April 2010 at 7.00 Pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House INDEX

Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Committee Wednesday 14th April 2010 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

INDEX

Page No. SITE VIEWING GROUP

WP/2010/0046/F - Land adjacent 7 and rear of 5 Kettering Road, Isham. 1 WP/2010/0054/RMM - 55-61 Eastfield Road and rear of 209 Mill Road, 13 Wellingborough.

DISTRICT

WP/2009/0453/FM - Factory premises 40 and Orchard Court, Orchard Road, Finedon. 63 WP/2009/0508/TX - 32 Thrift Street, Irchester. 75 WP/2010/0039/RVC - Unit 4 Castlefields Retail Park, 22 London Road, Wellingborough. 85 WP/2010/0104/C - Units 15-21 Links Road, Wellingborough. 93

FOR INFORMATION

WP/2009/0397/C - White Plant, 301 Grendon Road, Earls Barton. 104

- 1 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 13th April 2010 at 10.20 a.m.)

Planning Committee 14/04/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0046/F

PROPOSAL: Amendment to planning permission ref. WP/2008/0265/F involving changes to the footprint and the elevation - Further Amended Drawings including: Omission of west facing gable window and replacement with a south facing dormer and the repositioning of the west wing a further 1.5m away from the boundary.

LOCATION: Land adjacent 7 and rear of 5 Kettering Road, Isham, Kettering.

APPLICANT: Mr Lee Sheldon.

This application appears before the Planning Committee due to 4 third party objections and is to be site viewed because of a request by Isham Parish Council who have concerns with respect to the drainage of the site as well as concerns with respect to overdevelopment and overlooking.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The application site is located within the Village boundary of Isham and is accessed via a non-metalled track off of Kettering Road. The site is bordered on the east by the grounds to the Monk and Minstrel Public House, to the south by land considered reminiscent of a paddock. To the north is the established dormer bungalow 7 Kettering Road, with the proposed property entrance to the front and to the west is the dwelling; 7C Kettering Road. The site slopes gradually from west to east with a more pronounced slope to the east boundary.

The site currently enjoys outline and subsequent full planning approval; therefore the principle of development has been established. This application is as above and involves alteration to the footprint with a slight shift as well as an increase of approximately 25sqm as well as the insertion of a dormer window to the south elevation.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2007/0066/O Proposed house - approved with conditions by the Regulatory Committee following a site visit. 2

WP/2010/0046/F 488300 488500

2 274200 4 274200

B 74.1m

2 1

2 3

2 LB 0 E ( 1 S o 8 1 t CLO Lewis REL

House OR S 5

1 6 9 14

5 1 12 1

a 9 5

741 1 8 e 741 c la P 4 6 n to The g 3 n a Homestead

0 L a

9 B

1 7

72.5m 4 b m

7 ar n F to am ng Ish E a of L C ry ima Pr ol

Sc ( @ 2 Monk & Minstrel 2 a (PH)

A 7 5 0 The Rectory 9 15 740 740 A The 11 5 1 Rectory 0 9 E TR 3 S The Old CH B UR Rectory KET H C S

a 72.9m t 1 Rectory Ch P Cottage T et E ur er R c 's h IN G k (

Recreation 1 R @ O Ground Dovecote AD 1 House Dovecote

(

273900 1a TCB 273900

488300 884 488500

Scale 1:1250 Manor Farm House

74.3m ( GP - 2 -

WP/2007/0074/F Refurbishment of existing house and new double garage, refurbishment also provides two new bedrooms and two new bathrooms - approved with conditions. WP/2008/0265/F New 1½ storey house on land being part of the garden of no. 7 Kettering Road, Isham – approved by committee following a site visit.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy (CSS): 13 Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan Policy: G4 Supplementary Planning Guidance: II, IV & V National Guidance: PPS 1 & PPS 3

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Isham PC -

“The Parish Council request a site visit. We are concerned about the increased size of the property and the privacy of the next property. We are also concerned about the surface drainage problems, of which the Borough Council are aware (Paul Thompson and Peter Bone MP are both involved).”

2. NCC - Public Rights of Way Officer -

“Northamptonshire County Council Rights of Way Service has no objections in principle to make with regards to the above planning application as it does not affect a Public Right of Way. There is a Public Right of Way, Footpath TM4 but is not affected by this application, please find an extract from the definitive map (2005).

I would like to add, we note the lack of provision of secure cycle parking for the development. Providing enough convenient and secure cycle parking at people's homes and other locations for both residents and visitors is critical to increasing the use of cycles and achieving the 20% modal shift target published in the Local Transport Plan 2006/7 - 2010/11. Please refer to the SPG on Parking for the recommended standard level of cycle parking provision for new properties.”

3. WBC - Infrastructure Manager -

“As you may be aware there have been problems concerning the flooding of properties within Isham village, by both foul and surface water. The flooding has been caused by excess overland water running off the land and flowing down the access track to the proposed site and then overloading the foul/surface water systems in the village.

While a scheme has been proposed to remedy this flooding problem, the proposed development should ensure that adequate control of surface water runoff from the roofs and drive and garden area is undertaken to ensure that runoff does not exacerbate the existing overland flows. Suitable soakaway and surface water retention should be provided on site and surface run off should be prevented from flowing onto the access track from the driveway of the proposed - 3 -

new dwelling. A flood risk analysis of the site would identify the possible problems to enable solutions to be included in the design”.

4. Third Parties -

Isham Playing Fields Association –

“It was exactly three years ago that the Association was asked for its comments on two Planning Applications numbered with pre-fixes WP/2007 regarding these sites but I cannot recall being asked for comment on what appears to be a later detailed application WP/098/0285/F, which is about to be amended.

However, the Association, must continue to emphasize that the additional permitted use of additional vehicles up and down this restricted access from additional houses is not welcomed and appears ill-conceived. Having now had the opportunity to peruse the latest application at your Planning Department, the Association is disappointed that the application does not mention the considerable ambulant access that is generated up and down this shared access by the important fact that our village footpath TM14, designated under the Northamptonshire County Council's Rights of Way Definitive Map goes from the A509 highway, up this access and over O.S. 54, a route used by both parents and schoolchildren alike.

You yourself are aware, I am sure, of two other separate parties have authorised access to this access route.

The application states that the existing access is suitable to accommodate another dwelling and that the shared private access will be maintained jointly by the owners (the existing four and the new one).

This needs to be enforced as up until lately no real improvement has been undertaken since the Association's last letter dated 22nd February 2007, in which your. own Council's Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Report was quoted (copy enclosed for your retention).

There appears no reason other than inconvenience to the existing properties no. 7 and 7C that a change should be allowed from one storey to one and a half storey building. The views of those need to be taken into account.

The application states the rear garden backs on to open countryside, meaning presumably the Old Rectory Paddock and the Glebe Recreation Site. The proposed boundary fence stated as " of 1.2m high post and rail" is Viewed as inadequate in the circumstances, and needs to be higher and more protective.

Your Borough Council is involved in urgent detailed discussions with other agencies to rectify the deficiencies in the sewerage and drainage of the A509 area at the bottom of the access road in particular. It would be foolhardy if extra volume from a new house on this slope was permitted until these problems have been rectified.

- 4 -

The Association has no comment to make regarding the actual buildings outlined in the above listed Planning Applications, but would point out that they would both appear to be accessed from a private gravelled lane that is already shared by three other substantial properties. The state of this access has given some concern in the past with gravel stones seeping onto the pavement crossing and even on to the A509.

This lane is also the route of the first part of Right of Way TM4 and at present is the only authorised ambulant access for children, parents and dog walkers to get to the Association's Glebe Recreation Site. This part of the access has been criticised in a November 2004 Access Audit under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as the following extract points out:-

Location Description Recommendation Assessed Approach The first section comprising the Outside the control of Level 4 tract has a compacted loose the owner. gravel surface which is uneven Ideally a hard surface and contains some potholes. should be provided. The gradient on the tract I was Level 5 measured at 1:11:75 (8.5%) in one part. Too steep for wheelchair users.

The same Audit Report also acknowledges that as the ownership of this area is outside the control of the Association, we ourselves cannot improve the situation.”

1b Kettering Road, Isham

“I object to the new set of plans for the following reasons.

1) The plot is too small for such a large house and is not in keeping with the surrounding houses.

2) One of the conditions of the original planning permission no. WP/2008/0265/F (no. 3) was that the boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwelling is occupied and include a fence of at least 1.8m in height on the southern boundary. This new application shows a smaller fence.

3) The two windows to the roof light windows facing the south side have been changed to a gable window although this window has been moved nearer to the southern boundary. The original roof lights give sufficient light for a bedroom.

I do feel that we are going over the same grounds we went over two years ago when the original application was submitted. Although the owner of the land has changed the agents acting on behalf of both applicants have not. If these - 5 -

conditions were imposed two years ago, I can not understand why they should be removed now.”

The Old Rectory, Kettering Road, Isham (associated with the ‘Paddock’ adjacent) -

“I am writing this letter in objection to the recently submitted amended drawings and to object to statements made by the agent.

1 - The agent recently made statements implying that 1st floor windows on the south elevation overlook 'Paddock land' so will not be detrimental to the neighbours. This statement is inaccurate and misleading. The land on the South elevation is NOT paddock land but is the garden to The Old Rectory, and as I have stated on numerous occasions I object to any windows which directly look into my garden. The position of windows should give an occupier a view over their own garden not directly over a neighbours garden. My children play in the garden and I will not allow a house to be built which gives the occupiers such a blatant view over my garden. This scheme was not allowed on the previous application and should not be allowed on this application.

2 - I am getting annoyed that the agent keeps re-submitting schemes that have previously been rejected in the hope that the planning officer has changed his mind, or in the hope that it is overlooked. Conditions were imposed on the previous application which this application is trying to change which is not acceptable.

3 - This application states that a 1.2m post and rail fence will be constructed on the south elevation. The original decision notice included a condition that a 1.8 meter fence is constructed. Why is the agent trying to change this?”

7 Kettering Road, Isham -

“1. When we bought our property in August 2008 we were told by the vendors who also owned the land, that planning for a bungalow had been approved on the said land. We since looked into the plans to find that it was actually a two storey dwelling, although we were very unhappy we settled at the fact that we had no windows overlooking our privacy. With these proposed amendments we would now have the kitchen windows of no. 5 looking straight into the ground floor bedrooms of our 5 year old daughter and 1 year old son, which we find totally unacceptable

2. This is the second time that the plans for this property have tried to be changed, and they are now trying to make them considerably larger than the previous approval. The result would be that the property would sit right on top of our property blocking both natural and sunlight into 3 of our bedroom windows which have to date enjoyed views of open country side.

3. Looking at the plans it appears to be a large plot crammed onto a little piece of land resulting in over development of the plot.

- 6 -

4. The new window on the gable end clearly overlooks our garden disturbing our privacy the 45% line does not show the true reflection as standing at any window you have a wider view than 45%

5. Referring to their Design statement point 4. Any change in roof light height does not have an impact on our privacy. The roof light on the approved plans is only for ventilation and light not for looking out of.

6. Referring to their Design statement point 5. The footprint of the dwelling has been increased by a considerably large size resulting in the loss of natural and sunlight into 3 windows of our property.

7. The shared access driveway will not withstand any construction traffic using it on a daily basis, with the trees and bushes and the ground itself this will cause damage to our local environment. Furthermore there is no room for traffic to turn round at the top of the drive resulting in people using our drive to turn causing us more disruption and inconvenience.

Reading through the summary they have submitted I would like to bring to your attention the following:

1. Point 3 and 5. There is only 1 house in the area which stands taller and no. 5 will be overlooking both our self and no. 7C with these new plans. Our property was renovated when it was derelict, yes it was converted from a bungalow to a dorma over two floors but we do not over look any other property.

2. Point 6, It is clear that the proposed changes in this application DO significantly alter the general premise of the approved scheme. The changes do not reduce the amount of privacy we lose they in fact increase the issue considerably.”

7C Kettering Road, Isham -

“1) The initial application WP/2008/0265, which was for a dormer bungalow with a first storey containing west facing vertical full windows in the roof and a west facing elevation containing a first storey full vertical window.

The only recorded objection to this plan was two letters from us dated 30/5/2008. Our objection was based on the placement of the west facing windows, which remove all privacy to our entire rear garden and rear rooms, due to the closeness of the proposed property footprint to our property and the height of the windows.

Our objections were considered as justifiable and subsequently the application was amended to completely remove the window from the first story west elevation and the west facing full roof windows were changed to an angled Velux roof type. A first storey full window was moved to face south facia and the roof line was lowered.

Whilst not perfect the outcome was an acceptable compromise to us. - 7 -

2) This amendment decision was reached less than two years ago. Since then there have been no physical changes to any boundaries or existing properties in the direct location; therefore all the same objections from our first letter remain valid and current.

As the new planning application effectively reverts back to the original rejected plan that incorporates full west facing first story windows, we are resubmitting our original objection letter. The objections in this letter were considered sufficient to reject the original plans and as a result the application was amended and are therefore now fully relevant to the latest application.

3) It is a fact that our objections were previously upheld regarding privacy, rural aspects, precedents of previous local planning decisions and the negative financial impact on our property and the planning was amended to reflect this. Therefore we do not understand how there can now be any approval of what is essentially a return to the original rejected planning. Surely the precedent has already been set for the west facing first floor windows on this building and if anything the new plan is now even more objectionable to us as the property footprint has been turned to face our rear elevation even more. There are site line angles drawn on the application plan in an attempt to justify acceptable loss of privacy to no. 7 but it omits to demonstrate that it affords a direct view of my entire rear garden, into my rear windows and our teenage daughter’s bedroom.

4) The new owner (Mr Sheldon) has purchased the land in recent months. He would have been fully aware of the previously submitted and amended planning and it is certain that the price paid would have reflected the historical planning attempts and the subsequent amendments that have resulted in the current approved planning that is in place.

With this in mind the new owners knew exactly what they were purchasing so rejection of the new plans and adherence to the amended first storey window plan will not adversely affect them in terms of their expectations of what they have purchased or their investment they have made in it.

It will however have a serious adverse effect on us the existing residents in terms of privacy and value as previously detailed in our original objections to WP/2008/0265.

5) The property most affected by this new plan being approved is ourselves (7C). If the west facing first storey full windows are approved, the entire rear of my property will be overlooked from very close proximity (12 meters building to building). As stated in the original objection this totally destroys our privacy, and ruins our rural aspect, the prime elements that we paid a premium for when we purchased our property

6) The agent has responded to the objection letter from the Old Rectory proposing amendments to the south facing first storey windows to recognise the invasion of privacy of their 120 meter plus garden and distant house, so how can - 8 -

it be acceptable to approve a design to totally overlook the entire rear of my property with only 12 meters building to building.

We totally refute the statement by the planning agent that the proposed west facing first floor windows would not look into any neighbouring window as they will look in to 8 of ours.

There is absolutely no reference to the existence or position of my property other than a minor mention of an existing large house which is used in a context to justify their new build plan. The fact is that our property is a large two storey house but its build was subject to planning that does not overlook in any way existing surrounding properties. There is a satellite picture that has been submitted in the design statement in an attempt to demonstrate the limited loss of privacy to the adjoining properties. This picture is very old and conveniently does not show our property, maybe it should be updated to include our property and demonstrate the real impact on us.

7) In the new design and access statement letter there has been no consideration at all of the impact on our property which is fairly ironic considering it was this impact and our objection to it that necessitated the previous approval amendment to the west facing first floor windows and roof height.

8) We take exception to the attempted justification for the reinstatement of the proposed first floor west facing windows by the planning agent in that, “upstairs windows looking into rear of gardens is a standard occurrence in all properties in urban areas” ……. as highlighted in our 2008 objection letter, and as any site visit would currently confirm, this is most definitely not URBAN … it is a RURAL setting. Builds that overlook from upstairs are fully accepted in urban housing estates and as a purchaser you are fully aware of what you are buying into. You pay a premium for a rural setting to avoid this and that is exactly what we and our neighbours paid for and invested in. All surrounding properties of duplex bungalow type have been built with Velux roof windows on elevations where they oppose neighbouring property. The existing no. 7 was also not permitted to have west facing roof level windows during the planning process to protect our privacy.

The permitting of the proposed west facing first floor windows is an urban style standard, it is out of keeping with the surrounding properties and will undermine the whole existence of the rural setting.

In conclusion we do not see any justification for the alteration from the amended and approved WP/2008/0265 to revert back to plans that incorporate the originally rejected west facing first floor window positioning.

We would ask that the same considerations and conclusions that were made to the previous planning of WP/2008/0265 are applied to the new plans and that the west facing full roof windows are amended back to angled Velux type and the full window in the first floor of the west facia is removed and replaced with Velux windows in that elevations roof line.

- 9 -

In our opinion this would have a reduced effect on the loss of everyone’s privacy than the in the current application design and would not affect the rectory any differently from the current amendments within the WP/2008/0265 approval.”

NOTE: In response to the above third party objections a number of amendments have been made to the proposal they include the omission of the first floor window to the west facing gable and was the subject of much of 7C’s objections and its replacement with a dormer to the south elevation which will effectively overlook west side of the paddock which is the subject of the primary objection by The Old Rectory. In addition the response to the concerns of 7 Kettering Road was to move the dwelling a further 1.5m from the boundary.

ASSESSMENT: Note: The site enjoys planning permission for a slightly lesser scheme therefore the assessment will focus on those alterations and the additional impacts they may have towards neighbours.

Principle of Development The site is located within the confines of the village boundary of Isham, which is designated as a restricted infill Village. The proposed property is considered to be a site for infilling and is not considered to be a form of tandem development as a separate access is proposed. The site therefore is appropriate for development and any impact upon neighbouring property is to be determined in any reserved matters applications. The application is therefore in accordance with Policy G4 of the Local Plan and has been firmly established with the previous planning approvals.

Effect upon Neighbour’s Amenities It is important to be mindful of the existing dwelling on the site; no. 7 Kettering Road. Due to the development being located forwards of no. 7 there are no loss of light issues with regard the rear windows. There are a number of windows to the side elevation, although loss of light to side windows are tolerated to a degree and given the positioning and orientation of the proposed dwelling this reduces any loss of light, especially to the habitable bedrooms in the first floor. There are no windows in the northern/side elevation other than above the garage, which overlooks the access only, there will be no likelihood of overlooking towards the side windows of no. 7 and any loss of light will be no more than from the previous approved property.

With respect to the property to the rear elevation; 7C Kettering Road due to the separation distances involved (16m) together with the extremely obtuse angle to the rear elevation there is no prospect of detrimental loss of light or overbearing to rear windows. In the facing rear/west elevation to the proposed dwelling there are no first floor windows proposed other than back of the gable; due to the proximity and orientation of the gable end any views from this west facing window will be directly to the west or towards the south-west and the Recreation Ground therefore any overlooking towards the rear windows of no. 7C would be unlikely especially considering the separation distances involved.

Finally, although there are no properties to the south to impact; due to the emotive objection with regarding the overlooking of the ‘Paddock’ to the south from the proposed south facing dormer it is considered prudent to discuss. It is not considered - 10 - an option to justify conditioning a sealed window and/or obscuration of the glaze as it would be the only window serving a habitable bedroom, therefore should it be considered that the position of the window represents an unacceptable loss of privacy to the ‘Paddock’ then the application should be refused. Much will depend on the perceived nature of the Paddock. Ordinarily windows overlooking the most private rear space to a residential property would be resisted. Following an external inspection of the area it does appear to have the characteristics of a Paddock and not of garden curtilage, there has been no change of use application submitted for the Paddock to become garden curtilage. The Old Rectory has a clearly defined rear garden space, which will not be overlooked, whilst access to the ‘Paddock’ may be possible there does not appear to be a defined gate from the garden land. In addition the only boundary treatment to the paddock are strands of barbed wire therefore indicating that overlooking from the adjacent pub garden, the garden subject of the planning application and the side windows to no. 7 Kettering Road is not perceived to be a concern. It is therefore considered that the Paddock is not considered to be private garden space associated with The Old Rectory and therefore overlooking of this space is not considered detrimental to the enjoyment of The Old Rectory. In any event due to the position of a south facing gable the view from the proposed window will be restricted immediately to the south and the south-west towards the Recreation Ground and therefore away from the rear gardens of the properties fronting Kettering Road.

Amenity Space The original application was granted approval in accordance with SPG VIII, which is now a superseded policy document, which indicated that 10.5m of garden length was appropriate, 14.5m was provided. The increase is less than 30sqm, which could have been built under permitted development rights should the property have been constructed. The increase to the loss of garden land associated with the property is therefore considered slight and would not result in overdevelopment.

Character and Setting of Locality The neighbouring properties are of no special architectural significance with 7C the property to the rear/west of the site being constructed relatively recently and recent alterations to no. 7. There are a number of trees screening the existing property and the proposed from the Monk and Minstrel Public House, it is considered that with appropriate screening and landscape conditioning and the height if the building similar to no. 7 (ensured via conditions) the character and setting will remain unaltered. The concerns received with respect to the type of materials used and boundary treatments will be controlled by conditioning. No objections forthcoming from the Conservation and Design Officer.

Highway Implications There have been no objections raised by NCC highways or by there Rights of Way Officer so long as the right of way remains clear and any damage is made good. The access road is unmade and currently serves 4 dwellings; the access to the highway remains unaltered. It is therefore considered that the use of the road as an access will not be more detrimentally affected than the current situation. The development includes sufficient parking provision for 4/5 vehicles and the ability to be able to access and exit the site in a forward gear, although the parking provision is far in excess of the maximum requirement (2 for a single dwelling) due to there being little prospect of on- street parking the level of provision over and above the requirement is considered - 11 -

acceptable in this instance. Therefore with the inclusion of appropriate conditions the safety and convenience of the highway is maintained at present levels.

Drainage Issues The increase to the surface area of the proposed property has only marginally increased from the previous approval therefore any additional overland flow would only be negligible when compared to the previous scheme it would therefore be unreasonable to include such a condition that requires the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) given that a scheme with only a marginally reduced floor area could be constructed without such an FRA being submitted.

Other Considerations Having consulted Supplementary Planning Guidance IV: Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire there are no crime implications with regard the property and the principles of non-discrimination have been followed through-out. The biodiversity of the area remains unaltered with no objections received from the landscape officer.

Response to Representations The concerns as raised by the neighbours and also the Parish Council and the Infrastructure Manager have been discussed above and those specific concerns regarding the height if the boundary fence with the Paddock are addressed via conditioning as seen below.

Summary Having taken into account the above it is considered that the application does not harm the amenities of neighbouring dwellings or their associated garden land and does not detrimentally impact on the character and appearance of the neighbouring dwelling or the area and is therefore recommended for approval in accordance with the above planning documents, subject to appropriate conditioning.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. 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. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwelling is occupied or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and include a fence of at least 1.8m in height on the southern boundary. 4. No development shall take place until plans showing existing ground levels and proposed ground floor slab levels of the proposed dwelling in relation to the level of the neighbouring property have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with - 12 -

the approved details. 5. There shall be no additional windows or opening inserted above ground level in any elevation other than those agreed without the written consent of the local planning authority. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development (Amended) Order 2008 (or any other Order revoking or re-enacting this Order) no buildings, extensions, or alterations permitted by Classes B and C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 in the 2008 Order shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. 7. Footpath TM 4 registered on the Definitive Map (2005) must be kept clear, unobstructed, safe for users, and no structures or material placed on the right of way. There must be no interference or damage to the surface of the right of way as a result of the development and any damage to the surface of the path must be made good by the applicant, specifications for any repair or surfacing work must be approved by this office. 8. Full details of the drainage arrangements for the scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing before the commencement of the development.

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 amenity and a neighbours privacy. 4. In the interests of visual amenity. 5. In the interests of neighbours amenity. 6. To allow the local planning authority the opportunity to control future development having regard to the nature of the site. 7. In the interests of a public right of way. 8. To ensure that the site is satisfactorily drained.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 13th April 2010 at 11.00 a.m.)

