resident –

“As can be seen from Highfield Road there are already a significant number of caravans on this site, presumably stored rather than occupied.

Is this application intended to legitimise or to disguise the activity already occurring on the site?”

3. Northants County Council, Highways – no objection.

4. Agents response – “I have spoken to Harper Services they have explained that at times for security reasons and maintain to the worm beds, a 24hrs rotation watch is required.

The worm beds must be thinned out by harvesting about every 30-45 days or by dividing every 60 to 90 days, and they are harvested on a 7 to 10 day cycle.

Apart for the worm bed staff there is no other staff on site.

We can therefore confirm that there is nobody living on the site.”

ASSESSMENT: Site was visited by Members in relation to another application on the site to do with storage of touring caravans. Activities were noted and this application seeks to regularise the position. The applicant’s agent has responded to the various representations as follows:-

“Our reply to the letters of objection are as follows. - 60 -

These objections come from the person from whom our Clients purchased the site from, who is the neighbour to the west of our site, and lives behind a hedge which is now up to the eves on the main building. Our thoughts with regard to the objection to our planning application are as follows:-

Oil wastage incorrectly disposed of My Clients do store our small volume of oil from oil changes in our lorries in bunded barrels in accord with the appropriate legislation, and have them collected when full by a licenses recycler.

One of the tenants uses worms to generate organic fertiliser, and another is growing vegetables with a view to applying to the Soil Association for accreditation as an organic producer. No waste oil is inappropriately disposed of, on the contrary, we strive for the highest levels of environmentally friendly organic production on our site.

Noise pollution In the past we allowed our employees to work on their own vehicles in the workshop after they had finished their day's work. We have since changed our practice, and that no longer takes place. In our application we have applied for 07:00 - 18:00 Monday to Friday, 07:00 - 14:00 Saturday Nil Sunday

Caravans Yes, one of our tenants is in the caravan storage business, and has applied retrospectively for planning permission for that activity. At present the hedge in Highfield Road (which is to the east of our site on higher ground and the best part of half a mile away) is so high that you cannot see over it from a car, so the only opportunity to look in our direction is through the three farm gateways!

With regard to the containers, yes we do have two 20' containers for storage. These were deliberately sited so that they are not visible from Highfield Road, being screened by exiting trees. Additionally, we have one 10' container used as a tool store when we are on site, which is at present at the edge of our parking area. That parking area is already screened by exiting trees from Highfield Road.

We do have 4 lorries which carry our drilling rigs. They do return to the yard to refuel from the bunded tank and consumables, mainly at the weekend. As far as possible we arrange for the crews to park up in approved lorry parks near to where they are working as it is both cheaper and also far more environmentally friendly for them to travel daily by van (which they take home with them, so do not come to the yard). We also have one lorry which is parked up awaiting spares, and some site plant which is here when not being used elsewhere (machines parked happens on farms too).

So no, we do not look like a Gypsy site! As for wildlife, we are overrun with rabbits and have a resident pair of grey partridges. We have planted 500 trees - 61 -

this year, and plan more next year. We have also established a wild flower meadow.”

There is no record of complaint about this site and the activities thereon until the time of the application(s).

Subject to a reinforcement of the existing landscaping it is considered that planning permission could be granted.

RECOMMENDATION: Full planning permission.

Reasons: 1. In the interests of visual amenity. 2. To maintain control of the use of the site.

- 62 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0396/F

PROPOSAL: Conversion of the existing integral garage into habitable accommodation, external alterations to the building involving new dormer windows on the rear elevation and the erection of a detached garage with studio accommodation in the roof area - amended plans.

LOCATION: 76 Doddington Road, Earls Barton, Northampton. NN6 0NQ

APPLICANT: Mr James Tuckett.

This application is referred to Planning Committee for determination because Earls Barton Parish Council have objected to the scheme.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL: As described above.

The development site is situated in the south-eastern region of the Limited Development village policy line envelope of Earls Barton and is on the southern side of Doddington Road. The property is a large detached two storey property circa 1930s period of construction. It forms part of an established residential development predominantly of two storey detached dwellings of contrasting styles set in large curtilages with gardens to the rear and front. The immediate area within which the property lies has its own particular characteristics which are defined by the row of properties on the south side of Doddington Road from no. 80 to no. 66 where there is an established front building line which runs at an angle to the road. Ground levels across the frontage of the site are generally level but are noticeably lower than the level of the highway. A low hedge borders the site’s front and side curtilage boundaries. In the north-east corner of the front garden grows a fairly mature tree, which is would need to be removed to accommodate the proposed garage. The pattern of spacious front gardens devoid of buildings between the front elevations of the houses and the highway with mature hedges/trees along the curtilage/highway boundary is symptomatic of the street scene between no.80 to no.66 Doddington Road.

Planning permission is being sought to convert the existing garage, which is consumed within the main body of the house, into annexed accommodation which will result in external alterations to the front and side elevations of the property. These alterations include replacing the garage door with a casement window and an additional single

WP/2012/0396/F

SPENCER CLOSE 28

15 20

ST CRISPIN ROAD

16 11

105

8 1

7 El 8 81 2 Sub Sta 95

97 1 2

85 99

79 77a Gas 77 Gov 71 90.2m

DODDINGTON ROAD

82a 86 58

64a

76b 76a

33 131

25 16 34 37 CORDON CRESCENT

40 10

123 23 14

BURNS CL

9 32

CORDON

2 26

CRESCENT

LB 5 47 1 Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/2012/0396/F - 76 Doddington Road, Earls Barton - 63 -

window, at ground floor level, in the flank wall. The proposal also includes a modest extension at first floor level to the property’s rear elevation to create an en-suite bathroom, resulting in and additional casement window facing the residential properties to the rear of the development site. The final component of the proposed scheme is the erection of a double detached one-and-a-half storey garage, with ground floor kitchenette/toilet and first floor habitable room, positioned in the front garden just shy of the highway boundary.

NB: The applicant submitted an amended drawing (reference number: 03A, received 22nd October 2012) of the proposed garage’s elevations and layout, together with a cross sectional drawing (reference number: 04, received 22nd October 2012) with sections through the site to show the relationship of the proposed garage’s height with respect to Doddington Road and the front of the main house on site. These additional drawings were made public on the Council’s website on the same day of receipt. Re- consultations were undertaken.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: BW/1978/0700 Extension of existing house - approved with conditions BW/1986/1106 Garage extension - approved PRE/2006/0077 Bungalow in rear garden - completed WP/2009/0243 Details submitted to discharge conditions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of planning permission WP/2007/0773/F – WD by Auth WP/2009/0280 Amendments to planning permission WP/2007/0773/F to include external chimney breast and dormer window (bathroom) to rear - Approved

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Regional Spatial Strategy 8 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) Policy 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan: Policy G4 (Development within the limited development and restricted infill villages) Supplementary Planning Guidance: I: Trees on Development Sites II: Residential Extensions IV: Planning Out Crime V: Parking Supplementary Planning Documents: Sustainable Design Biodiversity Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Earls Barton Parish Council (comments of the Clerk) –

- 64 -

“I have discussed this application with a committee of the Parish Council. We would object to the application and would support the consultation response of the BCW Conservation Officer and the BCW Landscape Officer, as the application for the garage is out of character for the area and too close to the boundary of the property.”

2. Neighbours –

Two representations have been received from the occupiers of 76a and 78 Doddington Road at the time this report was written and the comments cited by the authors are summarised below:-

“We wish to stand by our original letter dated 02/10/12.

We feel the cross section is not a true reflection of the levels and as the garage has accommodation above and is connected to all of the utility services because of the kitchen dinette feel that the proposed garage development will have the potential to be turned into a separate dwelling with its own access to the footpath.

A single storey double garage with hip roof would be more fitting with the surrounding area and would blend in with the original house when viewed from the road with which we would no objection.

With reference to your letter dated 19/09/12 regarding the above application for planning permission no WP/2012/0396 we wish to make the following comments.

We feel the size of the double garage with studio above (what is meant by studio accommodation i.e. office space or living space) is too large a detached building to be sited in the front garden, so close to the footpath.

We feel it is oversized in height and floor proportions, and in our opinion is an overdevelopment of the site.

The visual effect of this building would greatly detract from the pleasant suburban features of Doddington Road.

A question we would like to raise is will the visibility for the exit from 76A / 76B Doddington Road be compromised and impared by the development.

There is no other house along this stretch of the Doddington Road with a garage on the front boundary and this will set a precedent.

The garage has a studio above it and we are unclear as to the height of the proposed building and whether there is a window which will overlook our property. The plans online do not give us a good enough indication as they do not show the front aspect including both the house and the garage.

We are concerned that the studio will be used to run a business from the property and the impact that this may have on the number of cars going to and - 65 -

fro and subsequent parking on the main road. This may obviously not be the case.”

3. Borough Council of Wellingborough Landscape Officer –

“The proposed building close to the highway boundary appears to be out of character with the area and would set a precedent for altering the existing pleasant tree lined highway boundary along this stretch of Doddington Road Earls Barton. There is a lack of width between the proposed building and the highway boundary in which to provide adequate replacement planting to compensate for the loss of the existing maple tree which is of amenity value. The front garden would be almost devoid of soft landscaping which would represent an incremental environmental loss, part of the rear garden having been already lost to development. It is unlikely that the hedge shown between the proposed building and the close boarded fence could survive unless the fence was removed and the footprint reduced.

This fence along the boundary of the access to the development to the rear is not an attractive feature and the additional height of the proposed building could be perceived as being overbearing at the point of entry.”

4. Borough Council of Wellingborough Design Officer –

“As there is a fairly consistent building line in this suburban part of the village, I feel it would be inappropriate to build a garage in the frontage as shown.

[re-consultation] I am not quite sure what the additional plans are trying to show or to say. I appreciate that the agent is trying to argue that the garage is less prominent than we originally might have thought.

Nevertheless, I remain of the view that the garage element of the scheme is objectionable in principle in view of the breach of the building line.”

5. Northamptonshire County Council Highways Authority -

Originally returned the application with a pro forma advice sticker which says ‘To ensure that highway safety is maintained, the Highways Authority recommends to the planning authority that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document ‘Highway Authority Standing Advice’ be applied to this planning application’.

They also supplied a covering letter (19 Oct 2012) which states:

“To avoid the sub-division and disposal of the property into individual dwelling uints approval should be conditional upon the annexe and the studio accommodation remaining ancillary to the main dwelling in perpetuity for the sole use of the residents to the main dwelling.”

Following further correspondence and re-consultation the Highways Authority provided the following additional comments:- - 66 -

8th Oct 2012 - “Planning permission for the development of 76A and 76B was granted subject to achieving pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2m x 2m on each side of the point of access and it was assumed that this level of visibility could be achieved by negotiation with the owners of adjoining land.

Whilst the lack of pedestrian to vehicle visibility obviously raises concerns for the safety of other road users it cannot be said that present applicant should be made liable for meeting the responsibilities of others. Provided no part of the building is situated less than 0.5m from the highway boundary I would not wish to object to the proposed garage on highway safety grounds.

If the users of the means of access have concerns they should seek to negotiate the acquisition of rights with the adjoining owners.”

29th Oct 2012 - “Whilst the proposals are minor and no objection is raised on highways grounds the applicant should be urged to improve pedestrian to vehicle visibility on either side of the point of access by the removal of planting within splays of 2m x 2m as far as practicable.”