Planning Committee 14/04/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0054/RMM

PROPOSAL: Details of the design and external appearance; in connection with Phase 1 pursuant to condition 1 of approved outline planning permission WP/2008/0050/OEIA.

LOCATION: 55-61 Eastfield Road and rear of 209 Mill Road, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Ben Thorington, Barratt Northampton.

The application comes before the Planning Committee for determination due to 4 letters of objection being received and is to be site viewed as the Officers felt it would enable the Planning Committee to make a more informed judgement as to the merits of the proposal.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site is 1.25km north east of Wellingborough town centre situated behind the residential properties lining Eastfield Road to the west and a mix of uses along Mill Road to the south, and allotments and industrial units to the north. The proposal is a phase 1 development of a larger mixed use development that enjoys outline planning permission under WP/2008/0050/OEIA with the further phases located immediately to the east and through compass points to the north, the development is known as Eastfield Urban Quarter (EUQ) and the planning approval is attached to this report for information purposes.

The development will involve the demolition of various derelict and obsolete industrial buildings that are generally considered to blight the area. The proposal will involve the creation of 2 accesses from the existing road system which will serve the development as well as the future phases. The primary access is located off Eastfield Road, which serves as an eastern by-pass to the Town, and makes use of an existing vehicular access between the existing properties; 53 and 63 Eastfield Road and will also involve the construction of 2 semi-detached two storey dwellings either side of the access fronting Eastfield Road. The second access is to the south of the site and is described as a secondary access point with access onto the unclassified: Mill Road that feeds into the Eastfield and Elsden Road junction. The development consists of a total of 80 residential units with the break-down as follows:

0 Allotment Gardens 2

R O 7 A 4 D

4 9 4

41 Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 23/03/2010

900 901 902

V 7 V 268800 268800 U n d 7 a

2 S V b Su 4 @ 9 Allotment V

Gardens 9 2

r 8 T a ra ck c k

E A S T F IEL

D R Pond O A D

1 9 B Industrial Estate

76.8m

2 2

Allotment Gardens

2 9 687 D 687

3 Allotment Gardens 5

75.0m 6 D 3

4 D 5

5 D 3

0 @ 5 D y Bd ED CF Ambron House

es Court s D n 686 686 e d r a E G

A t n S e

T m

t 6 o F l D 5 l I A E

8 D 5

D D

6 2

6 6

3 D | 53 AD S RO LEY 72.5m

41 B 4 D 6 29

D 8 E D 2 Y

OA 2 R S YS

L G

1 D 8 9 A 7 1 3 R

N |

D E

l S 6 S S

u t

a b

4 a

T R N

O O

A R

D 8 Tank T

O 7

H Industrial Estate

11 8 T

1 685 1 685

8 3 1 4 8 1

2 Industrial Estate 4

9 S

1 1 4 N

4 E

4 D 7 @

7 AR

1 9

G 1 YS ( E 2

L 9 D 8 V

1 3

1 1

9 D 9 T El A Sub S L

M 2 B 0 5 1 1 4 O ta E S 2 b . L T u L S 5 T E 6

O R P

O N M

1 2 D A R

O D

1 A 0 ( D N O N 1 1 R

O 8

5 E TH

Scrap Yard 0 R 1 A T 110 @ H S T D F

I E ( 1

L 0

9 D

R O D 684 A 684

9 0

1 1 0 4

1 0 120 5

7 2

4 4

0 63.1m 1

6 B B

69.8m 0

0 H 9

1 1 21

I 1 2

G 9 4 D 4 HF OA

L R

0 I 1 IL

1 E 21 M 1 2

L 4 D ( 2 RO 9 @ 0 0 A 13 9 C 20 64.3m

D F B

3 8

3 2 a 20

0 29

E 3 1 D 1

B 1

d 2

7 1

7 5

9 9 2

1 2 2 3 6

1 3 a 1 1 9 8

3 4 4

3 193

1 LB

1 ( 6 Garage 187

Garage h

9 7

a 6 4

M 179

( 0

2 T 1 V O

N 1 68.3m 1

2 Communication Mast R 7 7 7 1

5 5 1

O a 3

AD B 43 5 1 7 9 Works V 1 6 N O F

W R T H 3

683 5 1 3 683 16 0

V V 1 1

1 9 3 El 0

5 Hindu Centre C

Sub 3 3 G F 16 8 2 3 2 Sta h 2 a 1

r 3 3 V @ a V 2 n

1 a 59 F Works 3

1 l

N 1 a t 8 @

o C ( 4 t

i s (

v D 4 2 W

a A 2 1 2 0 6 8

s 5 P O 5 t 1 r R 1 72 o i 13 m V H

7 P T 5 r o R la O s c e W e IT

F H 2 1

6 W 0 W 7 V 8 8 1

3 F 3 2

8 9

a 8 9

4 c 1 t 1 o

1 1 2

V 7 1 4

14 6

V 16 6

8 6 2

6 4 0

0 Hindu 1

6 0

1 0 70.9m 7

Community Centre 3 Garage B 6

31 4

9 1

1 6

1 5 6 2 8

3 7 23 5

D 9 LC 4 Playground A 3 a O

5 3

1 T

3 a 2 1 O

1 B 5 1 0 13 D Peerless House A L 8 O 8 N R A Car Park TO T

9 P

4 M C 1 O

R C 4

5 3 7 9 8 8

11 2 7 268200 VI 6 268200 VI 15 B 5 5 3

AN 9

0 . o

1 y 7

1 r

2 o 5 8 t m 6 c 9 8 a

489900 490300

R 1 F 4

O A M 2

900 901 7 902 Factory D E 6

4 O

1 6 5 1

6 N 1 6

t 7 o R 6 O 7

AD 3

11 3 Scale 1:2500 25

3 E

0 6 L

70 9 8 S t

1 13 o D 7 E 5

0 N

1 2 2

R 1 D 6

T O OA 6 9

UR Y R 3

O 5 A R L C 3 BU 3 6 S

EL D LI

W 4 A

S 1

ROM 155 4 C 3

2 2

2 7

7 7 1

3 6 1 2 Wellingborough rks Wo 4

137 1

9 Railway Station 4 - 14 -

• 2 bed houses 20 • 3 bed town houses 53 • 4 bed terraced and detached houses 7

Of the 80 proposed 10% (8 units) will be affordable and are to be pepperpotted throughout the site. This phase 1 development is currently ear-marked for an allocation of Kickstart funding by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). This allocation is designed to secure the early start on site through the allocation of funding towards site clearance and the implementation of infrastructure required to facilitate the provision of housing.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Since 1948 the site has been divided in a piecemeal fashion and there have been significant industrial developments to the south and west of the site. There have been several major planning applications approved over the last sixteen years which were predominately for B1(b), B1(c) and B2 industrial uses.

In December 2005, outline planning application WP/2006/0001/O was submitted as the Eastfield Urban Quarter Masterplan. This previous application remains undetermined at present and comprises a total area of 16.25 hectares, which includes the site area of planning application WP/2008/0050/OEIA (granted planning permission) together with additional land to the north. A copy of the outline planning approval is attached.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy: Planning Policy Statement 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development. Planning Policy Statement 3 - Housing Planning Policy Guidance 4 - Economic Growth Planning Policy Statement 9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Planning Policy Statement 10 - Planning for Sustainable Waste Management Planning Policy Guidance 13 - Transport Planning Policy Guidance 14 - Development on Unstable Land Planning Policy Guidance 17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation Planning Policy Statement 22 - Renewable Energy Planning Policy Statement 23 - Planning and Pollution Control Planning Policy Guidance 24 - Planning and Noise Planning Policy Statement 25 - Development and Flood Risk

Regional Spatial Strategy 8: Policy 1 (Core Objectives) Policy 2 (Locational Priorities for Development) Policy 3 (Sustainability Criteria) Policy 4 (Better Design) Policy 18 (Affordable Housing) Policy 27 (Natural and Cultural Assets) Policy 28 (Enhancing Biodiversity)

Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy: Policy 1 (Spatial Framework) Policy 4 (Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough) - 15 -

Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan (Adopted March 2006): Policy 5 - Development related Waste Minimisation Policy 6 - The Integration of Neighbourhood Waste Facilities with Other Development

Northamptonshire County Council: SPG on Planning Obligations and Local Education Authority School Provision (adopted June 2004) SPD - Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Development and Implementation Principles (adopted March 2007)

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy: Policies:- 1 - Strengthening the Network of Settlements 5 - Green Infrastructure 6 - Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions 7 - Delivering Housing 8 - Delivering Economic Prosperity 9 - Distribution and Location of Development 10 - Distribution of Housing 11 - Distribution of Jobs 12 - Distribution of Retail Development 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction 15 - Sustainable Housing Provision

Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: Policies:- G2 - Flood Protection G16 - Art G18 - Development affecting a Site of Nature Conservation Value G25 - Implementation and Monitoring H8 - Affordable Housing S1 - Broad locational requirement for retail development S2 - Impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre L5 - Retention of Important Amenity Areas L6 - Extensions to the town linear park system L7 - Provision of new recreational open space within housing developments T6 - Provision of footpaths and cycleways as shown on the proposals map U14 - Wellingborough East – General Provisions U20 - Wellingborough East – Land East of Eastfield Road

Supplementary Planning Guidance: • SPG I: Trees on Development Sites • SPG IV: Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire • SPG V: Parking • SPG X: Wellingborough East SPG: the Development Framework • SPD X (C): Land East of Eastfield Road Development Brief • SPG XI: Affordable Housing • SPD Public Art: A Guide to Good Practice - 16 -

• SPD Minerals and Waste Development and Implementation • SPD Sustainable Design • Planning Contributions Guide for Local Infrastructure • Northamptonshire Place and Movement Guide

Other material considerations: North Northants SHMA Planning for Open Spaces, Sport and Recreation NCC Transport Strategy for Growth. Building for Life - CABE

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. NCC - Highways -

“I confirm that the highway layout has been discussed at length with the applicant and now meets with the requirements of Northamptonshire County Council.

Subject to their construction in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire Council and to an appropriate agreement consideration will be given to the adoption of the ways giving access to the development as highway maintainable at the public expense.

Obviously the proposals are also subject to the execution of Highway Works at trigger points during the implementation of the development but otherwise no objection to the application is raised on highway grounds.”

2. Natural England -

“… in normal circumstances such as a stand-alone development, we would naturally seek to ensure that all protected species/biodiversity enhancement matters had been addressed prior to determination. Obviously in this case, as the development forms part of the larger WP/2008/0050/OEIA, it is important that these issues are addressed by way of the agreed Conditions - hence our concerns. This is especially pertinent given the likely demolition of derelict structures and therefore possible bat presence, amongst other species.

Providing the conditions described previously are satisfactorily discharged prior to commencement of the development, should it be subject to approval, then I am satisfied to withdraw our objection.

We would support the informative note you describe below, as adequate discharge of the Conditions is in the interest of both the LPA and the applicant in meeting current planning guidance and Protected Species legislation.

The applicants should be informed that planning permission, if granted, does not absolve them from complying with the relevant law, including obtaining and complying with the terms and conditions of any EPS licences required.

- 17 -

The advice given by Natural England in this letter is made for the purpose of the present consultation only. In accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England expects to be included as a consultee in relation to any additional matters to be determined by the Consulting Body that may arise as a result of, or are related to, the present proposal. Natural England retains its statutory discretion to modify its present advice or opinion in view of any and all such additional matters or any additional information related to this consultation that may come to our attention.”

3. Wildlife Trust -

“…The Wildlife Trust would wish to make the following observations in relation to these latest proposals:

As you will no doubt already be aware, The Wildlife Trust has been a previous consultee, and participating stakeholder, to earlier rounds of consultation, site visits and meetings in respect of this particular location and the evolving plans for its re-development. We would therefore wish to express our strong concerns and reservations about the ‘fit’, the synergy and the relationship between the current Application’s proposals, as submitted by Barratt Northampton, and the design and vision for the larger, over-arching “Eastfield Urban Quarter” site.

1. We are concerned to note that there appears to be no element of ecological work submitted in support of the suite of documents accompanying this current Application. Furthermore, given the amount of time that has now elapsed since the original Application was submitted for this particular site, might it not be the case that any existing ecological survey work, and subsequent assessment and actions arising from it, will now need to be updated/revised as a consequence.

2. Given that the larger potential development site here at Eastfield Road contains the Old Brickpit Lake wildlife site, and surrounding that too a Potential Wildlife Site area ( PWS No. 986 ) now as well, we are concerned about the ultimate realisation – including the possible timing and phasing – of the delivery of the range of biodiversity enhancements that The Wildlife Trust had understood were to be brought forward as an integral part of the “Eastfield Urban Quarter” site.

3. It would appear to us that most of our issues of observation and concern in respect of the earlier Planning Application for this same location, No. WP/2008/0050/OEIA, as expressed in our consultee letter of response to you dated 12th May 2008, are still unacknowledged, un-addressed and un- resolved. For example, it is not clear to The Wildlife Trust, in relation to this current Application, just how it will be contributing to the provision of high- quality, sustainable Green Infrastructure networks and the achievement of county priority Biodiversity Action Plan targets in association with its development aspirations.

4. Please note that there may well be an opportunity for any soft landscaping associated with this development to incorporate the planting of appropriate - 18 -

native species, of trees and shrubs, for example, in order to provide food sources and habitat for native species of birds and animals.

The planning context for this comment includes the following:

¾ PPS 9 (August 2005): Key Principle 1(ii) (on page 3) states “…planning decisions should aim to maintain, and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity …” and paragraph 14 (page 14) states that when considering proposals local authorities should maximise opportunities for building-in beneficial biodiversity features as part of good design.

¾ Planning Sustainable Communities (April 2005) has been produced on behalf of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Environment and Quality of Life sub-group. It describes benefits of Green Infrastructure for both wildlife and people, and gives examples of some relevant case studies.

In our opinion, it is important to not introduce any non-native or invasive species into either terrestrial or aquatic environments. Therefore, any soft landscaping elements that it is intended to include within this development proposal should be provided for by the use of native species (of plants, shrubs and trees) only. Ideally, these species should be chosen as ones that are typical of that part of the county and they should all only be sourced from a local and a known provenance.

Therefore, we recommend that, with reference to the Soft Landscape Proposals plan, Drawing No. Bir.3349_01A Rev. A, dated 11/02/10, all of the non-native, the exotic and cultivated varieties of, species are removed from the proposed soft landscaping scheme and replaced instead by a choice of native species only, as set out here above.

Furthermore, The Wildlife Trust also recommends that, if you have not already done so in respect of this particular current Planning Application, you should also consult closely with Natural England over these proposals; given that some of the headline issues may well be related to ecological elements and protected species matters.”

4. Planning Policy -

“Where in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Relevant Policies: Regional Spatial Strategy: Policy 1 (Core Objectives), Policy 2 (Promoting Better Design), Policy 14 (Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing), Policy 26 (Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Assets), Policy 28 (Regional Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure), Policy 29 (Priorities for Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity), Policy 35 (Flood Risk), - 19 -

Policy 39 (Energy Reduction and Efficiency), Policy 45 (Traffic Growth Reduction), Policy 48 (Car Parking Standards), Policy MKSM SRS Northamptonshire 1 (Spatial Framework), Policy MKSM SRS Northamptonshire 4 (Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough).

Core Spatial Strategy: Policy 5 (Green Infrastructure), Policy 6 (Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions), Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles), Policy 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction), Policy 15 (Sustainable Housing Provision)

Local Plan: G2 (Flood Protection), G16 (Art), G18 (Nature Conservation), G25 (Implementation), H8 (Affordable Housing), L7 (Open Space), T3 (Traffic Levels), U14 (WEAST General), U20 (East of Eastfield Road)

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents and Informal Guidance: • SPG I: Trees on Development Sites • SPG IV: Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire • SPG V: Parking • SPG X: Wellingborough East SPG: the Development Framework • SPD X (C): Land East of Eastfield Road Development Brief • SPG XI: Affordable Housing • SPD Public Art: A Guide to Good Practice • SPD Minerals and Waste Development & Implementation • SPD Sustainable Design • Planning Contributions Guide for Local Infrastructure • Northamptonshire Place and Movement Guide

Comments The principle policies relating to this site are U14 and U20 of the Local Plan together with the adopted Development Brief for the site. The Brief was prepared following significant consultation with local residents and statutory bodies and other stakeholders. It envisaged approximately 350 dwellings of mixed types and tenures with open space surrounding the lake. It is considered that the development principles identified in the brief remain valid and proposals should still be considered in the context of them, namely:

• An integrated community • A framework of streets and squares • Greenspaces for people and wildlife • High quality allotments • A mix of housing and other uses • A strong sense of local identity • Conserving energy and managing waste • A sustainable approach to drainage

Comprehensive Development The Development Brief explains that due to the strategic significance of the site a piecemeal approach to development would be unacceptable as it would be unlikely to result in a satisfactory form of development with all of the required - 20 -

sustainability features relating to transport, landscape and sustainable drainage for instance. It is accepted that the outline consent (WP/2008/0050) sets the framework for comprehensive development. Whilst it is shown how this application would fit into the context of a larger scheme and not prejudice future development it is not clear that it facilitates the wider development. Of particular concern is delivery of the open space in later phases. This Phase makes no provision for open space and is therefore reliant on future provision, but there is little guarantee that this will take place. It would have been helpful if the details for Conditions 6 and 9 were submitted alongside the reserved matters application.

Given that this application is Phase 1 of a larger scheme, thought needs to be given to how the residents will relate to the wider site in the interim. The lake and wooded slope in particular will be a hazardous feature and without play space provided on site the area will be attractive to children for informal play. The area will therefore need to be securely fenced and provision made for its maintenance. Details of boundary materials should be agreed by the Borough Council.

Access It is unclear whether the application is seeking approval for access arrangements. Access is not identified as a reserved matter required to be determined on the application form, but access arrangements are included within the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application. The overall access concept broadly accords with that set out in the Development Brief, however detailed arrangements should be in accordance with the Places and Movement Guide and be to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority. Careful consideration should be given to parking requirements to ensure that any on street parking does not obstruct access to the remainder of the site. The Design and Access Statement refers to a ‘parking management scheme’, this should be agreed and implemented before occupation of the dwellings.

Sustainable Development The commitment to energy efficiency in the Design and Access Statement is welcomed, as is the commitment that all houses will have solar panels. Policy 14 of the CSS requires large developments over 200 dwellings (this application is Phase 1 of a site anticipated to deliver over 500 dwellings) to demonstrate that:

“Residential units to be delivered 2008 – 2012 will meet the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) level 3 as a minimum; those delivered 2013 – 2015 will meet CSH level 4 as a minimum; and those delivered from 2016 onwards will meet CSH level 6 as a minimum.”

“a target of at least 30% of the demand for energy will be met on site (the actual figure to depend upon technical and economic viability), and renewably and/or from a decentralised renewable or low-carbon energy supply.”

It is noted that the Design and Access statement refers to open market housing being designed to eco homes BREEAM ‘excellent’ standard. Whilst this - 21 -

commitment is welcomed the preferred method of assessment is CSH as set out in the Core Spatial Strategy. These standards should be required by condition. To enable monitoring of the Core Strategy and to ensure compliance with the policy a further condition should be added to require a copy of the Final Certificate to be provided to the Local Planning Authority to prove that the units have been constructed to achieve the relevant CSH and BREEAM levels within 6 months of completion of any units.

The Sustainable Design SPD requires the submission of a Sustainable Design and Energy Statement and a completed Checklist. This is also specified in the Local Planning Application Requirements. Neither document has been submitted with the application. This information should be supplied before the application is determined.

Housing The commitment to provision of affordable housing is welcomed. Condition 4 of the outline requires 5% of dwellings to be wheelchair accessible. It is not clear from the application whether this condition has been met. Further guidance on the standards is available from Wheelchair Housing Design Guide (2nd Edition) by Stephen Thorpe and Habinteg Housing Association, published by BRE in 2006.”

5. Environmental Services Manager -

“I refer to the above application. It is not clear which of the reserved matters the developer is trying to apply for?

However, so that we can fully consider the implication for the service and comment on the application, we would require the developer to provide the following information: (to be marked/annotated on plans where applicable)

1) The extent of prospectively adoptable highway 2) Superimposed on the layout plan, the tracking movements of large refuse collection vehicles that will be used to service the properties showing all turning movements 3) Any Public Open Space or other land that the Council will be expected to maintain at the completion of the development 4) A landscaping plan”

6. Central Networks - “We do not object”.

7. Conservation and Design Officer -

Building for Life Assessment:

See attached report.

8. Landscape Officer:

- 22 -

“The proposed loss of some of the existing trees covered by a tree preservation order is regretted, especially the maple in the propose parking area near the access off Eastfield Road. Replacement planting of semi mature trees would have an immediate effect, but adequate care in the establishment period would be essential.

There is concern about the delivery of the open space central to the development as a whole which contains a potential county wildlife site if there is to be piecemeal development. The north east edge of the site adjoins this but the proposals do not demonstrate that it is a planned link. It should at least contain native species. The extensive paved area opposite containing three trees could be softened. More attention needs to be paid to including native species throughout the site to link with the valuable wildlife site at the centre. Potentially invasive exotic species should not be planted adjacent to the open space area.

Trees have been included in rear courtyard parking areas which is welcomed, but crab apple is likely to cause problems with fruit falling on the ground. Low ground cover planting would have limited visual effect and may be trampled.”

9. Housing Strategy:

“This first phase of the development is subject of a bid to the Homes and Communities Agency for Kickstart funding to enable it to proceed. The proposal is that 72 units should be for market sale with 8 affordable homes. This is in line with the outline planning permission and S106 agreement for the site which requires a minimum of 10% of the homes to be affordable, with a provision for this to increase should property prices rise making more affordable housing viable.

The affordable housing should all be designed to lifetime homes standards and meet the design and space criteria laid down by the Homes and Communities Agency, irrespective of whether any grant funding is available for the units. The outline planning permission also imposes a condition that 5% of the dwellings should be capable of occupation by wheelchair users and we require some element of wheelchair accommodation within the affordable housing units. At least one of the properties (preferably two) should be designed to, as a minimum, incorporate a downstairs wet room and have stairs capable of taking a stair lift.”

10. Environmental Protection Manager –

“The site has an existing outline approval which contains a condition that requires an assessment of contaminated land to be completed prior to development of the land. Further reports on contamination will be required prior to development either in response to the outline condition or provided as part of this application.

This is a specific issue as at the present time the site contains industrial buildings that will require demolition prior to the proposed development. The demolition - 23 -

will need to be carried out to prevent any contamination problems arising due to for example the presence of fuel tanks and asbestos containing materials.

In addition the close proximity of occupied houses will require careful demolition works to be carried out to prevent nuisance arising. In addition as the proposal affects only part of the site permitted by the outline approval the treatment of the site boundaries will need to be considered.”

11. Northamptonshire Police – Crime Prevention Design Officer:

“Northamptonshire Police is unable to provide specific comment to the proposed application due to a lack of information at this time. I do have the following comments to make on the information that has been provided:

I apologise for the length of response, as the applicants have not included me in the design process, I have had to include all eventualities. The length of the response does also highlight my concerns regarding this application.

This being 'Phase one' of the development I believe it should lead the design and concepts for future phases. Crime prevention should be one of those concepts.

The Design and Access Statement (DAS) submitted with this application does not demonstrate crime prevention measures and as such I am not in a position to make informed comment on this application. I do however have some general comments with reference to crime prevention. Due to its location the safety and security of its residents could be compromised if crime prevention measures are not taken. PPS1 makes clear that a key objective for new developments should be that they create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.

The only mention of crime prevention appears to be on page 4 of the Design and access statement where the developer mentions surveillance and Secured by Design Principles.