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are considered to be:

• Compliance with policy • Highway safety and parking • Impact on neighbour’s amenities • Impact on the character and appearance of the area • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity • Other considerations • Response to representations

Compliance with policy With regards to the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, Earls Barton is defined as a Limited Development village by Policy G4 and it states that development will be granted planning permission if it is within the policy line and if it would not have an adverse effect on the size, form character and setting of the village and its environs. Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) echoes the thrust of Policy G4 as it requires development should be of a high standard of design, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings.

The development proposal is within the village policy line and it is opined not to be contrary to this aspect of Policy G4 (1), but whether it is considered to be harmful to its surrounding environs or adversely affecting the character and appearance of the area is discussed more in depth in the succeeding parts of this report, together with other aspects of policy and relevant material considerations

- 67 -

Highway safety and parking Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that new development should provide a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards. Policy 13 (n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

As can be seen from the responses received from the Highways Authority (HA), they are not wishing to object to the proposal on highway safety grounds. However, the HA gone on to say that providing no part of the building is situated within 0.5m of the highway boundary then they would not object. Their further comments urge the applicant to improve the pedestrian to vehicle visibility spay on either side of the point of access [to nos. 76a and 76b] by the removal of planting within splays of 2m x 2m as far as practicable. It is opined that a suitable condition can be used to deal with the visibility splay on land under the applicant’s control, but as the HA state, the improvement of the splay on land outside of the applicant’s control should be subject to negotiation between the affected parties to resolve as a planning condition can not be used in this instance.

The applicant submitted an amended drawing (no. 03A) showing the layout of the garage. From this drawing, the garage is shown to be 0.5m from the highway boundary. Accordingly, in the absence of the HA objecting on the grounds of highway safety and a suitably worded condition could be used to deal with the visibility splay on the applicant’s land, there are no highway safety grounds on which to base a recommendation to refuse this planning application.

Impact on Neighbours Amenities Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that new development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area by reason of loss of light or overlooking. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that: good design should contribute positively to making places better for people.

With reference to this Council’s SPG II on Residential Extensions, the proposed alterations to the main house alone are not adjudged to fall foul of the SPG’s advice for extensions as the alterations, by reason of their scale, positioning and layout are not considered to pose any detrimental impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.

With reference to the proposed detached garage, concerns have been expressed that as the first floor of the garage is to be used as a habitable room (the provision of a downstairs kitchenette and toilet would ten to support this claim), then there is likely to be a sense of overlooking and loss of privacy experienced by the neighbours of 78 and 74 Doddington Road as the proposal includes roof lights in its south facing roof slope and first floor windows in its two side elevations. However, the amended drawing proposes to insert obscure glazing in the side elevation windows and a suitable planning condition could be used to require ALL windows and roof lights and ground floor level to be obscurely glazed to secure privacy. As the applicant has not hinted at the room above the garage being used as an annexed accommodation then it is - 68 -

considered that such a condition is fully justified. Alternatively, the roof lights could be re-positioned onto the north facing roof slope.

On balance, it is considered that the scheme, it is present form, would be contrary to Policy 13 (l) of the NNCSS.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (h) says that new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings. Local Plan Policy G4 also requires new development to respect the surrounding style. This principle is also reflected in NPPF where in considering the design of the built environment development should contribute positively to making places better for people, and this concept is also reflected in the guidance contained in that of the SPD: Sustainable Design.

At this conjecture it is worth considering in more detail the wording contained in paragraphs 56, 63 and 64 of the NPPF, and that contained in Policy 13 (h) of the NNCSS and Policy G4 of the Local Plan. The NPPF places emphasis on development contributing positively to making places better for people, that it should raise the standard of design more generally in the area and take opportunities for improving the character and quality of an area. Policy 13 (h) of the NNCSS is reflective of this material consideration as development is required to ‘respect’ and ‘enhance’ the character of its surroundings. On the other hand, Policy G4 of the Local Plan only goes as far is saying that development should not individually or cumulatively not have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the village and its environs. Policy G4, therefore, implies the inference that so long as the character of an area is not adversely affected, the development does not necessarily have to enhance or improve it. The inference of NPPF and Policy 13 would imply that all development has to enhance an area’s character. Thus it is questionable whether any extension to a property can enhance an area’s character or appearance. It is propositioned that in most cases the erection of detached garages forward of established building lines and within residential front gardens would not ordinarily enhance an area as the originally planned development would be compromised by the new structure. However, the impact of a new building on an area’s character carries with it a degree of subjectivity on the part of the decision maker. Professional opinion of experts within the field of urban design and landscaping set against those opinions of the general public would need to be weighed- up by the decision maker as to when a development is of an appearance that does not harm the area and can ‘enhance’ an area.

The proposed garage is to be approximately 5.2 m in height from ground level to ridge and 6m by 7.5m in area, with a dual pitched roof with gable ends perpendicular to the line of the highway. It will sit in a location in very close proximity (0.5m) to the highway boundary, and its presence will be highlighted, when approaching the building from an easterly direction along Doddington Road, as the visibility splays required by the HA would prevent screening vegetation of this corner of the building being used. It will project well beyond the established front building line, drawn from no. 80 to no. 66 Doddington Road, by several metres and would be the only example of such a development along this stretch of highway. The applicant has tried to demonstrate with the submitted cross section through the site, that the building’s presence in the street scene would be mitigated due to the floor of the building being set below that of the - 69 -

highway. However, the ridge would still project above the road level by approximately 4.5m.

Comments received members of the public indicate some opposition to the development on the grounds that its size and location would be harmful to the street scene. These comments are reflected in the objections received from the Parish Council and this Council’s Design and Landscape Officers whom all agree that the structure would harm the street scene and the character of the area as it would be visually prominent because of its size and positioning well beyond the established building line of the immediate area. It is considered that the proposed garage would be out of keeping with the area’s character and appearance and would be harmful to the prevailing street scene. Furthermore, the resultant loss of vegetation from the site, which is opined by this Council’s Landscape Officer to afford amenity value to the wider public, would only lead to the quality of the area’s environs being reduced and so undermining the visual attractiveness of the area and thereby not enhancing the place in which people (the Public) live.

It is therefore concluded that the proposal is contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the NNCSS and Policy G4 (2) of the Local Plan.

Crime and disorder Policy 13 (b) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that development should seek to design out antisocial behaviour, crime and reduce the fear of crime by applying the principles of the Secured By Design scheme. The above policy is predated by adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning Out Crime’ which gives detail to the intent of spatial strategy policy.

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

Biodiversity Policy 13 (o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, inter alia, states that development should conserve and enhance biodiversity. On the basis that the identified tree that would need to be removed to accommodate the proposed garage is not a protected tree and could be removed at any time, whilst this is regrettable, there are not justifiable grounds to refuse this application on the grounds of biodiversity

Other Considerations The principles of non-discrimination have been followed through-out.

Response to Representations The comments received with respect to the impact of the development on planning grounds have been discussed above.

Conclusion Having considered the above planning matters it is considered that the resulting detached one-and-a-half storey garage in the property’s front garden is not inconsistent with the surrounding residential character and is, therefore, opined to be harmful to the local environ’s distinctive nature of detached dwellinghouses with an established front building line and without any structures between their front elevations and the public - 70 - highway. In addition, the proposed garage would undermine the pleasant views experienced along this approach into and out of the village.

The proposal is therefore considered to be in conflict with Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, Policy G4 (2) of the Local Plan and inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework [paragraphs 17 (point 4), 56, and 64] and is therefore offered with a recommendation for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The proposed development of a one-and-a-half storey detached double garage, incorporating a 'studio' on its first floor, by reason of its massing, layout and location, would be unreflective of the pattern of development in the surrounding area. The proposed development would therefore introduce and unacceptable structure, forward of the established front building line, into the prevailing street scene and would as a consequence be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered to be in conflict with Policy 13 (h) 'General Sustainable Development Principles' of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy G4 (2) 'Limited development and restricted infill villages' of the Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan (adopted 1999 and alteration adopted 2004) and inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework [paragraphs 17 (point 4), 56 and 64].

POLICY G4

IN THE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AND RESTRICTED INFILL VILLAGES DEVELOPMENT WILL BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION, SUBJECT TO MORE SPECIFIC POLICIES REGARDING INDIVIDUAL SITES AREAS OR USES, IF IT:

2. WILL NOT, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR CUMULATIVELY WITH OTHER PROPOSALS, HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SIZE, FORM, CHARACTER AND SETTING OF THE VILLAGE AND ITS ENVIRONS.

LIMITED DEVELOPMENT VILLAGES ARE:

EARLS BARTON; FINEDON AND WOLLASTON.

Policy 13

Development should meet the needs of residents and businesses without compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the same quality of life that the present generation aspires to. Development should:

Raise standards h) Be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respects and enhances the character of its surroundings and is in accordance with the Environmental Character of the area. - 71 -

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 02 29th August 2012 03A and 04 22nd October 2012

- 72 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0441/F

PROPOSAL: Revised planning application for conversion of property to two one bedroom apartments and one two bedroom apartment.

LOCATION: 10 Fellows Close, Wollaston, Wellingborough. NN29 7SS

APPLICANT: Mr Michael Walker, McCallum Homes Limited.

This application comes before the Planning Committee for determination due to an objection being received Wollaston Parish Council citing overdevelopment as a concern and more than 4 objections having been received from surrounding residents.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The development site is located within the defined Village Policy Line Wollaston immediately to the east of the A509 road and at the turning head to Fellows Close. The property is the end property within an established residential area (Fellows Close and Rose Close) which comprises of a mix of generously proportioned detached and semi- detached houses. The character of this immediate area, and to some degree the wider area, is defined by these detached and semi-detached houses and the absence of flatted developments. Its character is probably best described as a low density (approximately 25 dwellings per hectare) residential development of individually occupied and un-subdivided properties.

The property is a detached four bedroom dwellinghouse constructed under the previous planning permissions listed below. The house as existing is set in its own grounds with a rear garden of approximately 35 sq m in size and a front apron laid mainly in block paving to provide sufficient off-street parking space for approximately four vehicles. This front apron is partially landscaped with laurel hedges along its western and eastern boundaries and two trees. The property currently enjoys the benefit of single integrated garage which provides for an additional enclosed car parking space.

Planning permission is being sought to convert the single detached house into three self-contained flats, of which there are proposed 2 x one-bedroom apartments on the ground floor and 1 x two-bedroom apartment on the first floor. In order to create the 2 ground floor apartments, the existing garage space will be lost as it is proposed to be converted into habitable rooms to create one of the ground floor flats. The proposed WP/2012/0441/F 28

UNITY CLOSE

13 1

24 MANCHESTER ROAD Tanks 14 El LB Sub 2 Sta

ROSES CLOSE

1 20

GVC 1 5

A 509 9

FELLOWS CLOSE 2

A 509 Cattle Grid

Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/2012/0441/F - 10 Fellows Close, Wollaston - 73 - development will also lead to external alterations to the property to accommodate the flatted development; these alterations comprise of the following:-

Front Elevation • Removal of the garage door and replace with brick wall and casement window

East Elevation • Insertion of a small window at first floor height

Rear Elevation • Insertion of a window at first floor height • Insertion of a window at ground floor height • Replacement of existing ground floor door with a blade post and glazed sidelight

West Elevation • Moving the single paned window at first floor height to a less central position • Insertion of a top window at ground floor height

To accommodate the additional parking spaces to the front of the property the applicant has shown on their submitted drawings that parts of the existing laurel hedge between nos. 10 and 9 Fellows Close would be either removed or cut-back as the car spaces as marked out indicate they would encroach into this hedge. Furthermore, it is stated on the planning application form that the number of on-site car parking spaces will remain unchanged at 4 spaces. However, this information conflicts with the submitted car parking layout plan which shows that car spaces nos. 2 and 3 would be laid-out across an existing landscaped area laid-out as a garden area.