The outline planning applications WP/2008/0050 Condition 4 G,H,I,J, O and P specifically relate to crime prevention. The details supplied within this application do not show how these conditions will be met and as such I would suggest the applicants need to send a more detailed application including how they will meet these conditions.

It is important that Crime Prevention Design advisors are consulted early in the design stage to discuss the layout to reduce the chance of crime and anti-social behaviour from occurring. On page 245 of The Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide 2008; Aim To encourage the design of developments where people feel safe and secure; where crime and disorder, or the fear of crime, does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. The layout of this development will not achieve the Secured By Design accreditation. There are areas within the site that do fallow the principles but these areas will be compromised by the other areas that do not.

- 24 -

I would strongly recommend that the development should be built to attain the ACPO SBD Ltd "Secured by Design" award. This is considered to be a minimum standard for safety and includes a section for new homes. Compliance with the government backed Secured by Design award scheme criteria can be a major factor indicating that a scheme proposal has adequately addressed crime prevention. This is in the interest of the security of future occupants of the development in accordance with policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy (NNCSS): 'seek to design out antisocial behaviour, crime and reduce the fear of crime by applying the principles of the Secured By Design scheme'. http://www.securedbydesign.com/pdfs/SBD_New_Homes_2010.pdf

The residents of the area have identified drug dealing and alcohol related crime and anti social behaviour as an area priority (details can be found on the Northamptonshire Police Website under Wellingborough East). The design does not take this in to consideration.

Parking and Rear servicing:

Alleyways/Cycle Routes/Walkways: I am a little unclear about how these are going to be designed. There does not appear to be any specific information relating to this aspect of the design. Alleyways can become a hostile area, which feel isolated and increase the fear of crime. There are a number of council across the Country that is closing poorly designed alleyways due to crime and anti-social behaviour. If these routes do feel remote then they will not be used, which in turn adds to the feeling of seclusion increasing the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. Poorly designed pedestrian routes will not encourage less car use. The design also favours rear access alleyways some of which lead off of parking courtyards. This type of arrangement can give easy access in to gardens and then in to houses.

Rear parking courtyards, rear alleyways and open space at the rear are reminiscent of Radburn style estates. Many Radburn estates are under going redesign due to high incidence of crime and anti-social behaviour.

If cars are parked behind garden fences there is usually no surveillance as the occupants will be inside their houses and the fence will prevent surveillance, even from bedroom windows angles restrict views unless occupants lean out of windows. Rear parking areas can also blur the line between public and private space.

Car parking to the rear of properties should be avoided, as residents do not use them, which clutters up residential roads this can cause neighbour tensions and access issues for emergency vehicles such as fire engines and ambulances. Rear car parks are, in large not over looked by 'active rooms' and are inconvenient to use. They can also be used by groups of youths to congregate in their cars sometimes referred to as 'car clubs'. Due to this being a new development and having a relatively average density per hectare the architects should always be able to design parking areas to adhere to planning out crime protocol and not just when convenient or where possible (as this is a new site it - 25 - should always be possible). In-curtilage parking is preferable or parking to the front of dwellings that have passive and active surveillance.

Manual for Streets: 'Parking is a key function of many streets, although it is not always a requirement. A well-designed arrangement of on street parking provides convenient access to frontages and can add to the viability of a street. Conversely, poor designed parking can create safety problems and reduce the visual quality of a street' (page 18). Different

By Design - Better Places to Live: A Companion Guide to PPG 3: (1) rear servicing can undermine the security of dwellings by allowing strangers access to the rear of dwellings; (2) without very careful attention to detailed design, rear parking courts and alleyways can become hostile places; (3) rear courtyard parking can reduce the area available for back gardens and the coming and going of cars can detract from the tranquillity of garden areas. Designing for safety and security should not be separated from consideration of details such as those addressed by Secured by Design and issues of long-term management; the latter being particularly important in relation to higher density apartment development. Considerations of the number of dwellings to be served by a common entrance and the introduction of concierge schemes can often prove fundamental to the ultimate success of a place. (Page 54). Rear service alleys provide convenient access to rear gardens and can remove bin storage and clutter from the street. However, they raise serious issues in terms of safety and security. (Page 46).

By Design - Urban Design in the Planning System: The primary access to a building is best achieved from the street. Primary access to buildings by means of internal courtyards reduces street activity and the live connection between building and street. Access to private or communal back yards, such as for parking, requires careful control by means of gates or by overlooking. (page 22). The front and backs of buildings are often used in different ways, their design can reflect this. Buildings that present their backs to public space (even on main roads), often present high fences and walls to the street, reducing overlooking and safety. A separate boulevard-type slip road is a way of enabling buildings to front onto main roads where access is restricted. (page 23. Clearly defining and enclosing private space at the back of buildings provides for better privacy and security. The rear gardens of houses are more secure if they back on to other gardens, rather than side roads, service lanes or footpaths.

The Leap and Public Open space:

Public Spaces do have the potential to generate crime and antisocial behaviour and increase the fear of crime in the community. They are also vulnerable to crime, being spoiled and suffering damage, which is expensive to repair. As a result of this abuse the investment in community areas, their use and their contribution to quality of life in the community can be seriously reduced.

Any play area should have surveillance and a feeling of community ownership. The design only has surveillance from a maximum of 8 houses. There is also car parking abutting this area which makes these cars very vulnerable to damage - 26 -

and crime. Part of the Building for Life Assessment asks "Are public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe?" This is a question that remains open until a more detailed application is submitted.

Fences that abut public land should have defensible space that will not be prone to damage and trespass.

PPS1 makes clear that a key objective for new developments should be that they create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.

PPG17:

* Paragraph 3

'Local authorities should also undertake audits of existing open space, sports and recreational facilities.... Audits of quality will be particularly important as they will allow local authorities to identify potential for increased use through better design, management and maintenance.' I have no evidence to suggest that this have been undertaken?

* Paragraph 18

Planning obligations may be used where improvements are required to meet identified needs (see paragraph 33). In looking to improve existing open space and facilities, local authorities should:

iii. promote better use of open spaces and sports and recreational facilities, by the use of good design to reduce crime.

* Paragraph 20

(vii) carefully consider security and personal safety, especially for children.

The Key Attributes of Open Space and Recreation Provision:

* Paragraph 4.25 * Cleaner and safer places - better upkeep of areas, more litterbins and more/improved toilets, better lighting and more plants. Younger children also supported a greater adult presence in the form of park keepers. * A range of different types of spaces - young children want to play where they can be seen while older ones and teenagers prefer to be further away from home. There is also a need to make adequate provision for older children to reduce the extent to which they 'colonise' facilities intended for younger ones.

Provision for Children and Young People:

* Paragraph A12

- 27 -

* The broad objective of provision for children and young people is to ensure that they have opportunities to interact with their peers and learn social and movement skills within their home environment. * At the same time, they must not create nuisance for other residents or appear threatening to passers-by. In most areas there will be a need for a mix of carefully located facilities (such as equipped play areas, ideally with passive supervision from nearby houses and green corridors, or teenage shelters which are slightly 'out of the way') and more natural areas in which children and young people can take part in energetic activities.

Secured By Design: http://www.securedbydesign.com/pdfs/playareas.pdf

By Design - Better Places to Live: A Companion Guide to PPG 3

* Security

Are streets, parking areas, open spaces and play areas overlooked by dwellings?

Are the backs of block areas secured? If publicly accessible, what measures have been taken to reduce the opportunities for antisocial behaviour? (Page 59)

Developments that result in the local community experiencing unacceptable levels of crime and or anti-social behaviour by users of the environment, legitimate or otherwise could be considered as a breach of the local authorities Section 17 responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as amended by the Police and Justice Act 2006 which places a duty on each local authority to: "exercise its functions with due regard to the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area including Anti-Social Behaviour, Alcohol and Drugs"

From the information I have received there is no evidence that any of the above guidance has been adhered to.

The design does not design Crime and antisocial behaviour out but could act as a crime catalyst.

The information supplied by the applicant makes it very difficult to comment due to the lack of information, they may have included more crime prevention measures but they have not alluded to this within the application. I am happy to discuss Secured By Design and Crime Prevention with the applicant should they wish to include me.

All the points raised do comply with the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy in accordance with policy 13 and I consider are commensurate with the risk. If you or the developer would like to discuss these points raised please do not hesitate to contact me. The future success and sustainability of this development can be critically influenced by crime, and more importantly the quality of life of the existing and future residents is in jeopardy. Crime is a material consideration within the planning system. - 28 -

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on this application it goes a long way to show that community safety will be taken in to account and that the planning department recognise that anti-social behaviour and crime is not only a police issue but a partnership responsibility.

Please could you pass my concerns to the Elected Committee Members for their deliberation on this matter and to the applicant.

Please note that any future changes to the planning application should be advised to Northamptonshire Police for consideration and response as they.”

12. Environment Agency:

“We object to the proposed development, as submitted, for the following reasons:

1. The applicant has not supplied adequate information to demonstrate that surface water run-off, on-site and/or off-site, is effectively managed.

2. The applicant has not supplied adequate information to demonstrate that the risks posed to groundwater can be satisfactorily managed.

3. The applicant has not supplied evidence that confirms there is sufficient water infrastructure within the proposed phasing of development.

The details of our objections are outlined on below under their respective headings. Should our objections be removed, we may require the imposition of conditions, on any subsequent planning permission granted.

1. Surface-Water Drainage No information has been submitted for our consultation to support the discharge of condition 16 relating to surface water on WP/2008/.

This reserved matters application has not been supported by a flood risk assessment (FRA). The reserved matters application is for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development. Given that the layout may impact on the proposed surface water scheme, an up to date FRA should be submitted to ensure that the site can manage the additional surface water created as part of the development.

The design and access information statement states “The SUD’s system designed for this parcel is part of the overall SUD’s network for the whole development, and has been designed in consultation with the Local Authority and Anglian Water. Its implementation will be agreed with Anglian Water so that it provides for the needs of this parcel in the short term, while allowing fully integration as the remainder of the site is developed. No swale is proposed for Parcel One, but there is space designed in to accommodate a future swale along the Avenue if required. Agreed temporary measures may be put in place until the full system is operational”. Accordingly, further details on the surface water - 29 - drainage is required.

In the absence of a FRA, the flood risks resulting from the proposed development are unknown. The absence of a FRA is therefore sufficient reason in itself for a refusal of planning permission. This reflects the precautionary approach to development in flood risk areas set out in paragraphs 10 and E9 of PPS25

We ask to be re-consulted with the results of the FRA. Our objection will be maintained until an adequate FRA has been submitted.

2. Groundwater and Contaminated Land No information has been submitted for our consultation to support the discharge of conditions 17 and 18 relating to protection of controlled waters on WP/2008/0050.

As stated above, the reserved matters application is for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development. Given that the reserved matters may impact controlled waters, information to demonstrate that the risks posed to groundwater can be satisfactorily managed, as required in conditions 17 and 18 of WP/2008/0050 should be submitted to ensure that the development poses no threat to the water environment. We cannot adequately consider the risk this site may pose to controlled waters without this information.

Government policy as set out in Planning Policy Statement 23 notes the key role that the planning system plays in determining the location of development which may give rise to pollution, either directly or indirectly, and in ensuring that other uses and developments are not, as far as possible, affected by major existing or potential sources of pollution.

Our approach to groundwater protection is set out in our policy ‘Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice’ (2008). In implementing our policy we will oppose development proposals that may pollute groundwater especially where the risks of pollution is high and the groundwater asset is of high value. We also seek to ensure that applicants provide adequate information to demonstrate that the risks posed by development to such groundwater assets can be satisfactorily managed. In this instance the applicant has failed to provide this information.

In accordance with the Environment Agency’s recently revised groundwater protection policy we will maintain our objection until we receive a satisfactory risk assessment that demonstrates that the risks to groundwater posed by this development can be satisfactorily managed.

3. Water Infrastructure No information has been submitted for our consultation to support the discharge of condition 20 relating to the provision of suitable water infrastructure on WP/2008/0050.

The Environment Agency is actively promoting water infrastructure services planning to secure delivery of sustainable development. Infrastructure planning is - 30 -

crucial to this process as recognised within the North Northamptonshire Outline and Detailed Water Cycle Strategies and the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy to ensure major constraints are overcome (such as headroom capacity for sewage treatment in the area and the long lead in times needed to plan, develop and commission new facilities).

Should evidence be provided in support of the application that confirms that there is sufficient water infrastructure within the proposed phasing of development we would require a planning condition to require precise details of infrastructure improvements to be linked to phasing of the development.

Policy Future development needs to be planned carefully so that it does not result in further pressure on the water environment (e.g. water resources and increased volumes of sewage effluent) and compromise Water Framework Directive (WFD) objectives. In addition to no deterioration, there must be progress towards an improved water status.

The Environment Agency has concerns that, if adequate infrastructure planning is not forthcoming, a lack of infrastructure planning and the time required to implement the necessary measures could result in environmental limits being exceeded. If approved and built ahead of a sound investigation into, and provision of, the necessary improvements to sewerage and sewage treatment infrastructure, is likely to be unsustainable, leading to increased pollution and sewage flooding. This would be contrary to policy requirements within PPS3 (unsuitable and undeliverable Paras 69-71), PPS23 (various), PPS25, the adopted MK/SM Sub-Regional Strategy (Para 53-55), and RSS8.

The MKSM Sub-Regional Strategy (Paragraph 54) requires a strategic approach to waste water and surface water drainage management, to ensure that flood risk is not increased and so that water quality does not deteriorate as a result of the cumulative impacts of development in growth areas. Paragraphs 53 and 55 similarly emphasise the need for a strategic and co-ordinated approach to water management (including supply, wastewater, drainage and river quality) to ensure that environmental standards are not compromised.

It is the developers responsibility to demonstrate there is sufficient capacity within environmental infrastructure to serve the development. PPS23 Para 2 states that, “any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from or may affect any land use.” Similarly, PPS12 (paragraph B8) states that “when it comes to an individual planning application, the adequacy of infrastructure can be a material consideration in deciding whether permission should be granted”. Policy 3 of the current RSS8 similarly requires that the capacity of existing infrastructure (including utilities infrastructure) to absorb further development is taken into account when considering the suitability of land for development. Policy 32 of the East Midlands Regional Plan requires LPA's, developers and the Environment Agency to ensure that appropriate infrastructure - 31 -

is in place to meet the needs of development, and where necessary improvements are in place.

In the absence of the above information, we cannot advise whether the proposal is appropriate and acceptable in environmental terms. If you are minded to approve the application contrary to our objection, I would be grateful if you could re-notify the Environment Agency for you to advise which other material planning considerations outweigh our objection, and to give us the opportunity to make further representations.

In the event that the applicant appeals a refusal of this application (where our objection has been cited as a reason for refusal), we would be prepared to fully support your Authority and provide evidence at any public inquiry or hearing.”

13. Wellingborough Civic Society

“The road system has no improved [since the outline application was submitted 2008], and the number of jobs per household do not equate.

Hospitals are still inadequate as also the sewerage system, the threat of flooding does not go away.

The Council should give more thought to the local residents in deciding on this application.”

14. Third Party Commentaries:

209 Mill Road -

“I am the owner of the piece of land that runs behind 194-209 Mill Road. I have looked at the plans and with a lack of a key I have a few concerns I wish addressing.

Myself and previous owners have enjoyed vehicle access to the afore mentioned land for over 35 years without objection. I would like to know whether this access will be maintained and what treatment will be used across the access point. If access is not maintained to a satisfactory level I will be forced to object to the application and seek legal advice.”

43 Eastfield Road -

“I am writing to you again, to inform you of my continued concerns regarding the development of the land to the rear of 55-61 Eastfield Road, having written on previous occasions, and even with the proposed changes that were sent to me on the 12.03.2010 my concerns have in no way been allayed.

The impact on the existing housing, and on the surrounding land, which is known be unstable; a large majority of the houses on this east side of Eastfield Road, having been underpinned, some years ago.

- 32 -

The local authorities have not addressed the issue of the Eastern Bypass, and the road infrastructure, despite having already built a number of new housing estates, off Eastfield Road.

Whilst new housing is necessary; over Urbanization is not. It is therefore my concern that you are prioritizing housing over infrastructure and amenities.

Should we not learn from the mistakes of overcrowding on estates?

As our town grows the surrounding countryside diminishes at an alarming rate, with it, the loss of precious hedgerows and wildlife.

This issue, being of enormous concern to me and many other residents in this area, especially those whose whom I have contacted, whose homes, back onto your most recent development, to the rear of the western side of Eastfield Road, and its impact on the environment, now the development is completed.

Please consider this when planning is given for so many houses in such a small area.”

Letters of Objection –

216 Mill Road -

“I would like the following points to be taken into consideration regarding the above application for the land behind Eastfield Road/Mill Road.

1) The density of the development (80 units) seems quite high given that it does not include improvement to the local infrastructure. The local school is over- subscribed, and also the doctors. The current phase also avoids making a commitment to the provision of a play area (LEAP) which would be desirable given the population increase.

2) There is mention in the application that land has been set aside for the parking for the residents of Mill Road (although this does not form part of the current application). If it does not form part of the current application, could the applicants confirm where this land is situated, as any land not on the current plan would be a long way from most houses of Mill Road. The residents of Mill Road are opposed to parking restrictions of the type suggested on their street anyway, as it will increase traffic speed on an already dangerous street as well as making parking dangerous or difficult for residents who have small children, physical impairments and so on (who would find it difficult to go some distance to their cars). It will also make parking inherently insecure, not simply for the security of vehicles, but especially for residents arriving and leaving at night. Although this matter supposedly forms no part of the current application, it is implied within it and the current application rules out any convenient point for parking to which the residents of Mill Road might be amenable. Thus it seems important to raise the matter at this stage.

- 33 -

3) In addition to (2), the request to make an exit point of the development onto Mill Road will increase through traffic on that road without their being any speed restrictions etc enforced.

I trust you will take these points into consideration, and would look forward to clarification about the plans concerning point (2).”

63 Eastfield Road -

“With reference to my previous e-mail and letter regarding WP/2010/0054/RM, I have now visited the planning department to look at the plans and have discussed the protected trees T4,T5 and T6 with Mrs Webber on the telephone.

From my telephone conversation Barrats feel that the trees will have to be removed due to the change in ground level proposed. During my visit there were no plans showing the proposed ground levels in relation to the existing properties lodged as part of the amended planning application. The point regarding levels is contradictory as T6 which is to be removed is at the same level as T7 which is to be retained (should the ground levels be lowered T7 would be lower than T6).

The Removal of T5 and T6 would leave my rear garden with no screening and represents a significant loss of privacy.

Plan NT 09 040 A lodged with the original application shows the West view of Plot 59 in relation to 63 Eastfield Rd on this the ground level of plot 59 is approximately 1.2m higher than 63, Eastfield Rd and the ridge level approximately 2.1m higher. The proposed change from a 2.5 storey Provedence to a 2 storey Vickery is not addressing the issue of Overshadowing and overlooking as they are the same overall height.

It is likely that Plot 59 would have a patio area outside the rear doors at the proposed levels this would be 1.2m above the garden of 63, Eastfield rd and would look down into the kitchen window of 63, Eastfield Rd. Should Plot 59 erect a 2m fence at the new ground level the kitchen window of 63, Eastfield would have a 3m fence within 1foot of the window blocking all light and ventilation.

The revised plans have not addressed any of my original objections to this application.

I am surprised that no plans showing the proposed ground levels are available as they are key to assessing the impact of the planned development on adjacent properties.

Plots 1, 2, 59 and 60 continue to dominate the existing properties and are out of keeping with Eastfield Rd, the ridge heights of the existing properties step gently up the road with minimal differences in ground and ridge height. By trying to keep Plots 1, 2, 59 and 60 on the same level 63, Eastfield road is overshadowed and overwhelmed by the new development.”

- 34 -

21 Eastfield Road -

“Well here we go again, more houses and more traffic. Every new development adds to increased pressure on our overcrowded road system. Every time we point this out and object and every time we are ignored.

The volume of traffic using Eastfield and Elsden roads has surely reached saturation point, the state of affairs at Elsden, Midland and Senwick roads junction has to be seen to be believed. At one meeting I attended a spokesman from the county council described the situation as ‘very poor’ and ‘one of the worst in the county’. It is only a matter of time before a fatality is caused by an A class road traffic volume using a residential road. Since at least the early 1980’s relief road schemes have been called for and at times even planed (I remember viewing an exhibition at the tithe barn where three alternative routes were displayed). Nothing has materialised except for increased traffic volumes and the rubber stamping of approval for any development application adding to an ever worsening problem.

The road problem MUST be sorted out BEFORE any more development is allowed. ‘It will come later as part or an ongoing development’ will not do. Solve the congestion and then and only then develop.

The council must put the needs of the community ahead of the profits of the developers.”

23 Eastfield Road -

“While we recognise that this site needs to have something done about it as it is attracting vandalism and looks neglected out objections to any development remain as we have stated in previous correspondence.

We object to any development that will mean the loss of valued allotment gardens. Allotment gardens have for a long time enabled the ordinary working man the chance to grow his own fruit and vegetables, while also enjoying the benefit of healthy outdoor exercise . This tradition is an important part of many peoples lives, but once the land is lost to development it can never be replaced.

We are also concerned about the affect development would have on trees, birds and wildlife in the area.

Another concern is the impact of traffic on this road as more houses will mean more cars on this area. Its already busy with cars and heavy lorries.

We hope that during the proposed development the arrangements for construction traffic and workers cars and vans will be better organised than when Paling Close, Wellingborough was being built. Cars belonging to the builders working there were parked all day outside our homes. This made it very difficult for us to park near our home when unloading shopping. Many times we have to park further down the street carrying groceries and other heavy shopping. This becomes very annoying especially if it was raining. - 35 -

We also had the disruption of large numbers of lorries queuing down Eastfield Road from early morning with engines running, waiting to enter the site to take away the earth. Some of the earth inevitably spilt from the lorries on to the road which then blocked the drains. The drain outside our house was blocked with so much earth it disappeared from view and the rain just ran over the top of it.

We rang the telephone number to ask for the lorry to un-block the drain, but as there was always builders cars parked all day and the drain was not visible, it remained blocked for about six months.

We hope therefore that during any development the construction and workers cars and lorries could be confined to the site, so that residents are treated with better consideration.”

ASSESSMENT: Note: Following comments received by Northamptonshire County Council Highways, the Police and a small number of third party representations and further to negotiation with various WBC officers the originally submitted scheme was amended. These amendments comprised alterations to the internal road specifications and layouts and alterations to house types; specifically to those fronting Eastfield Road that have been replaced with traditional 2 storey dwellings rather than 2 and a half.

Principle of the Development The principle of the development was established with the approval of the Outline planning permission (WP/2008/0050/OEIA) [see attached] with the submitted plans broadly in accordance with the development site Master Plan and also the adopted Land of Eastfield Road Development Plan Brief (2006). Whilst the proposal does not deal with the discharging of any conditions, pursuant to the above approved outline application, other than condition 1, it does provide the necessary minimum level of affordable houses (10%) as conditioned. The remaining conditions will remain and will therefore not be replicated in any reserved matter approval.

Density, layout, design The discussion will centre on the impact on the character and appearance of the existing and also on the design merits of the proposed development. The site currently comprises of a variety of defunct industrial and warehouse type buildings that offer little benefit to the character and appearance of the area with the area prone to ant-social uses and affording rear access to Eastfield Road properties, therefore the development of the site will be considered an improvement to the area.

The existing residential character of the area differs depending on the boundary, the current built form can be categorised into 2 distinct types. Firstly to the western boundary, which 4 development properties will front the street character is made up of a linear development of semi-detached dwellings constructed in the inter-war period, comprising a fairly uniform street set-back, external appearance and visual separation. Secondly the character to the southern boundary and the secondary access point is characterised by a denser 1920’s terraced development.