It should be noted that the submitted drawings are either erroneous or misleading as the proposed first floor plan indicates that the hipped-end roofed projecting ‘Juliet’ balcony remains (on the front elevation) as per the original drawings, whereas the proposed side elevation drawings have omitted the projecting ‘Juliet’ balcony. Thus it is not clear to the reader whether this development proposal will retain or omit the projecting ‘Juliet’ balcony on the building’s front elevation.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2006/0540/O Four bedroom detached house – approved with conditions WP/2008/0349/F New dwelling house adjacent to 9 Fellows Close, Wollaston as approved under outline planning permission no. WP/2006/0540/O Amended Plans - approved with conditions WP/2010/0064/NMA Minor amendment to front elevation permitted under WP/2008/0349/F - refused WP/2010/0107/F Addition of full height square bay to first floor to replace window above garage area Change front bay to square bay from a cant bay - approved WP/2010/0176/DOC Details submitted to discharge conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission WP/2008/0349/F - agreed WP/2012/0269/F Conversion of detached house to 4 flats using existing floor print only with associated parking provision - refused

- 74 -

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policy 1 (Strengthening the network of Settlements) Policy 13 (General sustainable development principles) Policy 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Policy 15 (Sustainable Housing Provision) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan G4 (Development within the limited development and restricted infill villages) Supplementary Planning Guidance: I: Trees on Development Sites IV: Planning Out Crime V: Parking Supplementary Planning Document: Biodiversity Sustainable Design Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northamptonshire County Council Highways Authority - has returned the application with a pro forma advice sticker which says ‘To ensure that highway safety is maintained, the Highways Authority recommends to the planning authority that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document ‘Highway Authority Standing Advice’ be applied to this planning application’.

They also supplied a covering letter which states:

“It is noted that the site of the application has no properly constructed vehicular crossing from the public highway to enable legal vehicular access to be made to the property. Prior to the first use or occupation of the development subject of the present application, a vehicular crossing must be constructed in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable licence or agreement under the Highways Act 1980.

You should satisfy yourself as to the adequacy and layout of parking accommodation proposed to serve the development.”

2. Wollaston Parish Council –

“…objects to this application due to the lack of provision for off street parking for three dwellings”

3. BCW Landscape Officer –

“It would appear that the lime tree and the blue cedar should not be adversely affected by the proposals but if there is any doubt about surfacing in relation to - 75 -

the root protection area of the lime tree there should be a condition attached to any consent.”

4. BCW Environment Protection –

No comments were received at the time this report was written.

5. Third Party Objectors (7 objections) -

3 Fellows Close -

“I am writing to you to inform you of our strong objection regarding the planning application to turn 10 Fellows Close into three apartments.

Our first major concern is the increased number of cars this could create on the street. I am aware the developer plans to provide four car spaces, but with the majority of households now having more than one car, this will mean more on- street parking. This will not only ruin the appearance of the attractive street but also course a hazard to the children that live on this street.

We do not feel that Fellows Close or Wollaston village would benefit at all from number 10 being turned into three apartments. We believe that not only will it ruin the appearance of the street but also the surrounding area, due to the fact that Fellows Close is the first street and visible when entering the village. There is also a possibility that our house values could be brought down as the apartments are not in keeping with the ‘quiet, family feel’ of Fellows Close.

One of the main reasons we purchased our house (3 Fellows Close) in May 2011 was because we were drawn to the family feel of the street. We were excited to think that we had moved to an attractive street where our three young boys could learn to ride their bikes in safety due to all the houses having adequate off-road parking and very little through traffic. We would feel very disappointed if this was no longer the case due to three apartments at the end of the street.”

4 Fellows Close -

“I am contacting you as I would like to put forward my objection to the proposal of converting the newly built house in Fellows close into three apartments. My primary concern is that there will be more vehicles in the close belonging to tenants and their visitors. This situation would be intolerable and impractical in this small close which has been designed for nine houses only.

I would also like to take this opportunity to pose the question why, when the applicant applied for permission to build one house, were they allowed to build so many extensions onto the building? This has now rendered the property extremely unsuitable for it's position in this established close of three and four bed dwellings.

I do appeal that you take into consideration my opposition to this proposal.” - 76 -

7 Fellows Close -

“I strongly object to the proposed application to convert this property into three flats for the following reasons.

1. There is insufficient parking space on the property; three flats could mean six vehicles or more with visitors. There is no parking room on the road as it is a designated turning area for residents, deliveries and council services. 2. There would be too many unsightly dustbins on collection day as well as on the property. 3. Properties in Fellows Close would be devalued by having flats. 4. There would be an increase in traffic and also the safety of our young children who play outside.”

6 Fellows Close -

“I object to this planning application as there will be too much traffic coming down our road. There is no parking room on the road now and not enough on the property for three flats, they would end up parking on the road as there would not be enough room to manoeuvre on the driveway.”

9 Fellows Close -

“Objection Fellows Close is a quiet cul de sac, and safe for the children that live there. With potentially another 6 cars PLUS visitors, traffic will be too much for such a small road, and also there is the issue of parking.

There is not enough room on the driveway for all the cars, which will result in on street parking. This will be dangerous and cause obstruction to the current residents of the close. We often have "commuters" parking on the road during the day, who lift share, so any further on street parking will have major consequences for this quiet little close.

We are also concerned that the flats may be sold to "buy to let" buyers, resulting in young single occupants who could cause disruption to the close, which is made up of young families and older, more vunerable, residents. We therefore strongly object to this application and think it should remain as it was intended - a single family residence. ”

8 Fellows Close -

“Both my son and I are greatly concerned about the revised planning application of No 10 Fellows Close into two one bedroom flats and one two bedroom flat. We feel that this conversion would result in an over development of the close, with too dense a concentration of dwellings too close to our house.

We still feel major concerns about the parking of cars and increase in noise this will bring to Fellows Close, there could be six potential new car owners as well as their possible visitors. The car parking area of no 10 is not adequate for that many cars. - 77 -

This would mean congesting the square and creating difficulties for us existing residents to access our properties, we already have several cars being parked in the cul-de-sac outside our house by commuters who car share. The increased volume of traffic is also a risk of danger to small children who live and play in the close. We therefore object to the revised planning application.

We had no objections to the original plan of building a four bedroom house, there was no mention at that time that it would ever be converted into multiple dwellings. This application should be rejected and the house left as it is.”

23 Roses Close -

“I am responding to your request for comment on planning proposals for 10 Fellows Close, Wollaston which I have already objected to and I must say my objections for revising the plans of the property behind me property to be a one two bedroom apartment and two one bedroom apartments are still not appropriate from my perspective. There is not adequate available parking already on Fellows Close and the idea of apartments will potentially bring the wrong type of residents to these properties. i appreciate that the builder is keen to sell however this would be at the expense of the local community and not the new residents and should continue to be sold as a family home rather than starter apartments.

Many thanks for advising of Mr McCallum’s intentions and I would like it to be noted that I strongly object to this application being granted.”

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are:

• Principle of development • Compliance with policy • Highway safety and parking • Impact on neighbours amenities • Impact on character and appearance of area • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity • Other considerations • Response to representations

Principle of Development The property is located in a sustainable settlement with reasonable transport links and facilities therefore the principle of residential properties at this location is accepted.

Compliance with policy Policy 1 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that in the rural areas development will take place on sites within village boundaries, subject to criteria to be set out in development plan documents.

- 78 -

With regards to the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, Wollaston is defined as a limited development village by Policy G4 and it states that development will be granted planning permission if it is within the policy line if the development would not have an adverse effect on the size, form character and setting of the village and its environs. The general principle of residential development at this site has been previously accepted by virtue of the two earlier planning permissions for the erection of a single detached four bedroom dwelling house. However, as will be discussed below, the proposed development is not considered to be in accordance with Policy G4 as it would have an adverse impact upon the form, character and setting of its environs.

Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) and the SPD on Sustainable Design require new development to be of a high standard of design, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings, and not result in an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties or wider area; by reason of noise, loss of light or overlooking. The NPPF (paragraph 56) echoes the above policies by stating that development should contribute positively to making places better for people, this is construed to imply not just the ‘place’ of the development site but to include the ‘place’ of the local environ in which the development site is situated. These policies are amplified by the adopted SPD Sustainable Design of what the Council believes to be good and bad design.

The external alterations to the property’s external walls are not considered to be demonstrably harmful to the physical appearance of the building that would give rise to a significant and material change. For all and intent reasons, such physical external alterations to the building would not be opined to harm the prevailing street scene.

However, it is opined that the character of the area will be significantly harmed as a flatted development with off-road car parking space over and above that associated with the surrounding dwellinghouses, would not be reflective of the surrounding residential character of single self-contained dwellinghouses with moderate off-road car parking provision (2 to 3 spaces) which are comparable with the property’s size.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is not in accord with Policy 13, Policy G4 and parts of the NPPF.

However, other more specific aspects of Policy G4, and other NNCSS policies with respect to the development’s anticipated effect on the character and setting of the village are examined below.

The comments received from the Highway Authority (HA) regarding the means of access note that the site of the application has no properly constructed vehicular crossing from the public highway to enable legal vehicular access to be made to the - 79 -

property. The HA go to say that, if permission is granted, then prior to the first use or occupation of the development, a vehicular crossing must be constructed in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable licence or agreement under the Highways Act 1980. It is considered that a suitable planning permission informative would serve to provide the applicant with the clear instruction that a licence or agreement under the Highways Act 1980 is required.

Further comments from the HA do not suggest that there are any highway safety reasons that would justify refusing this application, however, the HA do implore the decision maker to satisfy themselves as to the adequacy and layout of parking accommodation proposed to serve the development. Whilst the proposed on site parking layout does provide spaces for four vehicles, it is questionable whether there would be any further spaces available if more than four vehicles were in use by the future occupiers of the property. The manoeuvring space on site for four vehicles is considered to be fairly constricted if vehicles are to turn around on site so that they do not have to enter onto the public highway in reverse gear. Compounding this issue is the fact that one parking space will be lost as the existing garage will be converted to a habitable room. Indeed, the applicant stated on their planning application form (WP/2008/0349/F) that the 4 bedroom detached house would comprise of 3 parking spaces (2 + garage). Consequently, this latest application is for 2 additional spaces on the front garden/hard-paved area.

By the applicant’s own admission, in their earlier planning application (WP/2012/0269) it was proposed to have 7 (seven) off-street car parking spaces to serve 4 (four) flats. This equates to a ratio of 1.75 parking spaces per flat. Thus if this same ratio of 1.75 parking spaces per flat is applied to this latest scheme of 3 (flats) then this would imply 5.33 parking spaces are required. However, this latest proposal will only provide 4 car parking spaces; a parking spaces per flat ratio of 1.33. Thus, while the applicant may present the argument that as the gross number of flats reduces so therefore the gross number of parking spaces will decrease is a logical presumption un-challenged by the author, their argument that the individual number of parking spaces per flat will decrease is considered to be weak and flawed.

Thus it is reasonably opined that if this development were approved and became operational, then the demand for parking spaces on site by the future residents may exceed the four spaces provided and lead to an unacceptable impact upon the area’s character by reason of uncharacteristic presence of many parked vehicles on the front curtilage of the property over and above what one may expect to experience along this street and the neighbouring streets.

The proposed conversion and alterations would take place to the dwelling’s existing shell with no extensions but with additional windows to be inserted in the rear and two side elevations as well as the new window to replace the garage door. Only those new windows inserted at first floor level are perceived to cause any additional loss of privacy should the property be occupied as three flats. Due to the size and positioning of these - 80 - new windows then it is considered that the impact upon privacy would not be fundamentally great as to warrant refusing this application on this matter.

Impact on Character and Appearance of Area The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (h) says that new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings. Meanwhile, Policy 15 (f) states that in order to deliver sustainable residential communities higher densities will be sought particularly in the locations most accessible on foot, cycle and public transport, although increases in density should not detract from the traditional streetscape and built form where this is worthy of safeguarding. With regards to Policy G4 of the local plan it states that development will be granted planning permission if it will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the size, form, character or setting of the village. Paragraphs 56 and 64 of the NPPF collectively attach great importance to the design of the built environment to ensure that development contributes positively to making places better for people and for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

The National Planning Policy Framework (para 58) indicates that developments should aim to “respond to local character and history, reflect the identity of local surroundings” and goes on to say that it “will function well and add to the overall quality of the area”. It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the NPPF and that the development undermines the existing character of the street by introducing an oddity to the established form. In addition the proposal would involve the urbanisation of the front area to accommodate the parking provision and this would represent a deleterious impact to the pleasant openness and soft landscaped appearance of Fellows Close and to the village’s entrance; a further contradiction to the NPPF (para 58) where is states that development should be “visually attractive”.

Fellows Close, including the host property (no. 10), comprises solely of detached dwellings with the area as a whole consisting of detached or semi-detached dwellings. The application would seek to deviate from the prevailing tenure type, thereby introducing a form of development in stark contrast to the established tenure-ship.

NPPF (paragraphs 50, 51 and 58) does suggest that opportunities to widen home ownership and tenure type to reflect local demand, bring empty housing into use, create and sustain an appropriate mix but all this is to be encouraged so long as the overall quality of an area is not harmed and should be judged over the development’s lifetime and not just over the short term. Other than sound bites that the applicant has collated from local estate agents in the area, the application has not provided solid and tested evidence to suggest that there is a strong local need for flatted development in this immediate area that would outweigh the short term impact that this flatted development would have on the immediate character and quality of the built environment. Indeed, the view of the applicant that the property has remained empty after an unsuccessful marketing exercise to sell it, for reasons to include its proximity to a busy road, should sway the Council to grant planning permission is considered to carry little weight as a different marketing exercise offering the property at different prices or to rent, may lead to occupation. National Planning Policy Guidance purports to require local planning authorities not to take the value of property as a material consideration.

- 81 -

On the matter of the development’s impact upon the quality of the area’s character and appearance, this has been discussed above. Of material consideration are the views expressed by the local community on how the development would be detrimental to their appreciation of the built environment in which they live. Based upon the strength of local opinion then it is considered that sufficient weight should be apportioned to the ‘localist’ view.

In the absence of any strong and ‘official’ identified local need, the strength of local opinion and the considered view that a combination of the tenure type and visual impact of the associate car parking to the property’s front curtilage then the weight apportioned to these matters are thought to outweigh the need and the development as a whole is judged to cause demonstrable harm caused to the character and appearance of the local environ and, therefore, the development is opined to be contrary to Policy 13 (h) ‘General Sustainable Development Principles’ of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy G4 (2) ‘Limited development and restricted infill villages’ of the Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan (adopted 1999 and alteration adopted 2004) and inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework [paragraphs 17 (points 4 and 5), 56 and 64].

Crime and disorder Policy 13 (b) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that development should seek to design out antisocial behaviour, crime and reduce the fear of crime by applying the principles of the Secured by Design scheme. The above policy is predated by adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning Out Crime’ which gives detail to the intent of spatial strategy policy.

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

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

Biodiversity is perceived by the author to incorporate habitats and thus trees and hedgerows. It is without question that the trees and hedgerows on the site have a contribution to supporting local biodiversity. The biodiversity could possibly be affected as the proposal entails the removal of part of the front garden and the laying of a hard- surface to accommodate car spaces nos. 2 and 3. This assertion is reflected in the comments received from this Council’s Landscape Officer whom is of the opinion that the lime tree and the blue cedar should not be adversely affected by the proposals, but if there is any doubt about surfacing in relation to the root protection area of the lime tree there should be a condition attached to any consent [planning permission].

To accommodate the additional parking spaces to the front of the property the applicant has shown on their submitted drawings that parts of the existing laurel hedge between nos. 10 and 9 Fellows Close would be either removed or cut-back as the car spaces as marked out indicate they would encroach into this hedge. Furthermore, it is stated on the planning application form that the number of on-site car parking spaces will remain unchanged at 4 spaces. However, this information conflicts with the submitted car - 82 - parking layout plan which shows that car spaces nos. 2 and 3 would be laid-out across an existing landscaped area laid-out as a garden area.

Specifically dealing with the issue of biodiversity impact, then based upon the comments thus received and the preceding analysis, this leads the author to conclude that the impact upon biodiversity is minimal and any impact could be mitigated/controlled by way of a suitable condition to protect the roots of trees on site.

Therefore, it is considered that there is no justifiable reason to refuse planning permission on the grounds of biodiversity impact.

Other Considerations The principles of non-discrimination have been followed through-out.

Response to Representations The comments received with respect to the impact of the development on planning grounds have been discussed above. The other matters raised were;

• ‘potentially bring the wrong type of residents to these properties’ • ‘resulting in young single occupants who could cause disruption to the close’ • ‘a possibility that our house values could be brought down’ • ‘Properties in Fellows Close would be devalued by having flats’

The bulleted matters above are held not to be material planning considerations and are therefore, not given any further deliberation by the author.

Conclusion Having considered the above planning matters it is considered that the resulting density and type of development is inconsistent with the surrounding residential character and is, therefore, opined to be harmful to the local environ’s distinctive nature of single self- contained dwellinghouses with moderate off-road car parking provision (2 to 3 spaces) which are comparable with the property’s size. In addition, the degree of front parking would undermine the pleasant spaciousness of the visually sensitive village approach and Fellows Close. In the absence of any identified need for one and two bed apartments in the private market, and notwithstanding the sustainability of the village location, there is no justification that outweighs the harm caused. The proposal is therefore considered to be in conflict with Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, Policy G4 (2) of the Local Plan and inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework [paragraphs 17 (points 4 and 5), 56 and 64] and is therefore offered with a recommendation for refusal.

Reasons The proposed sub-division of a four bedroom detached dwellinghouse into three self- contained flats and the associated increase of the hard-surfaced car parking areas to the property’s front curtilage by reason of its intensified residential use character and the front curtilage being dominated by car parking, would be unreflective of the pattern of development in the surrounding area. The proposed development would therefore undermine the pleasant and spacious quality and form of this visually sensitive village approach and as a consequence, be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered to be in conflict with Policy 13 - 83 -

(h) ‘General Sustainable Development Principles’ of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy G4 (2) ‘Limited development and restricted infill villages’ of the Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan (adopted 1999 and alteration adopted 2004) and inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework [paragraphs 17 (points 4 and 5), 56 and 64].

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The proposed sub-division of a four bedroom detached dwellinghouse into three self-contained flats and the associated increase of the hard-surfaced car parking areas to the property's front curtilage by reason of its intensified residential use character and the front curtilage being dominated by car parking, would be unreflective of the pattern of development in the surrounding area. The proposed development would therefore undermine the pleasant and spacious quality and form of this visually sensitive village approach and as a consequence, be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered to be in conflict with Policy 13 (h) 'General Sustainable Development Principles' of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy G4 (2) 'Limited development and restricted infill villages' of the Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan (adopted 1999 and alteration adopted 2004) and inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework [paragraphs 17 (points 4 and 5), 56 and 64].

POLICY G4

IN THE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AND RESTRICTED INFILL VILLAGES DEVELOPMENT WILL BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION, SUBJECT TO MORE SPECIFIC POLICIES REGARDING INDIVIDUAL SITES AREAS OR USES, IF IT:

2. WILL NOT, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR CUMULATIVELY WITH OTHER PROPOSALS, HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SIZE, FORM, CHARACTER AND SETTING OF THE VILLAGE AND ITS ENVIRONS.

LIMITED DEVELOPMENT VILLAGES ARE:

EARLS BARTON; FINEDON AND WOLLASTON.

Policy 13

Raise standards h) Be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respects - 84 -

and enhances the character of its surroundings and is in accordance with the Environmental Character of the area.

INFORMATIVE/S: 1. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the elevation, floor plan and layout drawings received on the 27th September 2012. 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.

- 85 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0443/RMM

PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application pursuant to conditions 1 and 2 of Planning Inspectorate approval Ref: APP/H2835/A/12/2168915 (Council Ref: WP/2011/0388/OM) concerning the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the approved proposed development for 65 dwellings, public open space and related infrastructure - changes to landscaping and access configuration.

LOCATION: Land rear of 1 to 73 Compton Way, Earls Barton, Northampton.

APPLICANT: Redrow Homes South Midlands Limited.

Major development referred to the Committee owing to the number of objections.

BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: This application relates to an outline consent granted by an appointed Inspector last summer – Appeal Ref: APP/H2835/A/12/2168915. At the appeal, the developer submitted a signed Unilateral Undertaking covering several heads of terms which were considered and accepted by the Inspector.

In allowing the appeal, the Inspector gave significant weight to the considerable housing shortfall in Wellingborough’s five year land supply and because there were no technical objections to the scheme from any statutory body.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: Consent is sought for the approval of the reserved matters, the subject of conditions 1 and 2 of the Inspector’s decision. The reserved matters in question are: Appearance; landscaping; layout and scale of the development. It should be noted that 65 dwellings are proposed to be built, which is consistent with the terms of the outline consent.

Although the access arrangement was considered at the outline stage and found to be satisfactory, a slight amendment to the access configuration is now proposed. In effect, this will be a variation of condition 4 of the outline consent.

WP/2012/0443/RMM 5 12 120 A 63.1m 117

10 122 117a Posts 113 126

119 128

109

103 119 132

136 127 80 78

127

135 142

66 72

74 139 89 150

145 59

160

63 49 44a

44b 168

67 71 42 44

COMPTON WAY 38

47 40

43 34 170 41 61.3m 36

30 73 32

28 18 20

22 180

27 190

El Sub Sta

8 13

14 1

THORPE ROAD 13

Track 27

Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,750 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 WP/2012/0443/RMM - Land rear of 1 to 73 Compton Way, Earls Barton ± GetMapping PLC 1999 - 86 -

Of particular relevance to this application are the following conditions contained in the Inspector’s decision:

“1) Details of the appearance, landscaping (including biodiversity enhancement), layout, and scale, (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved;

2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission;

3) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters to be approved;

4) The development hereby permitted shall be limited to no more than 65 dwellings to be constructed within the red line indicated on Drawing No. 4740- P- 03 and in accordance with the Development Framework Plan Drawing No. 4740- P-01. The vehicular access shall be constructed in accordance with Drawing No. 1555/GA/006; and

8) A landscape management plan including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules of all landscaped areas, other than small privately owned domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the occupation of development. The management plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agrees in writing by the local planning authority.”