- 36 -

The density of the development equates to 38 dwellings per hectare, which is slightly in excess of the Design Brief (35 dwellings p/ha) to be in accordance with National Standards: PPS3. Due to the only slight over-prescription and PPS3 allowing higher densities in built up areas and the surrounding streets having a variety of densities 38 dwellings per hectare is acceptable. Generally the gardens associated with houses within the site are between 8-10m in length which is considered to be sufficient for 3 and 4 bed properties, this together with the number of parking spaces per dwellings at just over 2 would indicate that the proposal does not represent overdevelopment.

Arguably the 4 most important dwellings on the development, in terms of character and appearance, are those that are positioned either side of the primary (Eastfield Road) access and thus forming a gateway to the site as well as becoming part of the existing street scene. The dwellings, following negotiation are of a traditional 2 storey design, with a conforming frontage depth, together with a comparable un-built form to the rear consistent with the rear garden depth of the Eastfield Road properties. Although these dwellings in terms of external appearance are not similar to the Eastfield Road vernacular they are not dis-similar in terms of bulk and scale and these features together with the existing set-back being respected gives a harmony with the existing street scene as well as introducing the contemporary development beyond. Lining the Eastfield Road and primary access and continuing within the site are proposed a number of trees to create a Boulevard, which is reminiscent of Eastfield Road, therefore demonstrating a tie-in with the surrounding area.

The design of the development itself achieves certain aspects of design principles well such as street definition and integration with a clear defensible space being provided. Other design aspects such as the creation of a distinctive place rather than a pre- conceived ‘one-size-fits-all’ development is less of a success, although the streets created are not offensive or unbalanced. There are also some concerns as to the layout of the rear parking areas [Police], although the parking areas enjoy some degree of overlooking and in some instances the formation of a mews development, such as to the north-east corner of the site, other rear areas enjoy less overlooking either as a result of screening or just by the number of overlooking windows therefore resulting in crime concerns. The layout also created a number of unrestricted alleys and through- ways to the rear and sides of the proposed dwellings, although amendments have largely gated or removed these alleyways and further concerns would be planned out when details of the boundary treatments are submitted. The full break-down of the design is given above in the Building for Life (BfL) site analysis as compiled by the Conservation and Design Officer, the score given above is 7.5, however following the alterations this score is likely to have improved to 9 out of 20. BfL is a governmental recognised toolkit for demonstrating the attributes of a development against a number of design and situational criteria with the incorporation of Manual for Streets, generally anything lower than 8 is considered unacceptable. However there currently exists no policy enabling BfL to be used as a mechanism for refusal. The score achieved would suggest that the development is average with its deficiencies as described this however is likely to significantly increase with the discharging of various conditions such as a management and travel plan as well as the bringing forward of subsequent phases, it would not be over-reaching to see the score rise to 14-15 out of 20. It is important therefore to consider whether one of the deficiencies on its own is of sufficient magnitude to justify refusal.

- 37 -

Impact on Neighbouring Amenity Prior to approval the outline application was subject to significant public consultation with particular emphasise upon those that immediately border the site on Eastfield and Mill Road, this essentially resulted in anything higher than traditional 2 storey dwellings to the rear being resisted.

As a result all the dwellings that are proposed immediately to the rear of existing properties are two storey only and those that are orientated back-to-back have a minimum separation distance of 38m to Eastfield Road properties together with a drop in land levels and 28m separation in the case of Mill Road neighbours. The dwellings proposed that are orientated so as their flank faces the rear of neighbouring properties; the separation distance is a minimum of 21.5m with no habitable room windows provided in the side elevations. These distances exist to ensure privacy and light levels and to guard against overbearing impacts. Within the site appropriate separation distances exist as well as the installation of obscured glaze where appropriate in facing flank walls, this phase of the development is also some distance from the railway, therefore there is unlikely to be any loss of amenities to future occupiers of the development from railway noise. To the south-eastern boundary of the site is an industrial unit currently in operation.

It is important to consider the impact on 2 dwellings separately from the above given the proximity of the two pairs of semi’s that form the gateway to the development. Firstly no. 63 Eastfield Road is located to the south of plots 59 and 60; the proposed dwellings do not project any further forward or back and therefore will have no impact with regard overshadowing to rear or front windows. No. 63 has enjoyed a 2 storey side extension with what appears to be 2 habitable room windows to the side/facing elevation to the first and the ground floor, there is unlikely to be any loss of light to these windows due to the orientation of the proposed dwellings to the north and therefore not in the arc of the sun and no loss of privacy to these windows as the window proposed in the first floor is to a non-habitable room and conditioned to be obscured in nature. It is conceded that there may be an overbearing impact to these side windows; however such an impact is commonplace to the side windows of semi-detached dwellings and is replicated throughout the street and as these side windows appear to have been inserted in double aspect rooms, there is no detrimental impact therefore to no. 63 Eastfield Road. Any potential for overlooking from the rear garden of plot 59 due to the differences in ground levels is controlled by the subsequent requirement to submit details of slab levels and boundary treatments. Secondly and similarly no. 53 Eastfield Road has no impacts towards loss of light or privacy to rear and fronting elevations and although located to the south of plots 1 and 2 and therefore the potential for overshadowing there are no habitable room windows in the side of no. 53 to impact. Any overlooking into the rear gardens from the rear facing windows of the proposed will be no more than is currently experienced. Due to the differences in ground levels and separation distances to properties within the site there will be no detrimental impact to either 53 or 63 or any other properties fronting Eastfield Road.

In the small amount of communications that have been received from neighbours there was little mention of loss of light or overlooking as a concern other than from the owner of no. 63 Eastfield Road, which is discussed above. With respect to the existing use, it is worth noting that the site could continue to operate as an industrial type use, it is therefore considered that any additional noise or smells emanating from the - 38 -

development are far less likely to have more impact than a continuation of the industrial use. A concern of some of the representations included the impact on the safety and convenience of the local transport network; this will be discussed below in the highway implications section.

Highway Implications The approved outline planning approval considered the impact the development of the site for up to 540 dwellings plus various mixed-uses would have on the existing highway network. The scheme is unlikely to result in any significant increase in traffic when compared to the previous uses on the site and the proposals will remove problems formerly associated with heavy goods vehicles. As part of the outline approval and S.106 contributions the following highway improvements will be brought forward:

Prior to first occupation of any dwelling the Owner shall enter into agreements under Section 278 Highways Act 1980 in respect of the following works:-

Existing Junction Works to be Carried Out 5.1.1 Mill Road Access Traffic Calming 5.1.2 Mill Road/Eastfield Road Raised Traffic Signal Controlled Junction 5.1.3 Eastfield Road Access Junction Widening with Pedestrian Traffic Island 5.1.4 Midland Road Senwick Traffic Signal Controlled Junction Road/Elsden Road 5.1.5 Eastfield Road Construct Zebra Crossing 5.1.6 Mill Road to Station Improvements to existing footway including footpath surface and CCTV and lighting

The Owner covenants to make payments to the County Council for further offsite highway works in the sum of £170,000.00 (One hundred and seventy thousand pounds) for the offsite highway works as follows:-

5.2.1 Finedon Road Area Traffic management and signing measures 5.2.2 Midland Road/Elsden Residents parking scheme Road 5.2.3 Midland Road/Elsden Bus information and bus stops Road

Such payment to be made in the following instalments:

£27,000.00 (Twenty seven thousand pounds) upon or prior to commencement of development.

£143,000.00 (One hundred and forty three thousand pounds) upon or prior to first occupation of any dwelling.

The above will result in a significant improvement to existing junctions and roadways and will provide a satisfactory infrastructural improvement to cope with any addition - 39 -

vehicles the development attracts as well as markedly improving on the existing. The proposed signalisation of the Senwick Road, Midland Road and Elsden Road junction goes beyond the improvements necessary to cater for the increased traffic of the Phase 1 proposals. However, as this junction is already at capacity with congestion occurring at the peak hours signalisation of this junction would result in a significant improvement to traffic flows in this area. Signalisation is required prior to the implementation of the first Phase of the development. However, there may be delay in this development and the applicants are willing to bring forward these junction improvements as part of the EUQ development enabling significant improvements in traffic flows even with the additional traffic associated with the Phase 1 scheme. Further road improvements including the provision of a 32 space parking area for Mill Road residents will be forthcoming in later phases.

The development provides 2 car parking spaces per property, although this is a significant over provision of parking spaces, which is set at a maximum of 1.5m it is felt that the overprovision is reminiscent of aspirations of potential house owners in the area and to prevent the possibility of occupiers parking in Eastfield or Mill Road. The type of parking is mixed with some on street parking on the secondary road from Mill Road which together with a curving roadway will calm traffic speeds. The primary road provides less on-street parking in favour of rear parking, to enable unrestricted access on a road, which will provide the main through-road to subsequent phases. NCC Highways concurs that the impact on highways is not a concern so long as the above highway alterations are forthcoming in the planning obligations agreement they are also satisfied with the development sites internal highway arrangements.

Sustainability A Sustainability Appraisal was included with the outline application and it will be seen from this that the scheme scores highly in relation to Sustainability Credentials. The development will be designed to achieve a minimum of “excellent” BREEAM, which is in excess of the Design Brief ‘very good’ and a Code for Sustainable Homes rating of level 3, including solar panels to all houses. A code of 3 is in accordance with policy 14 of the NNCSS.

Transport is also anticipated to be energy efficient due to the sustainable modes of transport being promoted on site and its location within easy walking distance of the site, bus services and the town centre.

In addition the incorporation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) is important to the effective and sustainable drainage; the proposed development is to include SUDS linking through to the wooded quarry which is seen as an asset to the overall development in providing SUDS as well as a central attractive point.

Wildlife Protection and Enhancement The primary discussion in connection with biodiversity centred on the quarry part of the site and the linkage to habitats external of the site, which are not within the red-line of this phase. Nevertheless there is some concern that the derelict buildings may contain protected species, however Natural England have raised no objections in view of the necessity of the developer to discharge a number of related conditions as part of the outline approval (see attached).

- 40 -

Open Space/Play Areas It is acknowledged that there is a lack of public open space and LEAPs associated with the development, however there are some un-formalised areas that offer some public spaces within the development. The proposal as discussed above forms the 1st phase of a masterplan. The holistic development will include significant areas of public open space and also LEAPS which are to be located to the north-east of this phase and also includes a number of inter-linked green routes. It is accepted that the lack of space in this first phase however is a concern and is reliant on the further phases being brought forward. Whilst the remaining site cannot be assumed until a subsequent application is forthcoming there is reason to believe that there is a high possibility of the remaining site being brought forward. The reason for this high possibility centres on the high level of expenditure that is to be paid following commencement of the development mostly due to the highway contributions as shown above, therefore once the main monetary obstacle to the development has been out-laid there would be no reason to believe that subsequent phases and the accompanying open-spaces will not be brought forward.

Affordable Housing Provision The provision associated with the development is consistent with the Outline planning approval for 10% and also provides 5% of dwellings capable of wheel chair adaption as confirmed by the Housing Strategy Department.

Trees The existing site contains a number of trees with the vast majority of them to the northern boundary of the site with the rear gardens of Eastfield Road, most of which enjoy tree preservations orders. The reason for the existence of the trees and the subsequent TPO’s placed on them was to screen the industrial premises to the rear, therefore in the absence of the premises and the replacement with a lesser offensive residential development the value and purpose of the trees is diminished. Nevertheless of the 28 trees on the site 8 are within the site and a further 2-4 due to their size offer little or no visual screening or amenity of the remaining; 7 are to be retained and of those to be felled 2/3 are not considered to be ‘good’ specimens. The remaining 8 or so trees to be felled whilst they do offer some visual amenity from the rear windows of Eastfield Road residents as they no longer serve a screening purpose it is difficult to justify their retention, in addition as the development will include the retention of 7 TPO’s and include 36 established trees (4m in height) most of which presenting visual amenity the loss of the felled trees is accepted. Whilst the Landscape Officer is regretful of the loss of some of the TPO’s no objection is raised and with some fine-tuning to the landscape plan by way of conditioning some of the other concerns of the Landscape Officer, such as the introduction of native species, can be planned out.

Drainage Issues In light of the Objection received above from the Environment Agency and in accordance with PPS25: Development and Flood Risk [para. 28] it is not possible for a planning permission to be issued without notifying the Secretary of State or the Environment Agency withdrawing the objection. Therefore in view of this, it is intended to recommended that the decision of the this application is delegated to Officers following either the removal of the objection or the approval by the Secretary of State that the Environment Agency objection is not upheld and the decision can be issued.

Further to the objection received the Environment Agency has provided an update of - 41 - on-going discussion dated 31 March 2010:

“I refer to my previous letter dated 18 March 2010 relating to our objections to the above application. Further to my previous letter we have received additional information which we are currently reviewing and will confirm shortly whether or not these details are sufficient to allow us to remove all or any of our objections.

To date we have received a revised Flood Risk Assessment, produced by Travis Barker Associates Ltd, dated 26 March 2010, which we are currently reviewing as a matter of priority. Soiltechnics Environmental and Geotechnical Consultants have submitted additional information and are in open dialogue with our Groundwater and Contaminated Land function. Barratt Homes have forwarded a copy of the Pre-development Report, prepared by Anglian Water Services Ltd, dated 25 March 2010 following our concerns no information had been submitted relating to the provision of suitable water infrastructure. Your Authority has confirmed that Anglian Water were consulted as part of the original consultation but no response has been received to date. We ask to review a copy of Anglian Waters response when received.

Please note that we must be consulted on the discharge of our requested conditions at outline stage as well as for any that are imposed to the reserved matters applications.”

Whilst the objection still remains, there has been progress and it is hoped that prior to the Planning Committee the objection will be lifted by the Environment Agency and the application can be approved, any subsequent letters will be presented to the Planning Committee by way of the Late Letters process.

As part of the Outline approval Anglian Water advised that they have no objection to the scheme and confirmed that appropriate infrastructure works will be installed as and when the development starts to progress, there have been no additional comments with respect to this application.

Response to Representations With regard the comments received from the Wildlife Trust/Natural England and NCC- Highways so long as the relevant conditions that are attached to the outline are satisfactorily discharged and that contributions from the S.106 is forthcoming for traffic improvements in the area then no objections are raised.

The policies and SPG’s as cited by Planning Policy have been considered and the CSH condition attached as instructed, with regard the necessity to submit a sustainability and energy statement it is felt that this was satisfactorily address in the outline details and, whilst lacking in detail; the submitted Design and Access Statement and also the drawings.

The concerns of the local residence in terms of an adverse impact on the local area, loss of amenities and highway problems are discussed in depth above.

- 42 -

Conclusion Many of the key issues and areas of concern such as the impact on the local transport network, contaminants, wildlife protection, S.106 contributions and the general principle of the development has been accepted by way of the approved outline planning permission and the attached signing of the S.106 agreement. This application therefore whilst it has given commentary to many of these issues, as a matter of inclusivity, its primary focus relates to condition no. 1 of the approved outline with regard to the design of the development, the external appearance of the buildings and their relationship to the existing built form and to neighbour’s amenities as well as considering the landscaping.

Despite initial concerns regarding the internal layout to the development, the heights to some of the dwellings being incongruous, as well as some issues relating to the design and the contribution to planning out crime these concerns have either been lessened or have dissipated, following the submission of amended drawings.

There remains, however, crime implication concerns with regard the 2 rear courtyards to the eastern part of the site but also the distinctiveness of the site set in a local context. It is considered however that the proposed development has many merits resulting in an average BfL score such as the street integration and its relationship to achieving a public realm. The design of the dwellings and of the overall street scene especially the Boulevard opening up to views of the open countryside to the east, are good despite the lack of local distinctiveness and achieve level 3 in the CSH. The inclusion of material conditions and other conditions attached to the outline such as the need to submit boundary details and to meet secured by design specifications will aid in increasing the distinctiveness and crime prevention of the development. It is therefore considered that the crime concerns and those attached to the design of the buildings within the development do not represent sufficient weight to justify refusal. This together with no detrimental impacts to the amenities of neighbour’s, as demonstrated by the low level of neighbourly objections, along with the aforementioned considerations results in a positive recommendation. The outstanding issue and therefore the obstacle to development and an approval recommendation is the Objection by the Environment Agency. In light of this and all other issues being discussed above and being found satisfactory the application is offered with the recommendation that the decision of this application is delegated to Officers following either the removal of the Environment Agency objection or the approval by the Secretary of State that the Environment Agency objection is not upheld and the decision can be issued. The below conditions would be attached should an approval be forthcoming.

RECOMMENDATION: That the approval of this application is delegated to Officers following either the removal of the Environment Agency objection or the approval by the Secretary of State that the Environment Agency objection is not upheld and the decision can be issued.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development (Amended) Order 2008 (or any other Order revoking or re-enacting this Order) no buildings, extensions, or alterations permitted by Classes B and C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 in the 2008 Order shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. 4. Material and colour details of the window and door frames, eaves and balcony railings shall be submitted to and apprived in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. 5. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a further detailed comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 6. Within 6 months of the completion of the 80th unit a Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM Certificate showing levels should be submitted to the local planning authority, unless agreed otherwise by the local planning authority. 7. Prior to the commencement of development elevation drawings of the floating roof between plots 26 and 28 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 8. The window proposed in the south/side first floor elevation of the house on plot 59 as shown on drawing no. NT-09-03-M shall be fixed to remain permanently closed and constructed of obscured glaze and remain so in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 9. Planning conditions for development on land affected by contamination: A. Unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions A to C have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the local planning authority in writing until condition D has been complied with in relation to that contamination. Site Characterisation An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR - 44 -

11’. B. Submission of Remediation Scheme A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. C. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The local planning authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. D. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the local planning authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition A, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition B, which is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority in accordance with condition C. 10. Any protected trees on the site to be retained shall be subject to BS5837.

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 and neighbour's privacy. 4. In the interests of amenity. 5. In the interests of visual amenity. 6. To aid in the monitoring of the North Northants Core Spatial Strategy. 7. In the interests of visual amenity. 8. In the interests of the privacy of no. 63 Eastfield Road. 9. To protect against possible site contamination. 10. In the interests of tree protection.

INFORMATIVE/S: 1. Pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the Regional Spatial Strategy and the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material planning considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: - 45 -

Wellingborough Local Plan: G2 - Flood Protection G16 - Art G18 - Development affecting a Site of Nature Conservation Value G25 - Implementation and Monitoring H8 - Affordable Housing S1 - Broad locational requirement for retail development S2 - Impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre L5 - Retention of Important Amenity Areas L6 - Extensions to the town linear park system L7 - Provision of new recreational open space within housing developments T6 - Provision of footpaths and cycleways as shown on the proposals map U14 - Wellingborough East - General Provisions U20 - Wellingborough East - Land East of Eastfield Road North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy: Policies:- 1 - Strengthening the Network of Settlements 5 - Green Infrastructure 6 - Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions 7 - Delivering Housing 8 - Delivering Economic Prosperity 9 - Distribution and Location of Development 10 - Distribution of Housing 11 - Distribution of Jobs 12 - Distribution of Retail Development 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 Number: Date Received: Bir.3349_01B - Soft Landscape 10 March 2010 NT-09-06 - Design & Access Statement 15 February 2010 NT-09-04 B – Streetscenes 19 March 2010 NT-09-03 M - Planning Layout 19 March 2010 NT-09-05 C - HouseType Portfolio 19 March 2010 NT-09-07 - Secured by Design 19 March 2010 3. The applicant is reminded to refer to approved planning permission WP/2008/0050 for details of the remaining conditions to be discharged. - 46 -

Building for Life Assessment

Scheme Eastfield Urban Quarter, Wellingborough Assessor DO/AS/SEG/dc1 Date 29/03/2010

General Comments The DAS is extremely brief and is thereby unable to effectively Environment and Community 4.5 communicate the required details of the design. The decision to favour rear-courtyard car parking arrangements over an on-street approach has Character 2.0 led to significant disfunctionality. The scheme is piecemeal in nature and fails to demonstrate adequate connectivity with the previously agreed Streets, Parking and Pedestrianisation 0.5 development brief for the whole development site for 350 units, particularly in relation to open space provision and layout. Design & Construction 1.5 8.5

Criteria BfL Assessor's Evaluation Score

Environment and community - 47 -

Does the development provide (or is it The proposal is on the edge of the built area of Wellingborough, 15 mins walk from town 0.5 close to) community facilities, such as centre and outlined in principle in the Wellingborough East Development Framework SPD a school, parks, play areas, shops, masterplan. The town has houses to the west that are a similar distance and more from the pubs or cafés? centre. It does not include community facilities on site but has a shop (unspecified) and schools and communty facilities (again unspecified) nearby. The DAS shows two small pieces of land, one marked "Neighbourhood space", but these will only be realized when linked as intended to larger tracts of adjacent open space in the associated masterplan/development brief. The WEast DF shows a planned local centre east of the railway in future. Whilst a limited number of community facilities are located within half a mile of the site access (2 schools and a post office), most facilities would require a walk of over a mile to the town centre. Is there an accommodation mix that The accommodation / tenure mix reflects that set out in the Wellingborough Housing Needs 1.0 reflects the needs and aspirations of Assessment of 2007 and the North Northamptonshire Housing Market Assessment of the the local community? same year. These are derived from surveys of local community requirements

Is there a tenure mix that reflects the As above. The low level of 10% affordable has been agreed with WBC. 1.0 needs of the local community?

Does the development have easy Bus routes on Finedon Road and Midland Road are within 5 – 10 minutes’ walk of the site. 1.0 access to public transport? The railway station at the end of Midland Road, is within 400-800m of most of the site, accessed via a footpath off Mill Road. Does the development have any The DAS states that “All the open market houses are designed to BREEAM Eco-Homes 1.0 features that reduce its environmental “excellent” standard and all the affordable houses will be CSH Level 3. All houses will have impact? solar panels”. Some houses do not have solar panels on elevations. SUDS system swale planned into Avenue space to link to future SUDS but oddly not to be provided in this phase. 4.5 Character - 48 -

Is the design specific to the scheme? The layout of the streets and the houses is specific to the scheme. The DAS identifies the 0.5 creation of a tree-lined avenue “which will help to frame views [of] the [adjacent] wooded quarry area and location of the proposed LEAP”. The DAS states that “the design philosophy underpinning [the] proposal aims to ensure that the development responds positively and sensitively to its location. This has entailed undertaking a character assessment of the local built form, taking some of the distinct [sic] and common elements and using them as the inspiration for a contemporary [building] style”. However, this is not evidenced in the DAS, and the submitted House-type Portfolio comprises pre-conceived generic designs, the appearance of which is unconvincing as a genuine response to local distinctiveness. Does the scheme exploit existing Although the southern part of the site is relatively plain and featureless, the DAS 0.5 buildings, landscape or topography? demonstrates that the alignment and width of the main east-west avenue responds to and reinforces the adjacent “central wooded quarry area and beyond”. Two-to-three storey built form is considered appropriate here, and in line with the development brief for the site (adopted as SPD by the Council). The scheme makes no provision for open space within the redline though a small green is shown on one side of the north-south road. It further gives no guarantees that this will be catered for on a comprehensive basis within subsequent phases of the overall development area in accordance with the development brief. Several mature trees are removed due to regrading. Does the scheme feel like a place with Commentary on Criterion 6 (second point) refers. 0.0 a distinctive character?

The DAS suggests that “the general proportion, scale and massing [reflects] the traditional houses of this part of Wellingborough”. But this is not borne out in the street scene images and submitted generic House-type Portfolio which presents an arbitrary assemblage of pre- designed units of national styles and materials not common in Wellingborough. This creates an unsatisfactory built environment which is neither locally characteristic nor indicative of a positive contemporary interpretation. The street pattern does not create any memorable spaces either. - 49 -

Do the buildings and layout make it The treed and verged boulevard would be seen as a navigational aid, but the architectural 0.5 easy to find your way around? and townscape lacks punctuation and the scheme is ineffective in usage of views, gateways and landmarks to postively assist way-finding. However the straightforward nature of the street plan linking to the central open space planned in the wider area masteplan would make it relatively easy to navigate. Pedestrian routes are not clear and convenient where frontage car parking interrupts footway desire-lines, and again in the cases of rear “mews” areas where there is poor orientational clarity. The DAS’s intention to carefully use “materials and landscaping [to] reinforce the role of [neighbourhood] spaces” is vague and un-evidenced in the document. At this stage the scheme is not yet a connected grid and there is concern that this proposal will impact on the future development’s ability to create a permeable grid by the creation of the dead-end mews to the north, which is shown as a road in the development brief. There is valency however at the end of the Avenue and in the centre of the east boundary.