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 5 – Green Infrastructure Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 15 – Sustainable Housing Provision Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4 – Villages Policy G6 – The Open Countryside

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Crime Prevention Design Advisor Northamptonshire Police David Lancaster - no formal objection to the planning application in principle but do have serious concerns regarding the layout and in particular the lack of surveillance over the POS to the west of the development and suggest that the following recommendations/observations are considered, which if implemented will reduce the likelihood of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour occurring. Etc...

2. Environment Agency Nene House (Pytchley Lodge Industrial Estate) Pytchley Lodge Road Kettering Northants NN15 6JQ - ... we have no comments to make.

- 87 -

3. NCC Highways -

“The latest drawings are acceptable to the Local Highway Authority, subject of course to any comments made at the S38 stage.”

4. The Wildlife Trust –

“Thank you very much indeed for kindly re-consulting The Wildlife Trust, in your letter dated 31st October 2012, concerning the above amended Reserved Matters Application, pursuant to Condition Nos. 1 and 2, for the consented-at- Appeal development scheme proposal to construct a residential development of 65 new houses on an area of land to the west of Compton Way on the south- western corner of Earls Barton.

In respect of this re-notification concerning the revised Reserved Matters Application here, I have now reviewed the following materials :

* Drawing Nos. 4740-L-01 and 4740-L-02, both in Revision A format, both dated September 2012, and both prepared by FPCR.

The Wildlife Trust notes and welcomes the amendments/additions that have now been made to these two paired Drawings in order to provide more details about the seed mixtures that are to be used to provide the depicted "Proposed Wildflower and Wet Wildflower" areas on this site, and also about a map-based depiction of just where the various elements of the proposed "Habitat Enhancement Features" are actually to be placed.

Therefore, The Wildlife Trust no has no outstanding issues or concerns in respect of this current matter, and, furthermore, we are of the view that the requirements of Condition No. 1, here below, have been adequately met by the Applicant:

"Details of the appearance, landscaping (including biodiversity enhancement), layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved."

5. Northants Ramblers –

“Thank you for consulting the Ramblers in regard to this planning application.

Following the monthly meeting of the local footpath secretaries on the 1st Nov. it was agreed the Ramblers are not in a position to offer an opinion on this development. We do however deeply regret the lost of yet more countryside.

With regard to the public right of way, TC1, which runs within the western boundary of the site we are pleased the developers have incorporated it within a green corridor which from Dwg. No. LLC917 116, appears to be approx 10m wide. The two links into the development from TC1 are welcomed although the southern link would be better positioned closer to the site boundary thereby - 88 -

creating a wider gap between the properties and walkers. The Ramblers would also ask that these new links be dedicated RoW thereby giving them greater protection against any future interference.”

6. Mr Duncan Gandy, 200 Station Road, Earls Barton, Northamptonshire, NN6 0PH. – noise, traffic, highway safety, school places, etc…

7. Richard Blackah, 128 Station Rd, Earls Barton, Northampton, Northamptonshire. NN6 0NX – traffic

8. Helen Starmer, Compton Way, Earls Barton, Northants, NN6 0PL - object

9. Rebecca Whittaker, 13 Compton Way, Earls Barton, Northampton, NN6 0PL – flooding, traffic, highway safety, school places.

10. Arthur Smith, 5 Compton Close, Earls Barton, Northampton, NN6 0PN – traffic, highway safety, infrastructure - school places, doctors etc...

11. Mrs Michelle Barker, 124 Station Road, Earls Barton, Northants, NN6 0NX – traffic, infrastructure – schools, character.

12. Mr and Mrs J Tomkins, 17 Compton Way, Earls Barton, NN6 0PL – privacy, traffic etc…

13. Marshall Line, 19 Compton Way, Earls Barton, Northamptonshire, NN6 0PL – privacy, infrastructure - schools etc…, light etc…

14. Steve and Michelle Biggs, 69 Compton Way, Earls Barton, Northants, NN6 0PN – infrastructure, parking, amenities - residential etc…

15. Linda Walden, 83 Compton Way, Earls Barton, Northampton, NN6 0DE – traffic, parking.

16. Mr and Mrs J Bromilow, address UNKNOWN – traffic, highway safety, infrastructure - school places, doctors etc…

17. Marshall Line, 19 Compton Way, Earls Barton, Northamptonshire, NN6 0PL – privacy, infrastructure - schools etc…, light etc…

18. Mr and Mrs J Tomkins, 17 Compton Way, Earls Barton, NN6 0PL – privacy, infrastructure - schools etc…, light etc…

19. Stephaine Charouneau, 192 Station Road, Earls Barton, Northants, NN6 0PH – traffic.

20. M Samwell, 11 Compton Way, Earls Barton, Northants, NN6 0PL – privacy, security, access, no means of escape, make it a pocket park instead, Redrow are all about making money.

21. Additional NCC Highway comments - - 89 -

“5.1 Subject to the construction of the ways required to give access to the proposed development in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council including Technical Audit and to an appropriate agreement under the Highways Act 1980, consideration will be given to their adoption as highway maintainable at the public expense.

5.2 The section of roadway between Compton Way and the site of the proposed development are to be suitably modified to provide a carriageway width of 5.5m, the turning head feature is to be closed up, highway rights extinguished, the area suitably reinstated and arrangements made for the land to be transferred to the adjoining occupiers.

5.3 Public Footpath TC1 passes through the site of and is affected by the proposed development. Prior to the commencement of works affecting the existing public right of way full details of any enhancement, improvement, diversion or closure shall be submitted to and gain the approval of the local planning authority.

5.4 No works affecting any existing public right of way may commence without the express written permission of the highway authority’s Rights of Way team.

5.5 The developer is reminded to apply to the local planning authority for any proposed diversion of a right of way, required to facilitate the proposed development, under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The alternative route for such a diversion must be agreed with the highway authority’s Rights of Way team and be available for public use prior to the closure of any existing route.

5.6 It has been suggested that the Public Footpath could be extended to form a connection with the proposed estate road in the vicinity of Plot 65. Any proposals in this respect must be discussed with the highway authority’s Rights of Way Team and the given advice followed.

5.7 Arrangements for the maintenance of the areas of Open Space within the development must be established by the applicant.

5.8 Planning Permission should be conditional upon the completion of measures to enhance the safe and convenient access between the site of the development and the village centre as described in Figure 7 of the Transport assessment submitted in support of Planning Application WP/2011/0388 prior to occupation of the development.

The Application Site is affected by a Public Right of Way.”

ASSESSMENT: The merits of the proposed development have been established by the appeal decision. The issues for consideration are to examine the desirability of the layout of the development, the appearance and scale of the dwellings and the landscape proposals.

- 90 -

Design and Scale: Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that at the heart of the framework is a “presumption in favour of sustainable development.” In order to achieve sustainable development, the NPPF includes a set of core planning principles which, in terms of relevance for this application, are detailed below:

• “Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; • Promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production); • Actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.”

In requiring good design, paragraph 56 indicates that “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.” Paragraph 57 continues by stating that “It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.” Paragraph 60 indicates that “planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.”

In relation to the Development Plan, Local Plan Policies G4 and G6 reflect the objective of achieving good design in the NPPF and Policy 13 of the Core Strategy. Earls Barton is designated as a ‘Limited Development Village’ in the Local Plan and Policy G4 states that development in Earls Barton “will be granted planning permission, subject to more specific policies regarding individual sites areas or uses, if it:

1) is within the village policy lines, as defined on the proposals map; 2) will not, either individually or cumulatively with other proposals, have an adverse impact on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs.”

Policy G6 ‘Open Countryside’ states that “Development in the open countryside will not be granted planning permission unless:

3) it includes landscape screening, as appropriate, and all buildings and structures are designed, sited and of materials to minimise adverse impact upon the intrinsic character of the countryside.”

The submitted plan illustrates that the 2.37 ha site can successfully accommodate 65 dwellings at an appropriate form and scale of development. The development incorporates a range and mix of dwelling types and sizes across both market and - 91 -

affordable tenures. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings at both market and affordable levels are proposed, consistent with the requirement of Core Strategy Policy 15, which seeks a balanced mixed of housing types and tenure.

Layout The layout of the proposed development differs from the illustrative plan submitted at the outline stage. Nonetheless, it seeks to improve on this. The layout has been developed to enable the siting of 65 dwellings in a safe and secure design whilst allowing freedom of movement within the site and connectivity beyond. It is distinctly permeable and fulfils the other criteria in CABE’s ‘By Design’. Provision for off-street car parking is in accordance with County-wide adopted standards.

The layout has been carefully considered to be attractive and well defined. The parcels of development could be considered to follow the block perimeter principle with strongly defined public and private realms. This limits the amount of private space that abuts the public space, such as rear garden boundaries and maximises the amount of passive surveillance, consistent with the principles in ‘’Secure By Design’’.

There is a public open space proposed to the south and west of the development to serve the needs of the residents. It is positioned to facilitate natural surveillance by the dwellings and take advantage of existing landscape features such as the hedgerow adding maturity and legitimacy to its location.

Good access is provided to all homes with parking for vehicles provided as close as practical to the homes. Pedestrian routes through the development are funnelled along the road corridors avoiding the possibility of unforeseen shortcuts creating problems in the future.

Amenity space provisions within the development are either in private ownership or part of the public open space. The private amenity spaces within rear gardens are obviously well defined and surveyed. Where private gardens abut the public domain the boundaries are usually in the form of brick built walls which can be further secured by defensive planting within the landscape scheme.

Appearance The appearance of the scheme is detailed in the accompanying Design and Access Statement. However it is considered that the proposed development has had due consideration to the existing properties adjoining the site to the east and Earls Barton in general. The principle walling material will be traditional brick in a range of complimentary red multi, red/brown colours. These will be enlivened with selected areas of off white rough cast render and tile hung panels. Roofing materials will be in a slate grey colour or a traditional red which work well with any of the walling materials proposed. These materials and combinations thereof will assist in co-ordinating the composite groups together and will compliment with the existing adjacent

Landscaping and Biodiversity Policy 5 of the Core Strategy - Green Infrastructure states that “A net gain in green infrastructure will be sought through the protection and enhancement of assets and the creation of new multi functional areas of green space that promote recreation and tourism, public access, green education, biodiversity, water management, the protection - 92 -

and enhancement of the local landscape and historic assets and mitigation of climate change, along with green economic uses and sustainable land management… Sub- regional green infrastructure corridors will connect locations of natural and historic heritage, green space, biodiversity or other environmental interest. They will be safeguarded through:

a) Not permitting development that compromises their integrity and therefore that of the overall green infrastructure framework; b) Using developer contributions to facilitate improvements to their quality and robustness; c) Investing in enhancement and restoration where the opportunities exist, and the creation of new resources where necessary.

Development will contribute towards the establishment, enhancement or ongoing management of a series of local corridors linking with the sub-regional corridors. Priorities for investment will be those areas where net gains in the range of functions can be improved, particularly those that improve access to the urban core and rural service centres and remedy local deficiencies in open space provision and quality.”

It is proposed to retain the existing hedgerow at the westerns boundary of the site. The swathe of new public open space along the southern and western boundaries offers ample space for new planting to support both the existing hedge and to reduce the impact of development on the open countryside beyond. This area of landscape space also accommodates the existing public footpath which will benefit from an improved landscape setting and formal maintenance regime.

In accordance with the description contained within the outline approval, the landscape proposals are required to demonstrate a number of measures which would enrich the biodiversity of the application site. These measures involve a number of features which would enrich the surrounding area including:-

• Areas of new wildflower seeding • Native tree planting in species such as: Oak, Ash, Field Maple & Rowan. • Fruit trees including Pear, Cherry and Crab Apple

The habitat enrichment features could include the following items:-

• 6 no. small bird nest boxes fixed to existing trees in accordance with RSPB advice • 6 no. bat boxes fitted to existing trees in accordance with Bat Conservation Trust advice • 2 no. deadwood refugia located close to hedgerows These features would typically be located within the public open space.

Alterations to the Approved Access It is proposed to make alterations to the approved access arrangement shown on the appeal drawings. It should be borne in mind that the access point from Compton Way remains the same as that shown on the appeal drawing and this remains unaffected. However, the configuration of the routes within the development has changed, and it is this which has necessitated a variation to condition 4 of the Inspector’s decision. The - 93 -

County Council Highways consider the new arrangements to be satisfactory subject to the submission and approval of construction details under the HIGHWAYS Act.

Conclusion The reserved matters proposals clearly accord with the Development Plan policies specific to design and therefore consistent with the objectives of the NPPF. The proposal provides for a mix of two, three and four bedroom dwellings and forms a logical scale of development within Earls Barton. In addition, the site also provides a mix of two, three and four bedroom affordable dwellings also addressing the housing need and demand of the area. In the circumstances, the reserved matters are satisfactory and should be given favourable consideration.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

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: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 5 - Green Infrastructure Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 15 - Sustainable Housing Provision Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4 - Villages Policy G6 - The Open Countryside. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following indicative drawings received on the date shown. These drawings are for indicative purposes only. Drawings numbered: Design Statement (2nd Issue), House Type Pack: The New Heritage Collection dated August 2012, LLC917_ 110B, 111B, 112B, 113B, 114, 115B, 116B, 4740-L-01A and 4740-L-02-A Dates Received: 28/09/2012 & 31/10/2012 3. The Crime Prevention Adviser at Northamptonshire Police has recommended the following " All doors including front and patio to conform to PAS23/PAS24 with glazing including a single pane of laminate glass minimum of 6.4mm thick " All ground floor windows and those easily accessible should meet BS7950 with single panes of laminated glazing to a minimum of 6.4mm thickness.

- 94 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

OTHER BOROUGH

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0417/OB

PROPOSAL: Full Application with EIA: Erection of 9 no. wind turbines (maximum overall tip height if 132.5m), new on-site access tracks, hard standing areas, control building, cabling and 80m anemometer mast.

LOCATION: Land to North of Burton Wold Farm, Wold Road, Burton Latimer.

APPLICANT: First Renewable Developments Limited.

The proposal is a Kettering Borough Council matter (ref: KET/2012/0556) and the application is referred to the Planning Committee as a consultee. NB: Finedon Parish Council have formally objected to the proposal.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above.

The site is located to the east of Burton Latimer and the south of Cranford St John at NGR 492295, 275599, to the north of the existing Burton Wold Wind Farm. The A14 to the north and the A6 to the west separates the site from these built areas.

The land within and surrounding the development site predominantly comprises agricultural farmland used for arable crops. The field boundaries within and around the development site largely consist of hedgerows and ditches and there are small pockets of woodland dotted through and surrounding the site. Residential properties associated with Burton Wold Farm, Wold Lodge, Burton Wold Farm and Wold Cottages, lie to the south of the proposed development site and Windmill Cottages are located to the north of the site.

The site is identified as already having planning permission (KET/2007/1033) for 7 turbines of 100m to tip height, but has not yet been constructed. Through investigation of this planning permission by the applicant, the opportunity to develop the site with more efficient turbines was identified. These turbines are, by the applicant’s admission, tailored more specifically to wind speeds at the site and could almost double the electricity output.

This drawing is the property of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd and is issued on the condition it is not reproduced, retained or disclosed to any unauthorised person, either wholly or in part without written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. Ordnance Survey material is used with the permission of The Controller of HMSO, Crown copyright 100018896. 6 Site boundary

Upper Nene Gravel Pit SPA/Ramsar 7 4 5 1 Sites of Species Scientific Interest (SSSI)

1) Twywell Hills and Holes SSSI 3 2) Cranford St John (geological) SSSI 3) Quarry End Cranford (geological) SSSI

Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) 2 8 1) South East Quarry LWS 2) Cranford St John Quarry LWS 3) Quarry End Cranford LWS 1 4) Twywell Hills and Holes LWS 5) Twywell Gullet LWS 6) Sandy Spinney Quarry LWS 7) Duck End Quarry LWS 8) Woodford House Lake LWS

Cranford Pocket Park WP/2012/0417/OB Proposed LWS no. 1049

First Renewable Developments

B u r t o n W o l d W i n d F a r m fpcr E x t e n s i o n L O C A T I O N P L A N

N Not to Scale RG August 2012 Figure 8.1 FPCR Environment and Design Ltd, Lockington Hall, Lockington, Derby, DE74 2RH t: 01509 672772 f: 01509 674565 e: [email protected] w: www.fpcr.co.uk masterplanning environmental assessment landscape design urban design ecology architecture arboriculture

J:\5000\5037\Corel\5037 Location Plan Figure 8.1.cdr - 95 -

These turbines have a larger swept area and therefore have larger blades, and a taller hub height, than those permitted under the previous scheme; thus, it was recognised that further planning permission would be required.

First Renewable is seeking planning permission to revise the approved Burton Wold Wind Farm Northern Extension (KET/2007/1033). The revised scheme comprises nine turbines up to 132.5m to tip height, together with associated infrastructure including access tracks, an anemometry mast and control building. Each turbine would consist of a tubular steel tower supporting three blades on a hub at a height of up to 80m, with an overall maximum height to blade tip of up to 132.5m. The installed capacity of the project would be a maximum of 14.4 megawatts (MW) based upon the candidate turbine, the GE 1.6/100.

This revised scheme will enable the construction of turbines which are more efficient for the wind conditions experienced at the site and would enable the production of electricity equivalent to powering 10,191 homes; this represents an additional 4,532 homes when compared to the currently approved scheme.

It is widely accepted that electricity produced from wind energy has a positive benefit compared to traditional forms of electricity generation in terms of reducing emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The actual amount of CO2 that is saved by using wind power has been a matter of debate because of changes in the energy mix and cleaner fossil fuel technologies being introduced over time. However, in any event it is predicted that Burton Wold Wind Farm Northern Extension will help prevent the release of many thousands of tonnes of CO2. It is anticipated that this proposal would see a reduction in emissions of CO2 of around 20,597 tonnes per year.

The wind farm would have an operational life of 25 years and will include site management to ensure the adequate maintenance of site facilities such as roads, boundaries, gates and signage. At the end of the operational life of the turbines the wind farm would be decommissioned.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: The planning history below has been extracted from KBC’s planning application website to provide a overview of the ‘Burton Wold’ wind farm site as a search performed this Council’s own planning register was unable to provide such a history. Consequently, the details provided below are KBC’s with the corresponding BCW planning application reference number shown in bold where existent:-

Original (existing) Burton Wold Wind Farm – • KE/03/0559 - Burton Wold Windfarm Limited - Burton Wold Farm, Burton Wold, Thrapston Road, Burton Latimer - 10 no. wind turbine generators - Approved

Northern extension to Burton Wold Wind Farm - • KET/2012/0556 (WP/2012/0417) - First Renewable Developments Ltd - Land to the North of Burton Wold Farm, Wold Road, Burton Latimer - Erection of 9 no. wind turbines (132.5m tip height) - Approved

- 96 -

• KET/2007/1033 - Burton Wold Wind Farm Extension Ltd - Burton Wold Farm, Wold Road, Burton Latimer wind farm - consisting of 7 no. wind turbines (100m tip height) - Approved

Southern extension to Burton Wold Wind Farm - • KET/2011/0506 (WP/2011/0406) - Infinergy Ltd - Glendon Farm (land at), nr Burton Latimer - Erection of 5 no. wind turbines - Approved

Wellingborough Borough Council was previously consulted (our reference: WP/2010/0531/OB) by KBC regarding an 80m high anemometer mast at this site.

NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National and Regional Policy As this application is being determined by Kettering Borough Council (KBC) then compliance with national and regional policies rests with KBC. The applicant has indicated that the proposal accords with the following policies:

The applicant has also drawn attention to the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3). On inspection of these NPSs (issued by DECC), and with reference to NPPF (paragraphs 96 to 98), it would appear that the NPSs are only relevant in the determination of renewable energy schemes which exceed 50 megawatts (for onshore wind farms) which would be determined by the IPC (Infrastructure Planning Commission), of which this scheme does not meet. However, as set out in paragraphs 13 to 19 of the Annex to the letter to Chief Planning Officers issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) on 9 November 2009, is that NPSs are not part of the Development Plan but can be regarded as a material consideration when determining a planning application.

Regional Policy East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 (replacing RSS8) – Policies 1, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, and 40.

Local Policy As the application site is outside the administrative boundary of Wellingborough then none of the Local Plan Saved Policies are applicable. Thus the relevant ‘local’ planning policies with which this consultation response report concerns itself with are detailed below.

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008: • Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles; • Policy 14 – Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: As this is an ‘other borough’ (OB) planning application, then the primacy for ensuring all relevant bodies/persons have been consulted or notified in accordance with the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended) rests with Kettering Borough Council (KBC). However, BCW, in an agreement with KBC, undertook an extensive publicity exercise where approximately 125 notification letters were posted to residents in Finedon who were deemed to be - 97 -

closest to the proposed wind farm. The notification letters posted to this group of residents informed them that whilst BCW were happy to receive their comments, they were advised to send their comments direct to KBC for consideration. In addition to the above, the following consultations were issued by BCW:-

Finedon Parish Council – object to the application on the grounds that it is unsightly and an industrialisation of the countryside which could lead to future contamination of the land in the future (response forwarded to

BCW Landscape Officer – no comments received at the time this report was written.

BCW Planning Policy and Regeneration - no comments received at the time this report was written.

Neighbours – a single response (no. 53 Burton Road, Finedon) was received at the time this report was written and the reasons cited by the author are summarised below:-

• Too close to residential properties • Too many [wind turbines] in the area already • Relocate further out into the countryside

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are:

• Compliance with policy • Other material planning matters

Compliance with policy It is considered that the principle of the development which proposes to construct a renewable energy source within the open countryside is sound and in accord with North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) development plan policy. For clarity, this conclusion is elaborated as follows.

NNCSS, Policy 13. The general sustainable development principles cited in Policy 13, whilst no specific reference is made to wind farms, would support this type of proposal in so far as it would not result in an unacceptable impact of the amenities of properties in the wider area; be constructed and operated using a minimum amount of non- renewable resources; not have an adverse impact on highway network; would not have an adverse impact on the landscape character; would not sterilise known mineral reserves; would not cause a risk to water resources or increase the risk of flooding.