The DAS states that: “The height, scale and massing of the streets has (sic) been deliberately designed to reinforce the different aspects of the streets (sic) character”, “different heights are interwoven to create variety”, and “buildings of greater scale will be used for visual emphasis in key locations”. This differentiation, however, remains arbitrary (entailing simply a slight increase in block height in the main street), and is unsuccessful in meaningfully signalling important spaces and key intersections in the townscape. The scheme is only partially effective in achieving the desired framing of streets and public spaces as juxtaposed with active building frontages. Whilst parts of the tree-lined boulevard appear satisfactory in this regard, the majority is rather disjointed.

Are streets defined by a coherent and The building layout generally differentiates between public and private realms with clear 0.5 well structured building layout? building lines though there are unpleasant breaks in these for parking courts. Some of these are semi public and so may be prone to mis-management. Some homes in the northern cluster appear to front only onto a large car parking area. Parts of the scheme, particularly the rear courtyards, do not provide sufficient active frontages to allow appropriate surveillance and face-to-face social interaction. - 50 -

The layout suffers in being street-dominated rather than deriving from an architecturally coherent arrangement of buildings. The buildings to the south face an existing factory rear - a site that is too narrow to complete the adjoining block if and when it is re-developed, so making the block structure awkward. Concerns about the lack of a connected grid have already been expressed under the previous Criterion. Whilst parts of the tree-lined boulevard appear satisfactory in this regard, the majority is rather disjointed. 2.0 Streets, parking and pedestrianisation Does the building layout take priority As indicated in the previous item, the streets are designed to take priority over the built form, 0.0 over the streets and car-parking, so and this significantly undermines the coherence of the layout. There are built in shared that the highways do not dominate? surface areas at junctions and traffic calming chicanes but these are crudely detailed and lack any placemaking character. Although the opportunity has been taken to widen the highway to accommodate street trees in the main boulevard, this has not been followed through by provision of street unallocated parking. Rather, the layout favours rear-yard parking with its concomitant impersonality and (feeling of) insecurity through lack of surveillance and casual social interaction. The highway/street layout has created an environment which favours the car over other modes of movement. This is evident, for example, at plots 47-52 where the pedestrians have to walk round the parked cars rather than straight on. Additionally the quality of the streetscape is seriously harmed by the proliferation of front-of-plot 90 degree parking strips, unrelieved by sufficient softening landscaping treatment. Is the car parking well integrated and A large proportion of the dwelling units have car parking rows packed along their immediate 0.0 situated so as to support the street frontage, whether in streets or rear yards. This has a deleterious effect on the street scene. In scene? the case of the rear yards the available space is given over almost entirely to parking and manoeuvring space for cars. - 51 -

Rear courts are also likely to feel unpleasant and unsafe as they are not sufficiently overlooked. People are likely to park (inappropriately) on-street instead, where there is room and they can see their cars. As already mentioned, there is inadequate on-street unallocated car parking provision which would reinforce the street scene and activity as well as having traffic-calming benefits. Parking provision in total amounts to 155 spaces of which 17 are unallocated visitors’ spaces. Given the proximity of public transport facilities (including rail) and taken together with the proportion of smaller 2-bed units in the scheme, it would have been appropriate to reduced the car parking ratio and increase on-street provision, thereby freeing up space for the soft and hard landscaping necessary to mitigate the detrimental appearance of the frontage and other parking blocks. Are the streets pedestrian, cycle and The DAS states that “parking on-street forms part of the traffic management regime and the 0.0 vehicle friendly? principles of Home Zones will help to keep traffic speeds down to the desired 20 mph design speed”. Traffic calming features are shown at sufficient intervals to make this so. However, the actual number of on-street spaces is extremely limited, suggesting that without additional design intervention in the streets the desired speed limit may not actually occur. The fact that the boulevard pavements are segregated from the running carriageway will only serve to increase traffic speeds (through driver perception). South end of north-south road has shared surface area with long straight section for vehicles and may be quite awkward for pedestrians and children to establish sufficient presence to maintain a slow speed environment. No illustrations or specification are provided for the Home Zones to indicate how speeds here will be controlled, or how detailed design elements such as surfacing, planting and lighting might be used to create a controlled pedestrian-friendly environment. Does the scheme integrate with The scheme includes adequate linkages to the existing adjacent urban areas to the south 0.5 existing Streets, paths and and west and has some valency to the the north east and east, though the latter is through a surrounding development? parking area.

As indicated under Criterion 9 above, at this stage the scheme is not yet a connected grid and there is concern that this will impact on the future development’s ability to create a permeable grid by the creation of the dead-end mews to the north, which is shown as a - 52 -

through street in the development brief.

More fundamentally, the development brief states that “a piecemeal approach to development would… be unacceptable as it would be unlikely to result in a satisfactory form of development with all of the required sustainability features relating [for example] to transport, landscape and sustainable drainage” [para 5.2.1]. Are public spaces and pedestrian The DAS states: “the concepts of Secured by Design are used to create streets which are 0.0 routes overlooked and do they feel well overlooked and [provide] active frontages…” In most cases the dwelling units have safe? appropriate active frontages to the two main streets with entrance doors and windows. However, in the case of the rear courtyards surveillance is unsatisfactory. This is particularly marked on return-frontages at access-points where elevations tend to be non-fenestrated. Also, cars tend to be positioned outside rear boundary fences in the rear courtyards, thereby preventing surveillance. Accordingly, the layout of this development will not achieve the Secured By Design accreditation. It is likely that the rear service courtyards will undermine the security of dwellings by allowing strangers' access to the rear and that the fundamental lack of surveillance may create a less safe feeling environment there. Some parking courts appear interlinked by alleys that would be poorly overlooked. 0.5 Design and Construction Is public space well designed and The DAS states that: “The [open/neighbourhood] spaces will provide places for informal 0.0 does it have suitable management interaction, play and car parking”, reinforced by “careful use of materials and landscaping”. arrangements in place? But the scheme makes negligible provision for open space and is therefore reliant on provision in future phases of development. There is no guarantee that this will take place. The Avenue verges with SUDS will need specific management agreements.No details provided. The scheme makes no mention of proposed management arrangements for public space whether for the primary public domain or the semi-public rear courtyards. - 53 -

Do buildings exhibit architectural The DAS states: “Care has been taken to ensure that street-scenes are assembled from 0.5 quality? logical and well-integrated arrangements of buildings, with alternating forms and rooflines to generate visual interest”. This is only partially successful, as in several instances plot ridge heights appear disproportionate with neighbours and are thereby unrepresentative of the local built form. The DAS states: “The object has been to create a streetscape which is both good quality and well-designed”, and “the general proportion, scale and massing will reflect the traditional houses of this part of Wellingborough”, but in a contemporary style. However, the fenestration appears out of scale with the solid and neo-traditional form of the houses, their diminutive size and odd use of occasional full door height slimline windows to first floor frontages, unbalancing the overall composition. In the existing local terraces, much more of the elevations are given over to glazing and the windows are large, or within bays to allow more light into the interiors. Meters are poorly integrated in front elevations and solar panels are crudely applied and look entirely incongruous on these traditional house styles. The DAS states: “The palette of colours will be based around the traditional red brick and grey roofs, but additional render, modern colours and some contrasting brickwork will be used to add interest and enliven the street”. However, no specific information about proposed use of facing materials’ colour is provided in the statement. Submitted floor plans indicate barely adequate internal space standards in units for storage, circulation, etc., on the basis of full occupancy. E.g. 3B unit GFA of 86sqm to EP standard of 93 sqm. Do internal spaces and layout allow for The submitted House-type Portfolio indicates units will be to Lifetime Homes and SDS 1.0 adaptation, conversion or extension? Standards.The floor plans show that adaptability has been considered in the design, most of the units having areas for future lifts, downstairs WCs, etc indicated. However there is scant information regarding structural details that could assist in assessing adaptability through changing internal layouts, up into the roof space or potential technological changes to allow retrofitting of renewable technology. - 54 -

Has the scheme made use of The evidence submitted is insufficient to demonstrate that this criterion has been met. 0.0 advances in construction or technology that enhance its performance, quality, and attractiveness?

Do buildings or spaces outperform DD document states that all houses within Kickstart bid will be delivered to CfSH Level 3 0.0 statutory minima, such as Building which is insufficient to satisfy this Criterion. Regulations?

1.5

- 55 - - 56 - - 57 - - 58 - - 59 - - 60 - - 61 - - 62 - - 63 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 14/04/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2009/0453/FM

PROPOSAL: Convert barns to four dwellings. Remove open cattle shed and redundant factory. Construct eight new houses.

LOCATION: Factory premises 40 and Orchard Court, Orchard Road, Finedon, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr Michael Farrow, Polpark Limited.

NOTE: This application was reported to the Planning Committee meeting of 10.2.10 (Original Report attached hereto) when it was resolved to defer consideration to allow negotiations to take place in the interests of creating a more acceptable scheme. This was minuted as follows:

Report of the Planning Committee – 10th February 2010 5. PLANNING APPLICATION WP/2009/0453(FM) – FACTORY PREMISES 40 AND ORCHARD COURT, ORCHARD ROAD, FINEDON

The annexed circulated report of the Head of Built Environment was received, including late correspondence from an objector and the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, on planning application WP/2009/0453(F), for the conversion of barns to 4 dwellings; remove open cattle shed and redundant factory; and construct 8 new houses on land at 40 and Orchard Court, Orchard Road, Finedon for Mr M Farrow, Polpark Limited.

The report set out details of the proposal, a description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal.

The Head of Built Environment recommended that planning permission be granted subject to: The prior completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or a Unilateral Undertaking in respect of open space provision and other matters as appropriate; the conditions set out in the report. Reference was also made to the late correspondence from the Design and Conservation Officer recommending the following additional condition:

ROA 9 E 28 EN GD 3 N 2

D TI

1 9

7 2

38 7

48 2 2 2

4 El 29 L Sub Sta B E

9 T 3 21b R

O 1

3 A F 1 722 722

The Paddock Long a D

c 9 1

t 3 2 Reach o 7 8 r

21a y 5 ta O 1 ub S 1 21d El S R

C 7 e 1 21 H

A 9

R 7 D 23 Garage 29 37 C 3 5 9 LO 21c 39a 39b S GVC OR 39c CHAR E 39d

D ROAD

2 6 6

21 6 4 0

8 2

15 6 2 2 F O 9 a r c ch t D o a ry Ha r d C l 1 l

2 O 721 0 721 u T r rc t e r h r a a

c rd 1

6 e

1 4 57 4

1 0 49 a

so 3 Tudor G n Appletree ate s

Y 2 Court (Hotel) a

1 d 3 47 1 55 59 LB STREET 41 ( HIGH 39 5 to 3 29 37

Club

34 WATER

3 2

0 1 2 8 BRID 9 a 4 19 47 53 23 51

21 26

o 24

15 t 2 45

3 1

1 8 2

9 0 39 1

a 7 14

5 6 PH

1 1 2 0

3 272000 8 272000 4 7

491600 2 15 917 PH 491800

6 2 8 4 A PAR T F 3 Scale 1:1250

F 1 E 2 T L E R

E KER

E 4 R

R o 4

7 2 3

C 0 T 12 S AC K L 4 L S B 5 E E 3 Church R 3a W 2 - 64 -

“Prior to the occupation of the first unit, the subject of this consent, a stone retaining wall shall be constructed along the entire southern boundary of the site to a height and specification to be agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

Reason – In the interests of amenity.”

The inclusion of the additional condition would address the concerns of the late correspondence from an objector.

The Site Viewing Group had visited the site on 09/02/2010 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 person to speak for a maximum of 3 minutes. After the speaker the Committee was 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.

Members were of the opinion that whilst the majority of the scheme was acceptable there was concern regarding the number and design of the units fronting Orchard Road.

It was moved by Councillor Ward and seconded by Councillor Griffiths that further consideration of the application be deferred to enable the officers to negotiate with the applicant to achieve an improved design and layout for the units fronting Orchard Road. Report of the Planning Committee – 10th February 2010.

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

RESOLVED that further consideration of the application be deferred to enable the officers to negotiate with the applicant to achieve an improved design and layout for the units fronting Orchard Road.

The applicant has declined to amend the scheme in accordance with the Committee’s comments, and has now asked for it to be determined as originally submitted as set out in the following statement:

“This letter has been put together to allay and address the concerns of the Parish Council and Members raised in the initial consideration of the present planning application at the earlier meeting of 10th February 2010.”

The main concerns were as follows:

• The proposed frontage terrace is too close to the path; • The staggered form of the frontage element is inappropriate in the street scene; • The proposal constitutes an over-development of the site.

- 65 -

These matters are addressed in turn below.

The proposed frontage terrace is too close to the path The application proposes a terraced form of 4 no. dwellings along the southern side of Orchard Road. The dwellings will vary in terms of their distance from the back edge of the pedestrian footway from 1 metre to 4.2 metres.

The aerial photograph below demonstrates that the proposal takes its inspiration from the traditional relationship and proximity of dwellings to the footway in the immediate and wider locality.

Terraced properties on the north side of Orchard Road (nos. 15 to 21), semi-detached properties on the south side of Orchard Road (nos. 62 to 84) and numerous groups of traditional terraced properties on the north side of High Street all demonstrate development in such proximity to the highway. These sites are all ringed in red on the photo below. In many instances the existing properties are closer to the footway than the current application proposes.

As such, we are strongly of the opinion that concerns over the proximity of the development to the footway, and that this is inappropriate or out of keeping, cannot be sustained.

The staggered form of the frontage element is inappropriate in the street scene The layout as proposed is partly staggered to positively respond to and reflect the curve in the road at this point. This also helps breaks up the massing of the group as viewed from the street scene, helping to lead the eye around the corner, adding variety and interest to the street frontage.

As can be seen in the aerial photograph above, residential properties to the immediate east of the application site and the boundary walls of the more modern infill properties to the west follow the back edge of the footway and address the road in a positive manner.

- 66 -

Currently the development on the application site fails to address the highway in a manner that respects the development either side. Were a development to be proposed that had a straight frontage, it would fail to take the opportunity to reinforce the sense of enclosure at this point in the road or follow the back edge of the footway in a manner sensitive to the development either side. The proposal as its stands will reinforce and strengthen the sense of enclosure and street scene between the developments either side, producing a coherent active frontage on a site that is currently lacking such a feature. As such, and as stated by your Officers, the proposal has been designed to respect and address the street in a way that is witnessed in many other locations locally and which responds to the specific characteristics of this site.

The proposal constitutes overdevelopment of the site The application site measures 0.329 hectares. As proposed with 12 dwellings in total, the development achieves a density of 36.47 dwellings per hectare.

PPS3: Housing and North Northamptonshire Joint Core Spatial Strategy Policy 15 requires development to make the best and most efficient use of available land, especially in sustainable locations on previously developed land, providing this is consistent with the density of development found locally. PPS3 requires national density standards of 30 dwellings to the hectare as a minimum on this basis. In this instance, the development proposes an acceptable development density for a village location and is in keeping with the densities found locally. This view is supported by the Planning Officer and Planning Policy Officer who commented on the application.

Were the proposals to drop to 11 dwellings on the application site, this would result in a lower density of 33.43 dwellings per hectare, which is very close to the national minimum density. The applicant is of the opinion this would clearly not make the most efficient and effective use of previously developed land in a sustainable location, as required by the policies of the Council and national planning policy statements, when a suitable scheme for a higher density is considered acceptable by Officers without detriment to the street scene or local area.

Conclusions With regard to the density, form and proximity of development proposed to the footway, it is considered that the proposal as it stands is fully acceptable and there are no grounds for refusal that would stand up at a planning appeal given the material circumstances of the site and the local context as illustrated above. It is therefore respectfully asked that Members support the application as proposed.”

If Members are minded to approve the application, the original report recommendation should have the following amendments/additions incorporated:

1. additional Section 106 Heads of Terms covering education, libraries, fire and rescue and Wellingborough Council Amenity Services; 2. an extra Condition reading: “In respect of the historic barns to the east of the site, no alteration or demolition shall take place until the applicant (or successors in title) has secured the implementation of a programme of buildings recording according to a written scheme of investigation submitted by the applicant which has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority”. Reason: “to ensure appropriate historic building recording”; - 67 -

3. an extra Informative suggesting a recording brief be obtained from the County Archaeological Advisor, Planning, NCC (01604 237909) and indicating that the requirements of the brief should be met in full in accordance with the above archaeological buildings recording Condition. 4. an amended Informative no. 10 substituting the following Drawing Numbers: KC/PL/Fi/P684/2C; 3B; 4; 5; 6 and 7.

- 68 -

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 10/02/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2009/0453/FM

PROPOSAL: Convert barns to four dwellings. Remove open cattle shed and redundant factory. Construct eight new houses.

LOCATION: Factory premises 40 and Orchard Court, Orchard Road, Finedon, Wellingborough

APPLICANT: Mr Michael Farrow, Polpark Limited.

The Parish Council has requested Site Viewing on the grounds of overdevelopment and the development being too close to the path.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: It is proposed to convert a range of redundant barns to 4 dwelling units and to build an additional 8 units on the adjacent land to the west. The existing cattle shelter to the rear of the site and the adjacent former Gomex factory will be removed. The new-build takes the form of a terrace block fronting the street and a pair of semis and two detached units to the rear served off an adopted hammer-head roadway. Units 7 – 12, all four-bedroomed, each have either twin or singe parking spaces with the second floor rooms contained within the roof-space, each with dormer windows similar in character to those on the north side of Orchard Road to the west of the site. Units 5 and 6 are four-bedroomed dwellings with double garages and two parking spaces.

The net development density is approximately 38 to the hectare.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: The industrial premises on the right-hand side have been in use as such since 1956, and the barns and yard on the left used for light industrial/builder’s yard purposes since the early-eighties.

Members granted planning permission and listed building consent at the 10.6.09 committee meeting (references WP/2009/0109/F and WP/2009/0110/LB) for a smaller scheme for 6 units confined to the left-hand side of the site.

- 69 -

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National PPS 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 3 – Housing PPS 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, Policy EC12 PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment PPG 13 – Transport North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 9 - Development Location Policy 11 – Employment Policy 13 – Delivering Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 – Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Local Plan L7 - Open Space Provision G4 – Development within limited development and restricted villages Supplementary Planning Guidance: Parking; Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire; Building Better Places; Sustainable Construction and Design.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Environmental Protection – replicates earlier contamination condition.

2. Parish Council – objects to the scheme on the grounds of overdevelopment and the development being too close to the path.

3. Conservation Officer – happy with the design and layout subject to specified conditions.

4. Highways – no objections in principle. Standard dimensional and specification requirements quoted.

5. Planning Policy – a requirement for a commuted sum contribution of £21,608 in respect of open space provision is triggered by the quantum of development proposed. It is suggested that this is catered for in a Section 106 Legal Agreement. It is also stated that whilst policy would normally seek retention of existing employment sites in villages, here, as employment land supply in the village at large is not compromised, and having regard to the non-conforming and obsolescent nature of the site, it is considered acceptable to allow the change of land use.

ASSESSMENT: The site is located within the confines of the village policy line and would not materially detrimentally affect the setting or character of the village. It is derelict and vacant, thereby offering opportunities for appropriate redevelopment, having regard to the prevailing residential context. PPS 3 and PPS 7 both encourage re-use of buildings. Whilst the new PPS 4 generally supports the creation/retention of employment land use in villages, issues of obsolescence and non-conforming use are recognised as mitigating factors. As such, the principle of development as proposed would be acceptable, subject to other considerations below.

- 70 -

Character of the Area There is commercial property opposite the site, but the rest of the surrounding area is residential. The new-build, particularly the frontage terrace, is traditional in form and proportions, echoing development elsewhere in the area. Taken together with the high- quality conversion scheme for the adjoining listed barns, the proposals overall represent a positive contribution to local character. The frontage terrace is consciously designed to sit close to the rear-edge-of-highway in the traditional manner, as seen in many other locations in the village. The Parish Council’s assertion that this is inappropriate is, therefore, refuted.

In terms of density, government advice promotes higher densities, particularly on brown-field sites. PPS 3 advocates a density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare. The proposal achieves approximately 38 dwellings per hectare, in line with its surroundings. As such, the Parish Council’s suggestion that this is overdevelopment would be difficult to sustain on appeal, particularly given the favourable relationship to immediately surrounding development.

Residential Amenity The buildings have been designed in such a way as to avoid overlooking, visual intrusion and loss of light to neighbouring properties and future occupiers of the units. The present scheme is in fact an improvement on the earlier approval reference WP/2009/0109/F as a result of the more generous site area. Private and public spaces would be segregated by low masonry walls and/or hedging, the details of which will be subject to landscaping/screening conditions.

Setting of the Listed Barns At present the barns are redundant and in danger of physical deterioration. A sensitive scheme of refurbishment and new-build as proposed is the best outcome in conservation terms in the circumstances.

Issue of Employment Land Retention The agents acting for the Council have confirmed that the industrial property has been marketed in recent months with no positive response. This is felt to be because of its poor condition and specification, the location not being what people want and the loading doors etc. not big/tall enough for modern use. To be able to find a tenant, a lot of money would have to be spent on repairing/renovating the building with no guarantee of letting it at the end of it.

Also, the policy position above is accepted in that Finedon still has a reasonable employment land-use base. In these circumstances, it is considered appropriate to agree the change of land use.

Protected Tree The canopy of a protected walnut tree on the boundary, inside the curtilage of number 47 High Street, would overhang the parking bays for Unit 4. The Landscape Officer is satisfied that as the levels are higher on the north side of the wall, the proposal is unlikely to compromise the integrity of the tree. A safeguarding condition is included in the consent recommendation to control construction work within the vicinity of the tree.

- 71 -

Highways Vehicle and pedestrian visibility would be achieved to county highway standards. 23 car parking spaces are proposed in what are considered safe locations, having regard to the high level of surveillance afforded by the surrounding properties. The provision is above the stipulated maximum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling-house but is acceptable in this instance given the lack of on-street parking immediately in front of the proposed development and the relatively high proportion of four-bed units.