NNCSS, Policy 14. Whilst the policy does not specifically refer to wind farm proposals, the concept of development meeting viable standards of resource and energy efficiency and reduction of carbon emissions can be reasonably inferred to be applicable to this proposal. Indeed, paragraph 4.14 of the NNCSS, which provides the background commentary to Policy 14, supports the notion that “It has been established that in…a generally rural area, there are some opportunities for wind energy development…it is anticipated that new wind energy development proposals…will, in principle, be considered favourably in North Northamptonshire”.

- 98 -

Other aspects of the scheme are, however, highlighted below.

Other material planning matters Other material planning matters that KBC should endeavour to explore during their consultation exercise with the relevant consultees prior to determining this application are considered to be:

• Noise; • Shadow flicker; • Land use considerations; • Landscape and Visual Impact (including the cumulative visual impact); • Ecology and Nature Conservation; • Historic Environment: • Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology: • Air Quality; • Access and Highway Safety; and • Air Traffic Control.

KBC should also take into account the comments raised by Finedon Parish Council and the solitary third party letter of objection from the resident of no. 54 Burton Road, Finedon. Whilst this Council accepts the comments made by these two parties are valid material planning considerations, as BCW is not the determining authority then it is not in the position to consider these issues in depth as these matters have relevance across the administrative boundary of KBC, and BCW would not have the ability to make an assessment of the impact of the development in these areas.

RECOMMENDATION: Raise no objections to the proposed development subject to Kettering Borough Council satisfying themselves that the above matters have been adequately assessed and appropriate mitigation measures are secured to address any adverse impacts that are identified during the determination process of the application. Kettering Borough Council are also requested to take into consideration that comments expressed by Finedon Parish Council and the resident of no. 54 Burton Road, Finedon.

- 99 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

OTHER BOROUGH/COUNTY

Planning Committee 21/11/2012

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0495/C

PROPOSAL: Application to increase the efficiency of on site operations with an additional access point, increase operating hours and extend life of the site.

LOCATION: Sewage Works, A45 Nene Valley Way, Ecton, Northampton.

APPLICANT: Mr John Gough, Mick George Limited.

NOTE: This is an application to Northamptonshire County Council. Wellingborough Borough Council is a consultee.

Applicant describes proposal as follows:-

“Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, requires that when in determining any planning application, regard is to be made to the development plan and that determination shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In the case of the continued operations at the Great Billing site the key documents to consider are the Core Strategy (adopted May 2010) Location of Waste Development (March 2011) and the Control and Management of Development document (adopted June 2011).

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and the Introductory paragraph 5 confirms that document does not contain specific waste policies since these were addressed within the National Waste Management Plan for England.

The key planning document for waste in England remains PPS10 - Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (which was not superseded by the NPPF) and establishes key principles and of particular significance is the need to drive waste management up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resource, and looking to disposal as the last option but nevertheless one which must be adequately catered for. PPS10 includes a number of other key objectives that regional and local planning bodies should address. The Government’s Waste Strategy 2007 is also of relevance as it sets the waste management context which planning policy has to have reference to. This strategy builds on the aims WP/2012/0495/C - 100 -

of the National Waste Strategy 2000 to minimise waste and encourages the recycling, composting and recovery of waste.

The Regional Plan sets a minimum target for recycling and composting of municipal solid waste and is supported by the Regional Waste Strategy (RWS), which although required to be prepared is not a statutory document. It contains principles which include working toward zero growth in waste by 2016 and exceeding Government targets for recycling and composting recovery on the basis that technology in this area is developing very quickly. The RWS was issued in January 2006 and has been used to inform the approach to the MWDF and it identifies apportionments of the waste management capacity required for the three main waste streams by sub-region for the period until 2020. The total quantities are split into categories of recycling/composting requirements, landfill diversion, re-use and disposal. The RWS assumes recycling rates for municipal waste in line with the Regional Plan.

Planning consent was originally granted in April 2006 for the change of use of land within the curtilage of the Great Billing Sewage Treatment Works to establish a waste transfer station that would handle non hazardous and inert waste. That planning consent was time limited until March 2015 and also restricted operations from Monday to Saturday inclusive between 0700 and 1800 hours. Planning consent was subsequently approved in February 2007 which additionally allowed the processing of minerals and inert waste to generate secondary aggregate and in April 2008 consent was granted for an additional building. Mick George Ltd have a program of continual improvement of operational facilities wherever practicable to do so and in case of the site at Great Billing it is proposed to handle waste in a more efficient manner by having a separate entrance and exit points from the internal access road. It is also proposed to extend the operational hours (to include Sundays and Bank Holiday) and the life of the transfer station until 2025. Furthermore consent is being sought to handle Commercial, Industrial and Household Waste.

The facility is strategically located close to the A45 and then the waste material will be reloaded into heavy commercial vehicles which will then transfer the material to the Company’s permanent offsite re-cycling facility at the Storefield Lodge Waste Management Park at Rushton. The site has now operated successfully and without complaints for several years handling a wide range of wastes which are sorted or recycled consistent with local and national waste strategies.”

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that no objection is raised.

- 101 -

21st November 2012

PLANNING COMMITTEE

The following applications dealt with under the terms of the Head of Planning and Local Development delegated powers.

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

WP/2012/0146/F Mr J Brown Barns at Springhill Farm, AC 26 Dychurch Lane, Bozeat. To convert a range of old stone barns to form 4 new residential dwellings - revised plan.

WP/2012/0147/LB Mr J Brown Barns at Springhill Farm, AC 26 Dychurch Lane, Bozeat. To convert a range of old stone barns to form 4 new residential dwellings. (Application for a Listed Building Consent) - Revised plan.

WP/2012/0275/F Mr Stephen Swan Land at Manton Water Tower, AC Anglian Water Services Knuston Spinney, Irchester. Limited Operational potable water site - Additional Noise Assessment details.

WP/2012/0279/F Mr and Mrs N Leask 52 The Drive, AC Wellingborough. Two storey side extension and rear first floor extension with new conservatory to existing house. Further Amended Plan.

WP/2012/0297/LB Mrs Jo Taylor 1 Doctors Lane, APPROVED Great Doddington. Repairs and re-pointing to wall, replacement of gate and improvements to driveway/access.

WP/2012/0319/F Mr Philip Muskin Church Farm House, 90 REFUSED Strixton Village, Strixton. Construction of access track to garden store from existing field access gate.

- 102 -

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

WP/2012/0344/O Ms Katherine Hawkes Sub Station, Eastfield Road, AC Western Power Distribution Wellingborough. Demolition of the existing brick built former sub-station and the construction of a single detached residential dwelling (Outline application with all matters reserved).

WP/2012/0348/F Mr Colin Henson 5 Buckwell Cottage. APPROVED Westfield Road, Wellingborough. In compliance with Article 4(1) Direction - Town Centre Conservation Area. 1 Replacement timber windows (mixture of sash and casement) 2 some exterior alterations to brickwork 3 some minor refurbishment.

WP/2012/0361/AV Scope Scope, 26 27 Silver Street, AC Wellingborough. 1 x non illuminated fascia and 1 x non illuminated projecting sign.

WP/2012/0362/F Ms Lynn Smith 41 and 45 Main Road, AC Grendon. Demolition of existing outbuildings and sheds attached to the side of 41 Main Road and replacement with a new single storey extension, whilst also altering the internal spaces of the cottage, to make the dwelling and extension work as one dwelling. Amended and Additional Plans. Protected Species Survey.

- 103 -

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

WP/2012/0363/FCOU Mr Michael Bevington Grendon Lakes, Main Road, AC Bevingtons Limited Grendon. Change of use from wasteland to paintball activities. Proposal to obtain full planning consent to operate paintballing activities on site. This activity has been in operation for 7 years for a maximum of 28 days per year. Proposal is for planning consent for unrestricted use from April to September, restricted use for two weekends per calendar month from October to March. Amended Application Proposal. Amended Description.

WP/2012/0364/FCOU Miss Charlene Currie 26 Knox Road, AC Wellingborough. Change of use from A2 (offices) to C2 (residential care home) involving minor alterations to the rear extension.

WP/2012/0368/F Mr T Frampton 75 Fallowfield, AC Wellingborough. First floor extension, conversion of existing garage into a habitable room and erection of porch to the front. Amended Plan.

WP/2012/0369/AV Mr Zakir Abubacar 37 Dolben Arms, AC Baba (Kettering) Limited Irthlingborough Road, Finedon. Display of 2 externally and 1 internally illuminated fascia signs.

WP/2012/0371/F Mr Derek Rance The Coppice, 33 Knuston REFUSED Spinney, Irchester. Construction of 2 no. houses in grounds.

- 104 -

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

WP/2012/0383/F Mr K Jefferson 81 Queen Street, Bozeat. AC Ground floor rear extension.

WP/2012/0384/F Mr S Coady 38 Hinwick Road, Wollaston. AC Two storey side extension and loft conversion.

WP/2012/0389/F Mrs Linda Lacey 64 Station Road, AC Earls Barton. Single storey bedroom and shower room extension.

WP/2012/0390/F Mrs Shirley Langley 49 Gipsy Lane, Irchester. AC Demolition of existing single storey extensions and erection of new single storey extension.

WP/2012/0393/F Mr Anthony Goodman 4 East Street, Irchester. APPROVED Retention of a wooden garden fence over 2 metres in height to the southern boundary of the garden = 4ft high wooden fence fixed to existing 4ft high brick wall = total height 8ft.

WP/2012/0397/F Mr P Sisman 24 Gillitts Road, AC Wellingborough. Erection of 2-storey side extension (incorporating a garage) and a single storey rear extension - amended plan.

WP/2012/0398/F Mr Lee Valeur 1 Keats Close, Earls Barton. AC Two storey side extension forming playroom, WC and utility room, with master bedroom and en-suite over.

WP/2012/0401/AV Mr Christopher Berry Hoarding, Turnells Mill Lane, AC Wellingborough Lakes A509/A45 Junction South, Wellingborough. Retention of banner attached to wooden hoarding.

- 105 -

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

WP/2012/0404/F Mrs L Moses 20 Denford Way, AC Wellingborough. Erection of 2-storey side/rear extension.

WP/2012/0406/F Mr and Mrs Ellul 29 Pearmain Avenue, AC Wellingborough. Single storey front porch and cloaks.

WP/2012/0412/AV Co-operative Food Group 6 8 Farm Road, AC Wellingborough. 1 x fascia sign externally illuminated by overhead trough light; 1 x fascia sign with Co-op logo; 1 x blank fascia panel; 1 x non- illuminated projection sign and 1 x non-illuminated post office service sign.

WP/2012/0413/LB Mr George Thompson Manor House, AC 139 Main Road, Wilby. Install heating flue.

WP/2012/0414/F Mr Clive Odell Turnell and Odell Limited, AC Turnell and Odell Limited 61 65 Sanders Road, Wellingborough. Extension to an existing light industrial workshop.

WP/2012/0420/F Mr and Mrs Reader The Old Coach House, APPROVED 60 Strixton Village, Strixton. The construction of a new single storey, pitched roof stone extension, with glass link, to The Old Coach House, Strixton.

WP/2012/0422/ELUD Mr Sayyed Shah 188 Main Road, Wilby. APPROVED Application for a certificate of Lawful Development (existing) in respect of minor revisions to two storey side extension and new porch.

WP/2012/0426/F Mrs J Mallard 26 Milton Avenue, APPROVED Wellingborough. Erect a PVCu conservatory to the rear of the property. - 106 -

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

WP/2012/0431/F Mrs Glynis Bliss 4 Barker Road, Earls Barton. AC First floor extension to form bedrooms.