Conclusion The proposal represents a more efficient and aesthetically pleasing use of land and the design positively contributes to the character of the area. It also provides an opportunity to reinstate listed buildings which are in a state of disrepair. As such, the scheme is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant full planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking in respect of open space provision, and the following conditions:

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. No additional windows or any other openings other than those already approved as part of this scheme shall be formed on the flank (east elevations) of units 1, 2, 3, 4 without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other Order revoking or re-enacting this Order), no buildings, extensions, works, or alterations permitted by Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be carried out within the curtilage of the approved dwellinghouses without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. 4. Prior to the commencement of the development and notwithstanding the approved drawings, soft and hard landscaping details (including boundary treatment) shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5. Suitable protective fencing shall be put in place for the duration of the build to ensure that no damage is done to the overhanging walnut tree on the north boundary of the site, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 6. The first 5 metres of the access-way shall be hard paved. 7. The vehicular crossing shall be constructed and highway surfaces over the frontage of the site made good in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council. 8. Vehicle to vehicle visibility of 2m x 35m and pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2m x 2m above a height of 0.6m shall be provided and maintained on both sides of the point of access. 9. Access into the first part of the development shall be via an access area roadway having a carriageway width of 4.8m and service strips 1m wide. The entry point from Orchard Road shall include a rumble strip and be laid out with 1.8m footways as NCC detail SD 30/6/1. 10. The gateway into the private area of the development shall be set back from the prospectively adoptable highway boundary, and not the carriageway as indicated - 72 -

on the submitted plan. 11. Before development is commenced an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) to assess the potential for contamination of the site shall be submitted to the local planning authority. Should the ERA reveal that the site is subject to contamination a scheme for its remediation shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority. The approved remediation scheme shall be implemented and completed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the dwellings are first occupied. 12. Full details of the following items shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development: windows, external doors and garage doors, dormers, chimneys, eaves, verges, roof-lights and in-plot bin storage facilities. 13. Prior to the commencement of development a Sustainability Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall demonstrate how the development would be efficient in the use of energy, water and materials. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. 14. The rainwater goods for the new-build shall be metal-type. 15. The new stonework shall be laid in level courses to match the existing barns with a mortar mix normally comprising either hydraulic lime or 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. (See attached 'Supplementary Advice Note 1: Lime Mortars and Re-pointing' for further detailed advice). 16. 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. 17. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme detailing the security standards to be incorporated within all openings associated with the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the Police CPDA and in line with the recommendations of Secured By Design. 18. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the access gate and standards to be incorporated shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the Police CPDA and in line with the recommendations of Secured By Design.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. To protect the amenities of neighbouring properties. 3. To allow 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 the adjoining occupiers. 4. To secure a satisfactory development. 5. To protect the tree. 6. To prevent loose materials being deposited onto the public highway. 7. In the interests of highway safety. - 73 -

8. In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety. 9. In the interests of highway safety. 10. In the interests of highway safety. 11. In the interests of the health and safety of the future occupiers of the development. 12. To achieve satisfactory development. 13. To ensure that measures to make the development sustainable and efficient in the use of energy, water and materials are included in the development, and to comply with Policy 14 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Supplementary Planning Document Sustainable Construction and Design. 14. To protect the setting of the listed buildings. 15. In the interests of amenity and to protect the setting of the listed buildings. 16. In the interests of amenity and to protect the setting of the listed buildings. 17. In the interest of the security and quality life of future occupants of the development in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. 18. In the interest of the security and quality life of future occupants of the development in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

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: 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) and Policy 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, and G4 (Development in limited and restricted villages) of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. Bins left on the frontage of the development should not obstruct visibility between the driveway and Orchard Drive. 3. The development should be built to attain the ACPO SBD Ltd "Secured by Design" (SBD) award. This is considered to be a minimum standard for safety and includes a section for new homes. Details can be found on www.securedbydesign.com . 4. All external entry/exit and individual dwelling entrance doors should meet Pas 24:2007 or equivalent security rating. This includes any rear patio 'French windows'. 5. All windows should comply with BS7950. 6. Lighting should comply with BS5489 and have uniformity (no dark/light spotting). 7. The applicant is advised to discuss refuse collection aspects of the proposals with the appropriate Council officer. 8. Subject to their construction, including the closure of existing points of access and the satisfactory reinstatement of highway surfaces over the site frontage, in accordance with the specification of NCC and a suitable agreement, it is appropriate for the access roadways to be adopted as highway maintainable at public expense. 9. Central Networks has e-mailed to indicate that it has no objections in principle, but draws your attention to several detailed matters. A copy of the e-mail dated ------is attached to this consent for information. - 74 -

10. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: KC/PL/Fi/P684/2C; 3 rev A; 4; 5 rev A; 6; 7 04.01.2010 11. The Public Health Act 1875 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

- 75 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 14/04/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2009/0508/TX

PROPOSAL: Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission, in order to extend the time limit for implementation for WP/2005/0700/F - proposed demolition of existing sub standard buildings (retention of no. 32 and conversion to 2 no. 1 bed flats) plus 17 no. 2 bed flats together with associated external works - allowed on appeal.

LOCATION: 32 Thrift Street, Irchester, Wellingborough. NN29 7DU

APPLICANT: Mr Charles Scarrott, Apex Desborough Limited.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As above.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Old timber yard – appeal decision approving residential scheme 22/12/2006. Appeal decision as follows:-

“Appeal Ref: APP/H2835/A/06/2022183 32 Thrift Street, Irchester NN29 7DU • 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 Apex Irthlingborough Ltd against the decision of the Borough Council of Wellingborough. • The application Ref: WP/2005/0700/F, dated 05/10/05, was refused by notice dated 01/02/06. • The development proposed is the demolition of existing sub standard buildings (retention of No. 32 & conversion to 2 No. 1 bed flats) plus 17 No. 2 bed flats, together with associated external works.

Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission granted subject to conditions set out below in the Formal Decision.

P l a to TCB y 16 g 8 O ( r 1 P o u WP/2009/0508/TX 2

265600 20 265600

1 (

7 War

9 Meml

1 34 3 38

2 ter 9

1 4 74.0m

D 1 @ B

ROA W (

5 a ON 3 T r S e 8

A 1

L house

OL 6 W 3

1 7 2

3 4

3 2 2

5 6 2 T 8 CE

H LA 0 10 P 3 R 7 2 ARD 8 I H F RC T 1 O 2 655 1 655 3 1

S 1 7

3 2

T 4 2

1 R B

E 6

E 3 7 T

1 1 5 1

4 2

4 1 1 5

2 4 B

5 2

E T

6 2 Y i t 2 R o 1 m

a 1 2 be 3 A

R 9 r 1 d

I S 0 r L 2

3 3 H L

S C

TR L

O 4 8

E S

E E T

7 654 51 654

E 2

S 2

O 1

1 C

3 2 4 7 OA 8 2 10 20

3 1

5 2

4 4

7 4 27

2653001 265300 492300 492500 924 COU h LON C t LOSE

4 a 6

9 Scale 1:1250 2 P 9

1 3

32 - 76 -

Reasons 2. The appeal site is an old timber yard in a residential part of Irchester where new housing development would be permitted subject to the guidance in Local Plan policies E4, G1, H12 and UH5, amongst others. Thrift Street is a fairly narrow road lined on its western side by Victorian terraced houses with no off- road parking facilities. On the opposite side of the road there is a mixture of well spaced out detached and semi-detached dwellings. Stringer Court, at the end of the road and immediately opposite the appeal site, is a block of four flats for the elderly with parking facilities set into the turning head for the development.

Oak Close, a small development of modern houses lies beyond Thrift Street and a garage and workshop of the end property, No. 7 Oak Close, border the southern boundary of the site. To the west of the site are the rear gardens of houses fronting Berrill Street.

3. The existing buildings on the appeal site are mostly timber and brick open storage buildings with corrugated sheet clad roofs. All are in a dilapidated state. It is proposed to replace these by a block of seventeen 2-bedroom flats, two- storeys high, with a third-storey in the gabled roof space of the building. Nineteen car parking spaces are proposed at the rear of the building, accessed through a gated tunnel under the upper storeys at the northern end of the block. In addition, the end terraced house, No. 32, is to be converted into two 1- bedroom flats. An extended public turning head at the end of Thrift Street is to be constructed to replace the existing head which is not currently part of the highway network.

A Section 106 Agreement has been concluded as part of the proposal covering provisions towards open spaces, health care, refuse disposal and Skills Training and Colleges Together (STACT).

4. The Council has not argued the need for the retention of the commercial use of the building so the development would not contravene policy E4. It would also comply with Government advice to give priority for housing development on brownfield land. The flats would be in a sustainable location within walking distance of the local centre and good bus service. I acknowledge this would be a high density development, but it would help the Council meet the net density targets of 35 dwellings per hectare set in policy H6 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and Local Plan policy H5.

5. Although there are no three-storey dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the building approval has been given for three-storey dwellings elsewhere in Irchester. The new building would be less than 1m higher than the adjoining terraced house at No. 32 Thrift Street and would be set back from the road and the roof line staggered to take account of the slope of the land. In my view it would not appear overbearing or look out of place in the street scene. Nor do I consider that the absence of front doors infers that the occupiers would arrive and depart via the rear in cars, but I accept it would have been better if the development had not ‘turned its back’ on the street. I also agree it might be possible to incorporate a proportion of render in the facing of the front elevation - 77 - to better reflect the local detailing, but this and the details of the eaves/verges and front wall and railings could be reserved by a condition.

6. It was clear from my site inspection that the existing buildings on the site are an eyesore that could only be improved by demolition. I believe the proposed development would therefore respect and enhance the character of the site and would not contravene policies G1.1 and H12.1 in terms of the standard of design and the density of the site. In my judgement, the proposal does not represent overdevelopment of the site and would not materially harm the character of the area.

7. The building would be sited close to a garage and workshop on the side of No. 7 Oak Close, and about 5m from the front corner of the house. It would also be about 15m and 20m, respectively from the front elevations of No. 8 Oak Close and Stringer Court opposite, and about 27m from the rear of Nos. 21-29 Berrill Street. These distances all meet commonly used standards aimed at avoiding any unacceptable overlooking or loss of light to neighbouring properties. The car parking area and bin store would be close to the end of the rear gardens of Nos. 23-29 Berrill Street, but it should be possible to ensure the proposed fencing is an acoustic fence that would minimise noise and disturbance to these neighbours.

8. This leads me to the conclusion that the proposal would comply with LP policy G1.2 and would not materially harm the living conditions of nearby occupiers.

9. Turning to the question of highway safety and the free flow of traffic on Thrift Street and Wollaston Road. The junction of these two roads appears to meet highway safety standards, but I acknowledge that the narrowness of Thrift Street and parked cars along it could be a problem for the residents trying to park and for large vehicles that sometimes have to reverse back up the street in order to turn. However, the number of car parking spaces proposed complies with the upper limit of no more than 1.5 car parking spaces per dwelling set in policy T10 of the County Structure Plan and in national guidance. If parking along Thrift Street becomes a particular problem it could be controlled by a Traffic Order.

10. Moreover, the proposed new public turning head on land owned by the Council at the end of Thrift Street should make it much easier for all vehicles, including emergency and refuse vehicles to turn on this street. I note the turning head would not fully comply with the Northamptonshire Fire Service requirements with respect to turning circle, but it would comply with the guidance in the DETR publication Design Bulletin 32 Residential Roads and Footpaths (1992) and the Northamptonshire County Council standard in terms of the side turning leg. I also note that the Highway Authority is prepared to adopt it and has not otherwise objected to the development. The development would thus comply with Local Plan policies G1.3 and G1.4 and H12.3.

11. It is not clear to me whether the Appellant and the Council appreciated that the primary use of the existing turning head is for parking for residents and visitors to Stringer Court. If the proposed public turning head is used in the same way it would obstruct emergency and other large vehicles needing to turn. It - 78 - would thus appear necessary for alternative parking facilities for Stringer Court to be provided as part of this scheme and I note additional space could be made available adjacent to the new turning head which might accommodate this as shown on drawing No. 2118/01C. As the turning head would mostly be on land outside the control of the Appellant a ‘Grampian’ planning condition would be necessary to prevent the development proceeding without the provision of this facility.

12. In the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on Thrift Street as a result of the proposed development.

13. From my considerations of the main issues in this appeal I can see no planning objection to the development and I intend to allow the appeal. In doing so I have considered appropriate planning conditions in the light of the conditions suggested by the Council and Circular 11/95. I intend to impose conditions restricting permitted development rights and requiring schemes for acoustic fencing/refuse storage and site levels to be approved by the local planning authority in the interests of the living conditions of local residents. I also intend to impose conditions requiring design details of the elevations and the front railings, the materials to be used and the landscaping scheme to be approved by the local planning authority, in order to protect the character and appearance of the area. Finally, I shall require that the details of the proposed turning head be approved by the Council to ensure the free flow of traffic on Thrift Street. 14. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Formal Decision 15. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for the demolition of existing sub standard buildings (retention of No. 32 and conversion to 2 No. 1 bed flats) plus 17 No. 2 bed flats, together with associated external works at 32 Thrift Street, Irchester NN29 7DU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: WP/2005/0700/F, dated 05/10/05, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2) Before the development begins a report on potential contamination of the site shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified person and submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The report shall include: (i) a survey of the scale and nature of any contamination of the site; (ii) an assessment of potential risks to the public, buildings (existing or proposed) or the environment, including adjoining land; and (iii) details of any remedial measures necessary to make the site suitable for the proposed use or development.

The remedial measures shall be carried out as approved before development begins. If during development works any contamination should be encountered which was not previously identified and is either from a different source or of a different type to that identified in the original approved survey then revised - 79 -

remedial measures shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA. If during development works any contamination should be encountered in areas previously expected to be free from contamination, remedial measures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3) The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved in writing 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 5 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 with the local planning authority.

4) A boundary fencing/treatment scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the start of construction and shall be implemented as approved before the houses are occupied.

5) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

6) A plan showing the relationship of site levels and proposed ground floor levels shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and the development shall be built as approved.

7) Prior to the commencement of the development further details of the provision for the storage of refuse and recyclables (as well as the responsibility for presenting bins to the edge of the highway on collection days) shall be submitted in writing for approval by the local planning authority and implemented prior to the occupation of the first residential unit.

8) Prior to the commencement of the development the precise details and specification of the frontage elevation, the front railings and gate shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The details shall be implemented in full and thereafter retained.

9) None of the units hereby approved shall be occupied until the proposed turning head shown on drawing No. 2118/01 Revision B has been constructed and brought into use. It shall thereafter be retained as a turning head only.

10) None of the units hereby approved shall be occupied until the proposed replacement parking spaces for Stringer Court shown on drawing No. 2118/01 Revision C have been constructed and brought into use.

David Tester INSPECTOR” - 80 -

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Housing Strategy –

“Thank-you for the opportunity to comment on the above planning application.

While previous planning permission did not require affordable housing to be provided, there have been a number of documents produced since then which recommend that affordable housing should be sought on sites of this size.

As the application is to build 19 one and two bedroom flats, it is above the threshold laid down by the Government’s Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3), which recommends that affordable housing should be provided on sites above 15 dwellings.

This recommendation is backed up by the North Northamptonshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and the Wellingborough Housing Needs Assessment (WHNA) 2007 which recommend that:

“Housing developments on mainstream sites of 15+ dwellings and below 50 dwellings should provide 30% affordable housing unless specific evidence indicates that a lesser proportion is required to ensure viability.”

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment further recommends that:

“of the affordable housing, 25% should be social rented housing and 5% intermediate”.

The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008 has incorporated the recommendations of the SHMA and the WHNA and seeks to deliver 30% affordable housing in new developments.

The Council’s Housing Register currently has 68 applicants who have a local connection with Irchester on the waiting list, and this site would offer an opportunity to help meet that need.”

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northants County Council, Highways -

“5.1 Subject to the retention of conditions relating to the satisfactory replacement of parking places at Stringer Court and the provision of a turning head constructed in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and offered for adoption as highway maintainable at the public expense it is not intended that an objection will be raised to this application on highway grounds. It should be noted that the decision of the Planning Inspector was based upon amended plans and related to Levitt Partnership drawing no. 2118/01Rev C which should be substituted for the plan submitted with the present application. 5.2 The vehicular access into the application site must be constructed in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council. - 81 -

5.3 Pedestrian to vehicle visibility splays of 2m x 2m above a height of 0.6m must be provided and maintained on both sides of the point of access. 5.4 The means of access into the site must be 4.5m wide over the first 10m from the prospectively adoptable highway boundary. 5.5 To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway the communal part of the means of access into the site must be hard-paved. 5.6 Adequate provision must be made to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water onto the highway.”

Further comment received:-

“I refer to your letter of 15 March 2010 in which you emphasise the Fire Officer’s approach to development proposals.

The contents of the letter of 11 February 2010 with particular reference to the Lakanal House fire in Camberwell and the special considerations in respect of access to similar residential developments are noted. Of these considerations it is obviously the comments relating to the effect of parked vehicles in narrow roads on response times that give the most concern in the present situation. However, although there are already premises occupied by vulnerable persons at the termination of Thrift Street, I am not aware that representations relating to the means of access for the vehicles of the emergency and other services have been made to Northamptonshire County Council as highways authority.

Accordingly, whilst it was considered appropriate for the applicant to provide improved turning facilities at the end of Thrift Street it was not considered necessary to suggest that the degree of on street parking in the road should give grounds for objecting to the application.

Unless evidence is produced otherwise, it is considered that adequate means exists for access to be gained to the site of the proposed development and the existing Stringer Court by the emergency services and consequently I do not intend to change the advice given in the CR2 of 11 January 2010 in respect of this application.”

2. Planning Policy –

“The application is the renewal of an existing permission (WP/2005/0700) which was granted at appeal for 17 flats, and the conversion of No. 32 Thrift street into 2 flats. Although previously granted planning permission, the application is required to be reassessed with current policy which has changed since this permission was granted.

Principle of Residential Development The subject site is a former timber yard, which is an isolated use set amongst residential development on each side. The current remaining buildings on the site are no longer fit for purpose, and will not be detrimental to the overall supply of employment land. The development of this site for housing would enable a more appropriate use to the surrounding residential area and hence be compliant with Policy 11 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. - 82 -

The site is also suitable for development for housing, being located on brownfield land and within the village of Irchester, one of the larger villages which, from the last Census conducted in 2001, has a population of 4807 people. The density of the development is quite high at 124 dwellings per hectare, however given the surrounding area which has a large number of terraces which would also reflect a high density, the particular design of the development which is not dramatically different to the surrounding terraced character, makes the density appropriate.

Affordable Housing As the village of Irchester has more than 3000 people, the threshold for affordable housing prescribed by Saved Policy H8 is 25+ dwellings or a site of 1 or more hectares. As such, the application does not trigger the requirement for affordable housing.

Open Space Contribution As the development is over 10 dwellings, the application is required by Saved Policy L7 of the Wellingborough Local Plan to provide a contribution toward public recreational open space provision, as the development is too small to incorporate this within the site. The contribution should be prescribed by a Section 106 agreement and the payment in lieu of provision should be at the ratio of 0.35ha/50 dwellings.

Conclusion Subject to a Section 106 Agreement for open space contribution for the development, as well as the design complying with the sustainable development principles of Core Strategy Policy 13, I have no objections to this development.”

3. Northants Police –

“Northamptonshire Police is unable to provide specific comment to the proposed application due to a lack of information at this time. In the interest of the security and quality life of future occupants of the development I would strongly suggest that the following informatives/conditions are included, which if implemented will reduce the likelihood of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour occurring. This is in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.”

4. Fire Officer – comments awaited.

5. Third Parties – objections received on grounds of:-

• Overdevelopment • Parking problems • Traffic dangers • Threat to life – emergency • Vehicles would not get in • Loss of amenity • Out of character • Inadequate drains - 83 -

• Irchester far too big already • Flats will bring undesirables • Loss of employment site.

ASSESSMENT: Permission for scheme allowed at appeal. Some work occurred at site but a specified operation which would have perpetuated the permission cannot be said to have occurred as pre start conditions were not discharged.

RECOMMENDATION: That approval subject to conditions be delegated to Officer upon signing of a S106 Agreement relating to affordable housing.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Before the development begins a report on potential contamination of the site shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified person and submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The report shall include: (i) a survey of the scale and nature of any contamination of the site; (ii) an assessment of potential risks to the public, buildings (existing or proposed) or the environment, including adjoining land; and (iii) details of any remedial measures necessary to make the site suitable for the proposed use or development. The remedial measures shall be carried out as approved before development begins. If during development works any contamination should be encountered which was not previously identified and is either from a different source or of a different type to that identified in the original approved survey then revised remedial measures shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA. If during development works any contamination should be encountered in areas previously expected to be free from contamination, remedial measures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved in writing 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 5 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 with the local planning authority. 4. A boundary fencing/treatment scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the start of construction and shall be implemented as approved before the houses are occupied. 5. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 6. A plan showing the relationship of site levels and proposed ground floor levels - 84 -

shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and the development shall be built as approved. 7. Prior to the commencement of the development further details of the provision for the storage of refuse and recyclables (as well as the responsibility for presenting bins to the edge of the highway on collection days) shall be submitted in writing for approval by the local planning authority and implemented prior to the occupation of the first residential unit. 8. Prior to the commencement of the development the precise details and specification of the frontage elevation, the front railings and gate shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The details shall be implemented in full and thereafter retained. 9. None of the units hereby approved shall be occupied until the proposed turning head shown on drawing No. 2118/01 Revision B has been constructed and brought into use. It shall thereafter be retained as a turning head only. 10. None of the units hereby approved shall be occupied until the proposed replacement parking spaces for Stringer Court shown on drawing No. 2118/01 Revision C have been constructed and brought into use.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. To avoid any detrimental effects from contamination. 3. In the interests of amenity. 4. In the interests of amenity. 5. In the interests of amenity. 6. To secure satisfactorily planned development. 7. In order to protect the amenities of the area. 8. In the interests of amenity. 9. In the interests of highway safety. 10. In the interests of highway safety.

INFORMATIVE: Previous permission allowed at appeal. - 85 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 14/04/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0039/RVC

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 5 of planning permission WP/2003/0395/F - minor relaxation of goods condition to alter occupation other than a DIY retailer and facilitate occupation of vacant unit by Staples.

LOCATION: Unit 4 Castlefields Retail Park, 22 London Road, Wellingborough. NN8 2DP

APPLICANT: Sackville TSP Properties (GP) Limited.

Application is brought to committee due to policy implications and request by Councillor Pursglove.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As above.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Very extensive history.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: PPS4. Policies S1 and S2 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. Policy 12 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Agent for ING Real Estate –

“We write on behalf of ING Real Estate Investment Management (UK) Ltd who own The Swansgate Shopping Centre in Wellingborough town centre.

We have reviewed the above application submitted by Sackville TSP Properties Ltd having regard to National Policy Guidance PPF4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) and the adopted Wellingborough Local Plan.

Whilst in principle ING do not object to the proposed relaxation of Condition 5 at Unit 4, they are concerned that a permanent relaxation of the condition could N R D O A D D

4 7 .5 Dm D D B DD

TCB ( Pavilion DW WP/2010/0039/RVCD a 489500 rd 489900 B d y © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. C D R DD D T h Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694.e Published 23/03/2010 W D a lk All Weather Pitch s D 2 DD 5 896 897 D 898 DD D 267200 D 267200 DD D Playing Field

3 5 DD DD

@ B45.0m

2 3 DD DD

4 45.8m 5 B

4 D 7 D

Mayfayre House

4 DD 9

671 DD 671 DD Sports Grou

D A

R Denington Industrial 3 r

4 a

o n

N t

9 3 D O Estate D T

N I

E 6

1 D DD

B DD 46.7m

El Sub Sta DD

Phoenix Court

4 DD 6

o t t 1 o 6 In 1 dustrial Es

tate 1 D 3 D ESS DD 670 670

4 B 2 42.4m

o t

2 2

0 Pavilion 3 to 25 47.4mB

(( (((( Posts

Victory House

6 3

t o

7 D 1 o D Tanks g

a OA n I d R n

n D 4

2 u Sports Ground ON c k

GT Long Marsh ESS N I Colletts House N E D Tanks

r 45.9m d

CR B ANE 669 669

C 7

LO 3

E t

Tank 8

1 Hotel C Chy RA NE C E LOS E V

I T

Tanks

C @ ( L Pa th (u

O m)

E C Y

LB Tanks D

0 1

2 t

( i n

U D

( D LB

2 D

4 i o ( n

t 2 U

3 D @ Tanks DD D B D 44.9m L O T H D D N E

D W Denington Industrial O A L N K S ( R Estate L Twr ( O A ( D D 668 Electricity 668

El Tfmr Sub

n i a D Station r D D

( D (

L Twr

( D

B42.4m V

D 4 V

667 667

n U

Sta L Sub T El E

2 7 Y to 3 5

Victoria Park

1 2 to 19 266600 266600 7 1 to Tank 15 489500 896 897 898 489900

El Sub Sta

W Scale 1:2500 H IT SE W LO O S C R 3 D to 1 ON T 11 DM H E W A Y 1 1 to Y 9 A W H RT O NE W A T L n I L ai H IL Dr W M LS EL

SE N O 6 R TU - 86 -

lead to a detrimental impact upon the vitality and viability of Wellingborough town centre. If the Council are minded to grant planning permission, ING therefore consider that the permission should be personal to Staples with conditions applied to ensure that Unit 4 can only be occupied by Staples. A personal permission of this nature, with appropriate conditions specifying the types of goods that can be sold from the unit, will ensure that the unit would revert back to a DIY use should Staples withdraw their interest in the site or it becomes surplus to demand.”