WP/2012/0433/LB Mr and Mrs Reader The Old Coach House, AC 60 Strixton Village, Strixton. The construction of a new single storey, pitched roof stone extension, with glass link, to The Old Coach House, Strixton. (Application for a Listed Building Consent).

WP/2012/0436/F Mrs J Rajapalan 210 Brickhill Road, AC Wellingborough. Erection of a single storey side extension to the existing shop including raising of existing flat roof by 500mm.

WP/2012/0437/F Wireless Infrastructure Group Earls Barton Water Tower, APPROVED (For WPD) Wellingborough Road, Earls Barton. Installation of 1 no. new equipment cabin and 3 no. 600mm microwave dishes.

WP/2012/0438/F Mr and Mrs Flood 7 The Cottons, AC Wellingborough. Single storey rear extension i.e. conservatory.

WP/2012/0447/AV Rev’d Michael Hogg Wollaston Baptist Church, AC Wollaston Baptist Church 9 Hinwick Road, Wollaston. Permanent freestanding noticeboard at front of Wollaston Baptist Church.

WP/2012/0453/NMA Wellingborough Homes 1-33 Knights Court, APPROVED Wellingborough. Non-material amendment to WP/2010/0453/FM to include the alteration of upper storey clerestory lights to strings of sloped glazed skylights. Inclusion of raised lift roofs. Increase of height of smoke shaft adjacent to southern lift.

- 107 -

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

WP/2012/0467/NMA Mr Jamie Chalmers Old School Room, APPROVED Chalmers Homes Limited 15 Bell End, Wollaston. Non material amendment to WP/2011/0241/F - change of dormer design - seeking to change the dormers to gables with a pitched roof.

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, Planning and Local Development, Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough.

- 108 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 01/11/2012

Application No. Name & Address Description

FP/2011/2088/ Timeline Design and Build Limited Erection of bungalow. A 153 Main Road APPROVED Wilby

FP/2012/2690/ Mr Chipperfield Proposed demolition of garage. Harrowden Road Erection of granny annexe. Single REJECTED Orlingbury storey rear extension and erection Wellingborough of detached double garage.

FP/2012/2799/ Mr and Mrs Greenhow Removal of existing roof to Dowthorpe Hill bungalow, construction of 2 no. APPROVED C Earls Barton bedrooms and bathroom on first Wellingborough floor under new roof.

FP/2012/2878/ Mr T Harrigan Proposed dwelling. Vicarage Farm Road APPROVED Wellingborough

PS/2012/2885/ Canterbury City Council Two storey rear extension. Military Road APPROVED Canterbury - 109 -

Application No. Name & Address Description

FP/2012/2893/ Mr P Elderkin Internal alterations to form annex. Hardwick Village APPROVED Hardwick Wellingborough

PS/2012/2896/ Corby Borough Council New hall, kitchen and classroom George Street extension with ancillary facilities. APPROVED C Corby Some internal alterations to existing hall and classrooms.

FP/2012/2919/ Jelmac Properties Warehouse and ancillary office Lawford Road extension. APPROVED C Rugby

FP/2012/3083/ Mr A Nakash Extensions. Station Road APPROVED C Earls Barton

FP/2012/3084/ Mr Craig Anslow Single storey rear kitchen dining Cordon Crescent extension. APPROVED C Earls Barton Wellingborough

FP/2012/3168/ Mr M French Single storey rear garden room Neale Close extension. APPROVED Wollaston Wellingborough - 110 -

Application No. Name & Address Description

DI/2012/3169/ Mr M Finch Level access shower room. Fir Tree Grove ACCEPTED Bozeat Wellingborough

BN/2012/3171/ Mr and Mrs Smith Replace timber floor with concrete The Leys and insulation. Increase opening ACCEPTED Orlingbury from 2350 to 2600 span and 1220 Wellingborough to 1750 span. Upgrade lintels/steel beams.

FP/2012/3172/ Mrs Kerri Branson Conversion of snooker hall to East Northants Council offices. APPROVED C Cedar Drive Thrapston Northants

BN/2012/3319/ Miss L E Hough New drainage. Birchfield Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough

FP/2012/3320/ Mr A Mansi Small rear extension and some Priory Road internal alterations. APPROVED Wollaston Wellingborough

FP/2012/3321/ Dulux Decorator Centre Removal of existing blockwork Manchester Road office. Build new office and staff APPROVED Altrincham room. Fit new fire alarm. - 111 -

Application No. Name & Address Description

FP/2012/3322/ Mr and Mrs Osborn Rear extension. Cherry Avenue APPROVED Wellingborough

FP/2012/3323/ Ms L Moses Extensions. Denford Way APPROVED Wellingborough

FP/2012/3329/ Mr Robert Cleveland Alterations. Barland Building Contractors APPROVED C 18 Honey Hall Ing Huddersfield

BN/2012/3335/ Sarah McSharry Removal of wall and installation of Kilborn Close RSJ to create open kitchen-diner. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2012/3374/ Masuk Uddin Garage conversion. Irthlingborough Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2012/3383/ Mrs E J Brett-Pitt Removal of wall between kitchen 7 Gretton Court and dining room to create large ACCEPTED Wellingborough kitchen diner. Northants - 112 -

Application No. Name & Address Description

BN/2012/3384/ Stephanie Smith Removal of load bearing wall Lea Way between kitchen and dining room. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

PS/2012/3390/ London Borough of Barnet Extension at first floor together with North London Business Park internal alterations. APPROVED Oakleigh Road South London

BN/2012/3391/ Mr Steve Gent Conversion of an existing double Johnson Avenue garage. The building size will not ACCEPTED Wellingborough change in terms of shape or area. The up and over garage doors will be removed and replaced with 2 windows to match the existing house and the remainder of the front bricked up to match existing brickwork. Access to the garage will be via a single external side door from the back garden. Internally the building will be fully insulated and dry lined on the walls and ceiling. Dry lining for the walls will be fitted onto stud partitioning following installation of DPM on all walls. Electrics to be rearranged and added to by an approved electrician.

BN/2012/3393/ Mr Kurt Bredenbeck Take down/open up partition to Church Lane kitchen. Rebuild chimney stack. ACCEPTED Great Doddington French door in bedroom. Enlarge Wellingborough archway in sitting room.

FP/2012/3399/ Mr and Mrs Walsh Removal of internal load bearing Arkwright Road wall. APPROVED Irchester Wellingborough - 113 -

Application No. Name & Address Description

BN/2012/3473/ Mr David Adam Garage conversion. Henley Close ACCEPTED Wellingborough

DI/2012/3488/ Mrs Brearley Conversion of bathroom into a Minerva Way shower room. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

DI/2012/3489/ Mr Parekh Conversion of bathroom into a Tudor Way shower room. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

FP/2012/3491/ Mrs Shirley Langley Single storey rear extension. Gipsy Lane APPROVED Irchester Wellingborough

BN/2012/3492/ Mr Sanjay and Mrs A Karir Removal of one load bearing John Lea Way internal wall. Removal of one non ACCEPTED Wellingborough load bearing internal wall. Convert existing rear upvc window to upvc French doors (same opening size).

BN/2012/3493/ Mr Anthony Adamson Take down extension wall adjoining Rowan Close neighbours property and rebuild ACCEPTED Wellingborough inside boundary. Make repairs to roof above wall. - 114 -

Application No. Name & Address Description

DM/2012/3496/ Jackson Demolition Demolition two storey extension. Keysoe Road The removal of debris/materials to ACCEPTED Thurleigh landfill sites or recycling centres. Bedford

BN/2012/3509/ Mr Duncan Thorp Install wood burner in lounge and Kettering Road run twin skin flue internally up ACCEPTED Isham through house and out of roof. Wellingborough

BN/2012/3510/ Mr Graeme Worthington Create new window to front aspect Glenfield Drive from lower floor (cellar). ACCEPTED Great Doddington Wellingborough

BN/2012/3555/ Mr Ted Lowe Re roof. Valley Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough - 115 -

Received Appeals

Appeal Site Ref. No. Date Status Received

Land adj. 200 WP/2012/0139/O 16/08/2012 Statement of Case Glebe House Sent – Awaiting Sywell Road Site Visit Mears Ashby

3 Eastfield Road WP/2012/0274/F 16/08/2012 Statement of Case Wellingborough Sent – Awaiting Site Visit

High Street and WP/2012/0165/OM 02/10/2012 Statement of Case off Alfred Street sent Irchester

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 October 2012 by R High BA MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 30 October 2012

Appeal Ref: APP/H2835/D/12/2180336 3 Orlingbury Road, Little Harrowden, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN9 5BH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Simon Lewis against the decision of Wellingborough Borough Council. • The application Ref WP/2012/0222/F was refused by notice dated 6 June 2012. • The development proposed is detached single garage/garden store.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Main issue

2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Reasons

3. 3 Orlingbury Road is one of a pair of semi-detached houses in a prominent position on one corner of a roundabout. The houses stand at 45° to Orlingbury Road and Hardwick Road, set well back from the road and have quite large, open front gardens which provide a significant sense of space at the road junction. The front boundary to No.3 is a low brick wall with pillars and railings above. The attached dwelling, No.1, has a hedge about 1.5m high along most of the frontage but there is a short section of hedge about 2-3m high close to the boundary with the appeal site. A double garage which stood to the side of the house has been converted to a granny annex.

4. The proposed garage/garden store would be built close to both the boundary with the attached house and the front boundary. It would be a long narrow building aligned parallel to the side boundary, with its entrance facing towards the house, and would occupy rather more than one third of the length of the boundary in front of the houses. It would be a simple brick and tiled structure with a shallow pitched roof.

5. The building would be a very prominent feature in views on the approach to the roundabout along Orlingbury Road from the north-west and would also be prominent in views across the front garden of No.1 from Hardwick Road. The higher section of hedge on the boundary of the neighbouring property would partly screen it when viewed from the approach to the roundabout from the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decisions APP/H2835/D/12/2180336

south-east along Wellingborough Road but it would be prominent in front of the house when viewed from Main Street.

6. The building would be of a simple design with appropriate materials. However, good design relates to the relationship of the building with its setting as well as the form of the building itself. The prominence of the building, together with its length and featureless character, would make it intrusive in the street scene and conflict with the generally open and spacious character of the development on Orlingbury Road and around the road junction. The oblique alignment of the pair of semi-detached houses with long front gardens is a significant component of this spaciousness and the garage would directly conflict with this arrangement.

7. I accept that the garage/workshop would be in the same position as that occupied by a mobile home both in the photographs submitted by the appellant and at the time of my visit. The mobile home is in my judgement similarly intrusive, but is a less permanent feature than the proposed building would be.

8. I therefore conclude that the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would thus be contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008, which requires development to be of a high standard of design and to respect or improve the existing character of the area.

9. I accept that one element of sustainable development relates to meeting the needs of residents and that, given the shape of the site and the conversion of the former garage to a granny annex, any garage would have to be in front of the dwelling. However, while a garage may be desirable, I do not accept that the need for a garage should override the harm I have found and there is adequate off street parking in this location. The National Planning Policy Framework refers to the importance of high quality design as one of its core principles in paragraph 17 and to the appropriateness of promoting or reinforcing local distinctiveness in paragraph 60.

10. I have considered all the other matters that have been raised and conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Richard High

INSPECTOR