2. EON – no objection.

3. Morbaine Limited (responsible for old Gloverall Site, corner of Denington Road/London Road.

“We wish to object to the above planning application, which seeks to broaden the range of goods permitted to be sold from Castlefields Retail Park.

Morbaine obtained planning permission in December 2007 for a comprehensive retail redevelopment scheme at 2-10 Denington Road to provide up to three retail units and a fast food restaurant (LPA ref: WP/2007/012210M).

We are currently marketing the retail units. Relaxation of the goods condition at Unit 4, Castleflelds Retail Park will prejudice our marketing exercise and it will harm the prospects of redevelopment at 2-10 Denington Road, Staples having already expressed a strong interest in our site, but with them now being prepared instead to locate on the Retail Park if that consent can be widened. Consequently, allowing Staples to trade at the Castlefields Retail Park will divert them from the Denington Road redevelopment scheme.

The building on our site has been demolished and the site has been vacant for a long period. It will continue to remain vacant and this prominent gateway site will continue to detract from the quality of one of the main entrances to Wellingborough until such time as we attract retailers. Indeed, in granting planning permission on our site, the Council acknowledged the benefits of our proposal in terms of improving its aesthetic contribution to the area, bringing a long term vacant site back into productive use and its job creation.

Accordingly, having regard to the above, it is considered that the Castlefields planning application will harm and prejudice the delivery of an important retail redevelopment scheme at 2-10 Denington Road. The planning application should therefore be refused.”

4. Comment from Agent acting in respect of nearby site –

“Re: 2-10 Denington Road, Wellingborough.

I act on behalf of Newcobi Ltd, the owners of the above site formally occupied by Gloverall plc as their manufacturing unit on London Road. My clients also own a warehouse unit at Earls Barton with Gloverall as tenant and the adjoining unit which is currently empty but also originally occupied by Gloverall. - 87 -

In April 2006 Gloverall ceased manufacturing in the UK and as their lease had come to an end they vacated the London Road premises. I was instructed to place the premises on the market 6 months prior to Gloverall’s departure as permitted under the terms of the lease and commenced marketing the premises For Sale or To Let. The marketing failed to attract an occupier to utilise the vacant space and terms were agreed with developers Morbaine Limited. I believe you have already received correspondence from Morbaine setting out details of their involvement and their best endeavours to secure retailers for the site. I will not duplicate these details already provided.

I would however comment further on the marketing of the site. During the marketing period the vast majority of interest cane from developers who could see the potential of the site for redevelopment for a variety of alternative uses. Owing to the high site coverage and low eaves height, the building having been designed and constructed specifically for the clothing industry, the property was of no interest for alternative manufacturing uses or indeed storage. In essence the buildings had become redundant. We continued to offer short term letting opportunities during and after the planning process without much success and in June of last year the buildings were demolished and cleared with hoarding erected along the perimeter as demolition would be required in any event. It is however unfortunate no suitable retailers have come forward to occupy the site leaving it vacant and in its present boarded state, which is again unfortunate as London Road is one of the main routes into town.

My clients wish to see the site development in accordance with the planning consent WP/2007/0122/OM as soon as possible and were encouraged by the interest from Staples as reported to them by Morbaine. However it seems that their interest in Wellingborough can now be accommodated by taking the vacant unit on Castlefields Retail Park although this will require the existing consent to be widened which they are looking to do through their application WP/2010/0039.

My clients wish to express their concern over this application as a widening of the consent will potentially open up the opportunity for further occupiers requiring the wider consent to take space in the retail park which the originally bulky goods restricted consent was set to present. Morbaine obtained the wide A1 non-food consent with few restrictions as this was appropriate to my client’s site however the widening of the consent at Castlefields will have a detriment effect making it increasingly difficult to secure retailers in what is already a difficult market leaving the site vacant and boarded on a primary route into the town.

A details objection has been lodged by Morbaine which my client fully supports and although we understand this matter is not required to go to Committee we would ask that you also support the objection and make representations as appropriate.”

- 88 -

ASSESSMENT: Applicant states –

“The planning application made under Section 73 of the Act is for the variation of Condition 5 of planning permission WP/2003/0395/F to permit a modest relaxation to the existing sale of goods restriction, to facilitate the occupation of the currently vacant Unit 4 by Staples.

The scheme does not involve the creation of any new floorspace or any alterations to the access arrangements to the existing Castlefields Retail Park.

The only changes to the external alterations will be with regard to signage which will be dealt with separately once the variation of the condition has been achieved.

The variation of the goods condition will not increase the attraction of the retail park above that that could be achieved through the occupation of Unit 4 (i.e. the vacant unit) by another retailer permitted under the existing controls.”

The Policy position is considered to be as follows:-

“The proposed site of Unit 4 is a vacant out-of-centre retail unit located within an out-of-centre retail park. The retail park is specifically designed to accommodate DIY uses, hence conditions on planning permission WP/2003/0395 which limit uses to DIY uses, and restrict uses which would conflict with town centre uses such as books and stationary.

Sequential Approach As the site is out-of-centre, PPS 4 requires that a sequential approach be applied, and also given the most weight in terms of consideration of an out-of- centre use. The sequential approach presented with the application is fundamentally flawed with the justification that Staples could move in without planning permission and operate 75% of their business model, hence only the 25% remaining produced by books and stationary sales is where the sequential test should apply. The use must be assessed as a whole, which is equivalent to a planning application for a 3 metre wall, where the whole wall would be assessed, not the 1m that needs planning permission.

Furthermore, the fact that there is a vacant out-of-centre retail unit and that this application does not result in the increase of floorspace does not exempt the application from the sequential test approach, as it is the entire proposed use which is under consideration.

Although Section 5.8 of the report states that Staples cannot operate from a centre location, paragraph EC15.2 of PPS4 states that evidence which claims that the class of goods proposed to be sold cannot be sold from the town centre should not be accepted.”

This is also justified by existing Staples stores, where some stores do operate from a town centre location. - 89 -

The Town Centre Area Action Plan was approved after independent examination in 2009, and lists a number of strategic sites which are deliverable within the town centre core area. Sites I (PO Sorting Depot) and K (Oxford House Site), as well as the Jackson’s Lane/High St site are all town centre sites which are capable of accommodating the development and are capable being delivered within the short term. Taking the above into account, the application does not satisfy the sequential test approach as stated in PPS4 and should be refused on this basis. The failure of the application to adequately assess sites within the town centre is also contrary to Saved Policy S2 of the Wellingborough Local Plan. Policy 12 of the North Northamptonshire Core Strategy also supports the town centre first approach and as such the impact of this development would be contrary to Policy 12 of the North Northamptonshire Core Strategy.

Impact Although PPS4 prescribes that there is not a need to assess the impact of the development as the variation of condition has not satisfied the sequential test approach and as such is sufficient for refusal, Saved Policy S1 of the Wellingborough Local Plan states that retail development will not be permitted if it results in a significant impact upon the viability and vitality of the Town Centre. The planning statement submitted with the application states in Section 5.32 that the use of the unit by Staples “will not increase the attraction of the retail park above the attraction that could be achieved through occupation of the retail unit by a retail operator able to operate under the existing controls”. It is obvious that there will be a significant impact in that 25% turnover (estimated in the report to be £500,000) could be leaked out of the town centre, from stores such as Colemans and WH Smith which operate from within the town centre. A retailer which could trade under the existing planning permission in the subject retail unit does not have the same impact upon the town centre, hence the reason for the condition in the first place. As such the proposal would significantly harm the viability and vitality of the town centre.

The variation of the condition to allow a town centre use to trade from out-of- centre would also set an undesirable precedent for other out of centre locations to be use for town centre uses, such as the 3 retail units which have planning permission nearby on London Road, which have yet to be constructed are also restricted to DIY use.

PPS4 does also give guidance of how to assess impact and the proposal would be considered to be contrary to: Policy 16.1(a) in that a town centre use out of centre may encourage investment to out of centre sites, instead of allocated town centre sites; Policy 16.1(b) as the application would affect the vitality and viability of the town centre as outlined above; and Policy 16.1(d) where the development would detrimentally impact upon the consumer expenditure of the town centre. As such, the application is also contrary to Saved Policy S1 of the Wellingborough Local Plan, Policy 12 and PPS4.

Conclusion Taking the above into account, the variation of condition is contrary to PPS4, Saved Policies S1 and S2 of the Wellingborough Local Plan and Policy 12 of the - 90 -

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. I recommend that the application is refused on the basis of all the policies as detailed above.

1. The variation of condition would enable a town centre use (Books and stationary) to be located inside a retail unit that is outside the defined primary shopping area of Wellingborough Town as defined under the Wellingborough Area Action Plan; and would therefore set an undesirable precedent and undermines Saved Policies S1 and S2 of the Wellingborough Local Plan, Policy 12 of the North Northamptonshire Core Strategy and Policies 16 (a),(b) and (c) of PPS 4.

2. The submitted Sequential Test Approach does not provide a sufficient comprehensive analysis of sequential sites where the entire retail unit could be accommodated within the defined shopping area of Wellingborough Town; and would therefore be contrary to Saved Policy S2 of the Wellingborough Local Plan, Policy E15 of PPS4 and Policy 12 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

3. The variation of condition would be likely to cause material detriment to the viability and vitality of the primary shopping area of Wellingborough Town Centre, as defined by the Wellingborough Area Action Plan, by encouraging investment to out of centre sites, instead of allocated town centre sites; and as such would detrimentally impact upon the consumer expenditure of the town centre. As such, the application is contrary to Saved Policy S1 of the Wellingborough Local Plan, Policy 12 of the North Northamptonshire Core Strategy and PPS4 and Policy 22 of the East Midlands Regional Plan.”

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The proposal is considered contrary to National Guidance PPS4 and S1 and S2 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, Policy 12 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy 22 of the East Midlands Regional Plan.

Policy 22

Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development

Local Authorities, emda and Sub-Regional Strategic Partnerships should work together on a Sub-area basis to promote the vitality and viability of existing town centres, including those in rural towns. Where town centres are under- performing, action should be taken to promote investment through led initiatives and the development and implementation of town centre strategies.

Local Planning Authorities should:-

- Within town centres bring forward retail, office, residential and leisure - 91 -

development opportunities, and any other town centre functions as set out in PPS6, based on identified need; - Prevent the development or expansion of additional regional scale out-of- town retail and leisure floorspace; and - Monitor changes in retail floorspace on a regular basis.

Policy 12: Distribution of Retail Development

The town centres of Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough will be strengthened and regenerated as the focus of sustainable communities in North Northamptonshire. For the period 2004 to 2021 development plan documents will make provision, in addition to existing commitments, for a minimum net increase in comparison shopping floor space of:

Kettering 20,500m2 Corby 15,500m2 Wellingborough 15,500m2

Development of an appropriate scale that enhances the retail offer of Rushden town centre will be supported. The remaining Smaller Towns and Rural Service Centres will consolidate their roles in providing mainly convenience shopping and local services. Local deficiencies in convenience retail provision will be addressed by provisions made through detailed development plan documents.

Where retail development, for which there is an identified need, cannot be accommodated within the defined town centre areas, a sequential approach will be followed with preference first to well-connected edge of town-centre locations followed by district and local centres including those in the sustainable urban extensions, and then existing retail areas that are well served by a choice of means of transport.

The scale of retail development should be appropriate to the role and function of the centre where it is to be located. Accordingly, proposals for major retail development and their phasing will be assessed to ensure that they do not have an adverse impact on the long term vitality and viability of other town centres or the ability of North Northamptonshire to retain expenditure.

POLICY S1

RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED IF IT WILL RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE VITALITY AND VIABILITY OF THE TOWN CENTRE AS A WHOLE - CUMULATIVE AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL IMPACT WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

POLICY S2

PLANNING PERMISSION FOR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ON SITES OUT OF THE TOWN CENTRE* OR ON THE EDGE OF THE TOWN CENTRE WILL BE REFUSED UNLESS THE DEVELOPER DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE ARE NO SUITABLE SITES OR BUILDINGS SUITABLE FOR CONVERSION - 92 -

AVAILABLE IN THE TOWN CENTRE. IN THE CASE OF SITES OUT OF THE TOWN CENTRE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WILL ALSO BE REFUSED UNLESS THE DEVELOPER DEMONSTRATES THAT NEITHER ARE THERE SUITABLE SITES NOR BUILDINGS SUITABLE OR CONVERSION AVAILABLE ON THE EDGE OF THE TOWN CENTRE.

*for the purposes of this policy the town centre is defined as the Town Centre Core area shown on Inset 1A of the Proposals Map.

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 policies: Policy 12 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and S1 and S2 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and PPS4.

- 93 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 14/04/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0104/C

PROPOSAL: Change of use to a waste transfer station with treatment. Storage/treatment of waste including WEEE, tyres. cardboard and other packaging waste, plastics, paper, metals, inert waste, carpet and furniture. Asbestos. Storage of batteries. No changes to existing buildings or structures.

LOCATION: Units 15-21 Links Road, Wellingborough. NN8 4EY

APPLICANT: Mr Barry Woodcock, Think 3E Group Limited.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As above.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Site is former railway wagon works.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Noted in Assessment.

ASSESSMENT: Applicants supporting statement and Design and Access statement is as follows:-

1. Background The applicant wishes to establish a Waste Transfer Station and Material Recycling facility to handle up to 50,000 tonnes of recyclable materials sourced from mainly from industrial and commercial customers with the operation expected to employ up to 800 people (the business currently employs circa 220 people). The site will not accept domestic or food waste. The facility will require investment of circa £1m of equipment to process the materials. The only change to the site infrastructure will be the installation of a weighbridge for the control of materials entering and leaving the site.

Think 3E Group Ltd is applying for planning permission for change of use to operate a Waste Transfer Station with Treatment facility that will store and:-

Refurbish waste electrical equipment for re-use. Recycle waste Electrical and electronic equipment that it is unable to re-use. D

I T

D |( D

Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 23/03/2010 M

P 6 6 . 5 Y

T ( r a D c

899 900 k 901 902 903 904 905 @

((

m 4B.3 270300 5 270300

( SP

T L Issues

m) (u ath P R A i ver N I se D

R S 54.1m Recycling Centre

BR (( O Y

D 702 ED Y 702 a nd W a rd B dy

4 4 C R t o

4 6

El Sub Sta Tank

((

Finedon Road

Industrial Estate

P A

T 701 3 701 4 E t o 16 R 4 S 2 Y 15 O N

5 O

3 5 D | 12

18 to 35

1 5

2 H 8 | d 1 an 17

0 El Sub d 2 an Sta 19 7

1 C

5 Y

o L t

T 7 N

E | 4 B in

3 8 3

n S a

R (

E 5 ND E SP l SA OS 700 CL 700 E 9

OS L 9

S C | R 6 DE N El Sub Sta SA WB

MP 66.25

7 ( in

1 ra

5 D

4 5

o 4 1 t 2 4

1 4

S G a n tr NIELS y ON R E OAD D

a n d

W in ra a D r d

B d

1 3

R iv e r C R

699 Is 699 e Tank

a t

ub S Y

5 l

7 9

2 El Sub Sta S Y A

N D

5 2 D A E O R R S

N R O O A S D R

T Tank A

1 698 Y Finedon Road 698

Industrial Estate

T r R a v iv Y e e l l r in Is g e

C r a n e L IN 5 to 7 KS El Sub Sta R OA Neilson's Sidings H D

1 0

to 1 Weighbridge 4

9 to 11

6 El Sub Sta

LIN KS RO

7 3

22 to 28 Y El Sub Sta 3 D E 697 697 S LO C D T Y LB ( k O 1 L 5

t L 2 Tk o

2 1

51.7m Finedon Road

1 Industrial Estate B @

D (

3 4

to 5

o 1

4 1 B52.2m Y Gas Gov

Works CLOSE

52.3m ( M B | P

6 DOW 6 A El Sub Sta E 5 M Silos 2

N 696 696 O D 2 E IN 1 F 45.1m 1 D B53.1m D 3 1 2 R B

3 Industrial Estate C | dy B rd a 52.6m W B 4 5 12

5 El Sub Sta

6 HY D R Y | I XO

N 10 to R 11 O Bevan Court

5 E

9 1 S 6 Y 1 o ESS t O 5 1 E L

N C A 52.2m L N T A S V te B ta E E s E l N B ia tr Sports Ground s u

32 d

| In |

60.0m 3 695 695 6 B SP

( RI

X Y 3 O

7 Mast (Telecommunication) N RO E A S D O L E C ( S 51.6m W B O O

2 L 6 | D C A E N M Sports Ground A

V |

4 2

Industrial Estate Finedon Road @ El Sub Sta Industrial Estate B51.2m (

28 to 50

7 1 Industrial

1 y 6 49.8m d

Estate B 2 | d to 26 r D a H R B W C

SP S 49.1m P ( B ( 694 9 694 D R IX OA 48.0m O NR R 69.5m B O N A D O D B E IN F

rack 1

0 D 4

C onv eyor El Sub Sta

D |

in a r D

Balancing Pond Finedon Road Industrial D Estate B50.5m

SP ( 9 | 2 E

51.5m m 693 693

Hopper E H

Allotment Gardens

7 6

T r a c k

55.0m 7

2 B @ ( MP 65.75

(

(SP 6

6 ( 692 Allotment Gardens SP 692 21 F 55.8m SWALLOW CLOSE B

1 1

1 1 2 6

56.7m

6 0 B T r a c

5 8 5

a Club

3 4

8 109e | k ac

3 4

AD @ RO | N 59.4m H T h e DO 2 L E

2 o

5 c IN 3 o m F B ( o P ti H v e ) 1 11

Allotment Gardens dy 9 c R B 10 09 C rd 1 d a 09 W 9a 1 nd

0 a

5 1 b D 269100 2 9 269100 E 10 H 1 7 IL 2 10 L S ck ra ID T 01 489800 E 1 490600

R 99 O

T A 1 ra 0 c D 899 k 900 901 902 903 904 905

( 3 1 | 3 7 6 8 LB

2 65.2m ( Dickins 2 U Memorial Hall RS 1a E 1 R 2 B Y DR

IVE

3 1

Scale 1:50007

6 1

8 D

1 6 6

Allot Allotment (

69.8m 4 its n | Gdns Gardens s U nes

usi 7 d B 63 lan Mid

61 B

1 5 6

71.9m

5 y 9 d 4 d B B ar d W

D E 1 4

Allotment @ D CR 4 A 28 O Gardens R

k N

c O

a r ED T FIN

ck ra T 1 8 - 94 -

Recycle waste Cyclopentane and butane refrigeration (non ODS) that it is unable to refurbish for re-use. Recycle waste metals (not cars or engines) plastics, paper, glass, wood, and tyres, carpets cardboard and other packaging waste. Operate a trade waste unit to recycle commercial waste including wood, metal, plastic, glass, gypsum, packaging waste, plaster board and inert wastes. Operate a bulky waste collection service from the site to the local community. Sort batteries for treatment at other suitably licensed facilities. Store asbestos. Store fresh green waste overnight before transfer to a compost facility.

The proposed site is located at 15-21, LINKS ROAD WELLINGBOROUGH NN8 4EY as indicated on the Site Location Plan (THINK3EI 07). The site comprises two existing warehouse units totalling 11,317 sq metres on a 3.55 hectare site with all the site concrete hard standing (tarmac on vehicle access) and is surrounded by other commercial and industrial units.

THINK 3E Group Ltd are recyclers of plastic, metals and packaging waste at their current site in Wellingborough.

The normal operating hours of the new business are stated in the application. The application is for a 24 hour, 7 day operation in order for the business to have maximum flexibility in managing its operations.

The nearest dwellings are some 500 metres from the property and any background noise from traffic arriving/operations will be minimal and will not disturb nearby local residents (Policy 15, Northamptonshire local Plan).

The applicant currently operates a plastic, metal and packaging recycling plant on the same industrial estate and is finding that, even in the current economic climate he cannot keep up with the demand for his business services in his present site.

The applicant's business plan identifies that with a larger site he can meet the demands of his existing clients to take their waste for recycling and can meet the demands of the re-processors for increased volumes of recyclates. The applicant at present has local clients waiting to bring in recyclables particularly plastics (currently his main recyclates stream) but he cannot take for reasons of site size and safety.

The applicant can also identify a demand for 'other wastes' for recycling on his site allowing his clients to have a 'one stop' drop off point for their waste streams.

The applicant also understands the 'desire' felt by Wellingborough Borough Council to offer more recycling facilities to local business in order to increase recycling of particularly of packaging wastes and where possible other waste streams.

The applicant identifies new legislation such as the Battery Directive that needs facilities to accept batteries, where from an economic and environmental viewpoints, storage is needed to bulk volumes in order to save unnecessary journeys with small loads prior to re-processing at other suitable licensed facilities.

- 95 -

The economic rationale for the core operation is to maximise the extraction of potential recyclables from any wastes received.

2. Transport Assessment The site has one entrance/exit for vehicles and foot traffic through the manned gated In Links Road. There is no access for the general public.

The site is well located for access by road being within Al - Ml - A14 – triangle and is based on an existing industrial estate. This unit has been two distribution warehouses and the previous occupier CEVA accepted between 80 and 100 articulated loads in and out per day until closure in 2009.

The site will be serviced by LGV, HGV and articulated vehicles, initially some 20 vehicles per day building over the course of 5 years to 50 per day as the business develops.

Initial business projections are for up to 15 articulated vehicles entering/leaving the site on week days - the business plan forecasts an increase to 40+ per day in 5 years time.

Five small (7.5 tonnes) Think3E owned vehicles will operate daily from the site and their use is not expected to increase. A further fifteen 7.5 tonne/other smaller vehicles are expected to use the site on week days making a total of 20 per day.

Weekend traffic would be a maximum of five articulated and five 7.5 tonne vehicles arriving and leaving the site.

Therefore the applicant is forecasting a decline in commercial traffic versus the usage by the previous occupier.

2.1 Travel The area is well serviced by local bus companies being on a large existing industrial estate.

The businesses owns a coach and currently run their own Wellingborough collection/drop off service for any staff working at hours when the bus service does not run and for staff off the main bus routes. Think 3E will continue with this service.

The security gate/gate house will be manned 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

The staff and visitor car park has spaces for 80+ personal vehicles and parking for a further 54 articulated vehicles.

3. Operational Equipment The operator proposes to use various types of plant and equipment normally associated with waste management and recycling operations.

The cardboard baler will be sited under the canopy between the units on concrete hard standing.

- 96 -

All other treatment operations will be carried out inside the buildings using fork-lifts, balers, shredder, grinder, granulators, crane, grab and mechanical shovel.

The units are over 500 metres from the nearest private dwelling and some 60 metres from the closest industrial unit.

4. Waste Audit Waste arising from the proposal The proposal will use existing facilities with no structural changes except the installation of a surface weighbridge.

Waste Management Principles Waste hierarchy WEEE arising on site will initially be assessed for (i) re-use (as required under the WEEE Regulations), items not suitable for re-use may have specific components (ii) recovered for reuse - all other WEEE will be recycled to the standards required by the WEEE Regulations.

Metals, tyres, plastics, wood, glass, cardboard and other packaging waste will be sorted 100% recovered/recycled and then sent for re-processing at other sites.

Inert waste, soil and rubble will be recovered for re-use.

Batteries will be stored for recovery at other suitable licensed sites.

A suitable permit to manage these wastes will be obtained from the Environment Agency subject to acceptance of this application for change of use.

Proximity principle The operation is a new facility and projections are best estimates - however these have been calculated from industry knowledge:-

- the impact of transport charges on the cost effectiveness of recycling these materials at a local site to the waste holder. - the increasing concerns by organisations regarding the environmental impact of transporting waste over large distances.

Plastics, cardboard, metal and plastic wrap will be 90% arising within 5 miles of the facility – a further 10% will arise within 20 miles.

55% of the WEEE will be arising within 10 miles of the facility.

The 45% of WEEE waste that will arise from outside a radius of10 mile of the site, will occur because local suppliers [having a national presence) of new Electrical and Electronic Equipment will, when they deliver new equipment, take back on the same vehicle waste electrical products under their producer obligations as determined in the WEEE Directive. These local suppliers will then bring the "back load of waste electrical equipment" to this site for recycling. By using this backload system to bulk up their obligated wastes and by using a recycling facility close to their distribution base the - 97 - electrical suppliers have a cost efficient collection system that consequently saves on separate collections and wasteful use of fuel/energy.

All batteries will arise within 20 miles of the facility. Trade waste will arise within 10 miles of the facility. Bulky local waste will arise within 10 miles of the facility.

Design No change in the design of the existing building is planned.

Complementary facilities The proposal is to:- i) Store and recycle WEEE (including Cyclopentane refrigeration), metal (no cars/engines), plastics, cardboard and other packaging wastes, glass, wood, carpet, furniture and tyres. ii) Sort and store batteries for treatment at other facilities. iii) Provide a trade waste service to the local business community to include packaging waste - wastes will be sorted for recycling and re-use with less than 10% of volumes being landfilled. iv) Provide a collection service for bulky local wastes.

Maintenance and Management are intrinsic elements of any Waste Management Permit – standards are dictated and audited by the Environment Agency.

Environmental Education All supervisors will be trained to NVQ Level 3 in Waste Management Operations within 12 months of site becoming operational. Other staff will be trained to WAMITAB, level 2 within 6 months of commencement.

Other wastes The operator will store waste equipment and recyclates as identified in the site plane THINK 3E/00I). There will be no chemical processes on site - certain of the items will contain quantities of hazardous components (asbestos, lead acid batteries, NiCad batteries, mercury switches, cyclopentane) these will be treated/managed in an environmentally sound manner to the technical standards demanded by the HSE and the Environment Agency (the regulatory body) stored in suitably secure and approved containers until removal from site. These hazardous components will be transported in suitable secure containers for either final disposal site or reclamation at suitably licensed facilities. Records will be maintained for four years of all waste imported and exported from site.

5. Existing infrastructure There will be no change to the structure of the buildings, access or enclosure arising from this application apart from the installation of a weighbridge. The surface mounted weighbridge, waste treatment areas and other plant will be sited as shown on drawing plan (THINK3E/00I).

- 98 -

6. Employment The business has recently given employment opportunities to 200, sixteen to twenty four year old young jobseekers, after receiving investment under the "Future for Jobs" Government initiative.

Further investment will be obtained for other long term unemployed people if this planning permission and subsequent Waste Management Permit are successfully obtained. The business proposes to increase the staff (young jobseekers) to over 800 if the business successfully achieves the necessary approvals.

7. Environmental Issues 7.1 Flood risk - Surface and Groundwater The site does not lie in a floodplain as defined by the Environment Agency. The site is connected to mains drainage. All treatment operations will take place under cover on sealed impermeable surfaces, and no materials handled, even were contaminates present, would come into contact with rain or flood water. The existing building is provided with surface and foul water drainage, therefore there will be no risk of surface or ground water contamination. The surface run off rate will be no different to that already existing as the impermeable surface area will not increase.

7.2 Landscaping and appearance. The property has no trees on site and all surfaces are concrete with minor small grass borders - the applicant has no plans to alter the appearance of the existing building, the metal palisade fencing, the security gate save as to refurbish and maintain the exterior in existing colours.

All waste treatment operations will be carried out inside the building or under cover and will not be visible to anyone outside the site.

7.3 Air emissions Due to the nature of the waste and the fact that unloading and processing will be handled indoors there will be no dust or odour emissions.

7.4 Noise Baling will not take place outside of the normal operating hours of 6am - 5pm on weekdays. All other operations will be entirely contained inside the buildings and therefore impacts from noise will be minimal. The applicant is applying for a 24 hour, 7 day approval on this established industrial estate. The nearest dwelling is 500 metres from the site. No machinery, generator, fans will be used in the period between 10pm and 6am on any day. Approval for 7 day 24 hour is required for the site to accept waste at any time with unloading being carried out by fork lift truck.

7.5 Soils No additional land will be used beyond which is already hard surfaced. - 99 -

7.6 Ecology There is no ecological interest on the applicant's site or in the environs.

The applicant proposes to install some bird nest boxes on site to help maintain and develop the local environment. The applicant will take advice from the Wildlife Trust on the type, suitability and number as part of this initiative.

7.7 Cultural or geological heritage There are no known elements of cultural or geological heritage of import on the applicant's site or its environs.

8. Conclusion - Planning Context The proposed development adds extra recycling facilities in an existing industrial area to the Northamptonshire area and complies with relevant plan policies:- a) Policy 1 establishes the principles of waste development. "Permission will be granted for waste development which is consistent with:-

- a clearly established need for the development to serve local and regional requirements for the management and disposal of waste; - reduction in reliance on landfilling;

- the minimisation of, and balance in, the movement of waste across waste planning authority boundaries, except where the development involves specialised provision and is consistent with regional self-sufficiency;

- minimising the transportation of waste from its source; - the Best Practicable Environmental Option for the waste stream; - the integration of waste management facilities; - the minimisation of harm to the environment, human health, natural resources, local amenity and highway safety; b) Policy 4 (Development of local waste facilities) States that proposals for waste development to provide local facilities (those dealing) with 50,000 tonnes or less per annum of non-hazardous waste) will be permitted if it can be demonstrated they will contribute to a sustainable - waste management system for Northamptonshire.

Such development should comply with one or more of the following: - be located on existing or designated industrial land; - be a part of and specifically serve one of the identified Strategic Development Areas i.e. Wellingborough East. c) Policy 17 (waste transfer, recovery and recycling) Development proposals in which the primary activity is the physical handling, transfer, recovery and/or recycling of waste (including household waste recycling centres, inert recovery and recycling centres, materials recovery facilities (MRF), waste transfer stations, scrap yards and metal recovery operations will be required to: - 100 -

- demonstrate that the development will assist the efficient collection and recovery of waste materials - Minimise open-air storage - Maximise screening.

9. Hazardous Waste on Site. Please note - hazardous waste stored on site - the list of hazardous wastes in the portal 'drop down boxes' does not identify the hazardous wastes that will be stored on site. The detail below lists the hazardous wastes as determined by the European Waste Catalogue (the criteria used by the Environment Agency to manage and monitor hazardous waste streams through industry and Waste Management Operations). This list is more extensive than that retained in the planning portal.

Subject to receiving Planning Permission and the necessary Permit from the Environment Agency the business proposes to have the following hazardous wastes on site. The volumes allocated below represent the volumes forecast by the business.

1. Display Screen Equipment (TV's/Computer Monitors). This equipment is expected to have a throughput of 300 Tonnes in year 1 - MAXIMUM STORED AT ONE TIME - 25 TONNES.

2. Fluorescent lighting equipment. Throughput of 0.5 tonne pa

- No treatment will be undertaken on this equipment. The product will be bulked up and passed to suitably licensed recyclers and reprocesser's. MAXIMUM STORED AT ONE TIME -100 KILO'S.

3. Gas (Cyclopentane). Expected throughput of Cyclopentane year 1 will be 5 tonnes.

Non ODS refrigerated equipment will be de-gassed and de-oiled on site and recycled. ODS refrigeration will not be treated on this site. MAXIMUM STORED AT ONE TIME 1 TONNE.

4. Batteries. Maximum Volume stored at one time 50 tonnes.

Certain Electrical equipment contains batteries and these will be recovered intact during treatment- lead acid, NICAD. Car batteries will be stored on site in suitable containers. No treatment will be undertaken on this site on batteries. These products will be stored on site and passed to suitably licensed recyclers and reprocesser's.

5. Other hazardous items re-claimed from electrical equipment. Projected volumes circa 200 kilo's pa.

Small quantities of other hazardous components reclaimed intact from other non hazardous electrical equipment will be:- Plastic contaminated with brominated flame retardants'. Printed circuit boards. Electrical Switches containing mercury. - 101 -

No treatment will be undertaken on these components. They will be stored on site and passed to suitably licensed recyclers and reprocessers'.

6. Asbestos Maximum stored on site at anyone time 10 tonnes.

No chemical treatment will be undertaken on any equipment at this site.

DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT Think 3 E Group Ltd

1. Use of Site The site was previously a distribution depot, now closed. The proposal is for a Waste Transfer station with treatment with further detail in the supporting statement.

No structural changes, additional buildings are proposed for the existing building, enclosure or land.

The site is ideally situated for its proposed uses being central to an established large industrial estate.

Visual impact is considered minimal as the majority of operations will be carried out inside the existing buildings.

The layout of the site will enable safe integration of HGV's and other vehicles using a one way traffic system.

The size of the site will ensure ease of access for authorised vehicles ensuring no backing up or vehicles waiting on access roads.

2. Volume The proposal is to accept/store and recycle a maximum of 50,000 tonnes per annum of various waste streams including Waste Electrical Equipment, Plastics, Packaging waste, Metal, Glass, Wood, Tyres, Inert waste, furniture and Carpets.

Business projections are for 20,000 tonnes in the first year of operation.

Cardboard and plastic wrap baling will take place under cover with the bales stored on a curtain sided flatbed.

All other Waste Operations (storing, sorting and recycling) will be carried out inside the 2 business units. The materials handled are unlikely to cause pollution from odour. Household and food wastes will not be accepted on site.

Dust or litter are unlikely to cause pollution as the operation is inside the units, but will be managed by mist air spray and litter picking if they arise. The site perimeter is secured by steel palisade fencing which will be fitted with wire and netting.

- 102 -

3. Layout The site is arranged around the current structure (layout plans THINK3E/001) and no plans are in place to make any changes. The internal layout has been designed to ensure that all potential intrusive activities are conducted indoors, confining noise, dust and visual nuisance inside the two warehouses.

The two warehouses are currently split internally into 9 units and these will be used to receive, store and manage the different waste streams as identified on the layout plans (THINK3E/00I).

Each of the 9 units has a minimum of one roller shutter doors allowing all wastes received to be unloaded inside the buildings.

4. Size The whole site covers some 3.55 Hectares with 11,317 sq metre in the enclosed two warehouse units.

The easterly warehouse is some 41 metres wide by 153 metres in length.

The westerly warehouse is 41 metres wide by 128 metres in length.

Eaves height varies between 5.5 and 7 metres.

There is also a large canopy on the main elevation of each unit ( 4 in total).

The front of one of the units having the benefit of existing lighting under the canopy and roller shutter doors.

The north end of easterly warehouse currently an open plan office with a canteen. This will be turned into a staff facility area.

The two units are almost fully enclosed by the covered loading facilities.

5. Access No changes to existing access route under this proposal.

All vehicles will enter and leave through the existing 24 hour manned security gate on Links Road via the established primary A5IO road network onto the A45 or AI4 using the existing road transport infrastructure.

Unloading will be carried inside the warehouse units - untreated wastes will be stored in the buildings prior to treatment operations.

Waste vehicles entering or leaving the site will be either enclosed loads or sheeted and will be weighed on the weigh bridge that will be installed in the entrance/exit.

A surface mounted weighbridge will be installed.

Staff will enter using the same route and will park their vehicles at the front of the building in the dedicated parking area (marked P on drawing). - 103 -

The site is on an incline with units on different levels - Ramps are installed throughout the warehouses to aid disabled access. There will be no public access to the facility.

RECOMMENDATION: That no objection be raised.

- 104 -

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

FOR INFORMATION

Planning Committee 14/04/2010

Report of the Head of Built Environment

APPLICATION REF: WP/2009/0397/C

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 09/00007/WAS - Extension to MRF building and increase in annual waste imports.

LOCATION: White Plant, 301 Grendon Road, Earls Barton, Northampton. NN6 0RB

APPLICANT: Alibone Recycling Limited.

NOTE: Approved by Northamptonshire County Council on 16th December 2009 subject to the following condition/s:-

Commencement

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

Reason: To conform with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Scope of Permission (Variations indicated in bold text)

2. This planning permission shall only relate to the area edged in red on the submitted plan, GPP/SWM/WC/08/02, hereafter referred to as the ‘site’. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out within the site in accordance with the details set out in the submitted application forms, certificates, and supporting information and in accordance with the details submitted in the Planning Statement of September 2009 and Site Plan GPP/A/EB/09/02.

Reason: To define the scope of the permission and in the interest of clarity.

3. The quantity of waste input to the site must not exceed 150,000 tonnes per annum.

1 6

A 8

m u (

h 117 t a P Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 20/10/2009 117a 119 855 856 857 858 859 860 861

127 263200 263200 135

139

145

160

1 5 3

168 1 D

0 17 B 61.3m 631 631

D 1 Issues 6 5 r a ( 1 1 5 i 6 9 n 9

1 6

1 7 1

1 7 3

1 7

9 1

9 17

1 8 3

6 Allotment Gardens

1 Y

6 8 9 7 5 1 4

8 630 630

4 0 0 2 @ A

2 ( ( Sinks

4 Y

14 D AD 1 PE RO Allotment Gardens

THOR

1 3

629 629

45 A 45 A 5

. B 1 m

628 T 628

D 627 D 627

Concrete Recycling Centre ck

Tra

Cattle Grid D

626 626

u b D w

D y D 5 4 A Cattle Grid

Ponds 625 625

Appletons Place

3 3 624 624

c k C 323

Depot 3 4 4 ck Tra D 3 4 623 1 623

Fairacre

4 B7 Club .5 m

S T A T I O N

R OA

D Drain Sports Ground

622 622

Tennis

Court

D Drain D Drain ((

|(|( ||

Pond |(|( C D

D r a D i n 621 621

FB 48.8m oPs M ( D ( ( H Pump House r B a R i

iv n

er Track k @ N n

Loc ene Drai

a P g Y in Drain H Water w Y o ( T @ Weir Works n Sluice ai Dr ck Tra 262000 B47.5m Conveyors262000 n ai Dr 485400 486200

r 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 C yo

El on ve ve on yo C Sub Sta rs

H T

Y Pond Scale 1:5000 D

ng Path Towi k ac Tr

eY n

e Nene N River r e AD ( C v RO @ i ION R STAT 47.5m Works

WB C

Weir in Dra D

r a - 105 -

Reason: To ensure that the A45 trunk road continues to serve its purpose as part of a national system of routes for through traffic in accordance with Section 10 (2) of the Highways Act 1980 by minimising disruption on the trunk resulting traffic entering and emerging from the application site and in the interests of road safety in accordance with Policy 8 of the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan (2006).

4. The daily maximum two-way trip generation of the site must not exceed 320 movements in any 24 hour period.

Hours of Working

5. Except as may be otherwise approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority the development and operations hereby permitted shall be restricted to between the hours of 6:00 and 20:00 on Monday to Fridays, 07:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays, and 08:00 and 13:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays (other than Christmas Day and Boxing Day).

Reason: To ensure that working on site is carried out within reasonable hours so as to avoid disturbance to nearby residential properties and in accordance with Policy 15 of the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan (2006).

Vehicle Sheeting/Mud on the Road

6. All waste transported to and from the site shall be securely sheeting to ensure that waste materials are not blown from vehicles and deposited on the public highway or surrounding land.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and local amenity in accordance with Policies 8 and 15 of the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan (2006).

7. No mud or other debris should be deposited on the public highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and local amenity in accordance with Policies 8 and 15 of the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan (2006).

Proximity Principle

8. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, all dry recyclable waste materials to be processed at the site shall originate from sources within a 30 mile radius of the site.

Reason: So as to have regard to the proximity principle and Policy 1 of the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan (2006). - 106 -

9. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, all skip waste materials to be processed at the site shall originate from sources within a 30 mile radius of the site.

Reason: So as to have regard to the proximity principle and Policy 1 of the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan (2006).

10. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, all waste paper and card to be processed at the site shall originate from sources up to 50 miles radius of the site.

Reason: So as to have regard to the proximity principle and Policy 1 of the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan (2006).

Monitoring

11. The operators of the site will at a minimum of 12 monthly intervals provide in writing to, and upon request by, the Waste Planning Authority, detailed information on the quantities and types of all waste materials brought onto the site for re-use, recovery and sent for. Such information will only be used in aggregated format as part of an Annual Monitoring Report produced by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To be in keeping with the proximity principle, national waste policy and the imposition of the landfill regulations and future changes to the planning system and waste management system and to monitor the effect of the imposition of the directive regulations in accordance with Policy 17 of the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan (2006).

12. The operating company shall keep records of the quantity of waste received by weight and its source and these records shall be provided to the Waste Planning Authority within seven days of written request. All such information supplied will be treated on a confidential basis.

13. A copy of the terms of this permission, including all documents hereby permitted and any documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission (or amendments approved pursuant to this permission) shall be displayed at the site office and shall be made known to any person given responsibility for the management or control of operations on the site.

Reason: To monitor the implementation of the conditions in accordance with Policy 17 of the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan (2006).

- 107 -

Informative/s

1. For the avoidance of doubt the drawings and documentation to which this decision refers are as follows:- Application Form, dated 25 September 2009; Planning Statement, dated September 2009. Plans: Site location Plan, Drawing No. GPP/A/EB/09/01; Site Outline Plan, Drawing No. GPP/ARL/EB/08/02a; Variation of Conditions at the Recycling centre, Grendon Road, Earls Barton Site Plan, Drawing No. GPP/1/EB/09/02.

2. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the informative comments from the Environment Agency in correspondence dated 13th November 2009.

Reasons for Approval

The application is to carry out the bulking of the skip waste in part of the outside yard area, for the next year, until the extension of the building has been constructed. The principle of the development is clearly already established and no objections or issues have been raised during the consultation process. Given the temporary nature of the proposal and the minimal intrusion there are no significant material change in circumstances to justify refusal having regard to Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan Policies 2 (The Location of Waste Development), 7 (Design), 8 (Traffic and Access), 15 (Local Amenity), 17 (Waste Transfer, Recovery and Recycling) and 27 (Monitoring) and the application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out above.

- 108 -

14th April 2010

PLANNING COMMITTEE

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

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

WP/2005/0720/F Bovis Homes Limited Nene Valley East of APPSUB106 Wellingborough, Finedon Road, Wellingborough. Creation of floodplain and ecological compensation areas.

WP/2009/0474/FCOU London and Oriental Easement land adjacent to APPROVED Regent Park, 37 Booth Drive, Park Farm Industrial Estate, Wellingborough. Change of use to car parking in connection with the industrial use at the nearby unit 1.

WP/2009/0493/RVC Mr D Hutchinson Manor Farm, Strixton. AC Change of use of redundant farm barns to B1 (Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission WP/2006/0568/F to allow the use of the two storage/distribution units shown on plan 2 received 16/11/2006 for purposes ancillary to B1 uses) - change of description.

WP/2009/0509/F Mr Terry Parker Water Tower, Cut Throat AC Lane, Great Doddington. To convert the existing water tower into a domestic dwelling.

WP/2009/0513/F Mr David Warner 6 Warners Hill, Bozeat. AC Erection of a single dwellinghouse with integral double garage.

- 109 -

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

WP/2009/0516/LB Mr David Waite Wellingborough Golf Club, AC Wellingborough Golf Club Harrowden Hall, The Slips, Great Harrowden. Internal alterations to create a new office admin area within former flat area. (Application for Listed Building Consent).

WP/2010/0001/F Borough Council of St Katharines Church (C of AC Wellingborough E), High Street, Irchester. Removal of wooden post and chain barrier. New metal balustrade and handrail.

WP/2010/0002/F Mr and Mrs Edgecombe 1 Norman Way, Irchester. REFUSED Roof extension to the bungalow to create 2 first floor bedrooms; side extension incorporating a garage.

WP/2010/0004/F Mr K Hammond 10 Overstone Road, Sywell. AC First floor side extension over the existing garage.

WP/2010/0007/F Mrs Sonia Percival 4 Hardwick Road, AC Little Harrowden. Vehicular access.

WP/2010/0008/F Mr D Chapman 11 Orlingbury Road, AC Great Harrowden. Erect a single storey, timber framed, glazed conservatory.

WP/2010/0011/F Mr and Mrs Mitchell 28 Harrowick Lane, AC Earls Barton. First floor extension involving raising the roof ridge.

WP/2010/0012/F Mr Mike Forbes 2 London Road, Wollaston. AC Demolish existing garage. Replace with new double garage.

WP/2010/0013/F Mrs Desai 30 Alexandra Road, AC Wellingborough. Single storey extension to rear of property.

- 110 -

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

WP/2010/0014/F Mr Richard Cant 10a Finedon Sidings, Furnace AC Richard's Auto Services Lane, Little Harrowden. Erection of a new MOT building.

WP/2010/0015/NMA Mr Craig Berry Flats 1 and 2, 103 Croyland AC Bellway Homes (NHC) Road, Wellingborough. Alterations to the building involving the insertion of 2 obscure glazed windows on the flank elevation. (Retrospective Application).

WP/2010/0017/F N Stagg Wilby House, 134 Main Road, AC Wilby. Proposed entrance gates and landscaping works.

WP/2010/0018/F Mr and Mrs Andrew Tidbury 24 Kettering Road, Isham. AC New roof extension. New roof over existing flat roof. Existing garage to study/WC. Kitchen extension. Canopy over front door.

WP/2010/0023/F Mr and Mrs J Stewart 33 Dowthorpe Hill, AC Earls Barton. Extensions to form bathroom, breakfast room and conservatory.

WP/2010/0024/CA Mr Robert Vaughan Various sites off High Street, APPROVED Borough Council of Poplar Place, Oxford Street Wellingborough and West Street, Wellingborough. Demolition of buildings in connection with infrastructure provision on the High Street and Town Centre (Application for Conservation Area Consent).

WP/2010/0027/F O A Brown 120 Overstone Road, Sywell. AC Single storey rear extension to existing bungalow to form bathroom, utility and WC.

- 111 -

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

WP/2010/0028/F Mrs Eunice Wilson Wollaston Community AC Wollaston Association of Primary School, College Youth Street, Wollaston. The removal of an existing mobile classroom and trees to facilitate a new community youth centre. The building will be a sectional type construction with associated services, hard and soft landscaping.

WP/2010/0031/F Mr J E G James Newlands Farm, 73 Harrold AC Road, Bozeat. Erection of a farm building to house new milking parlour and collecting yard, c/w tank room, inspection pen and feeding alley.

WP/2010/0033/F Mrs Angela Lines 31 Churchill Road, AC Earls Barton. Conservatory.

WP/2010/0037/NMA Spire Homes (LG) Limited 20 -26 (even) Laws Lane, All APPROVED Arthur Nutt Court and 104, 106, 108 Wellingborough Road, Finedon. Deletion of condition number 1 of planning permission WP/2008/0186/FM.

WP/2010/0045/F Mr West 6 Charlbury Close, AC Wellingborough. Conservatory to rear of property.

WP/2010/0051/F Mr J Memoli 139/141 Knox Road, AC J Memoli Electrical Wellingborough. Re-instatement of existing property into two separate dwellings incorporating alterations and rear extensions.

WP/2010/0053/F Mrs Ogden 20 Princess Way, AC Wellingborough. Erection of a rear conservatory extension.

- 112 -

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

WP/2010/0055/LN Mr Paul McKay Chevron Traffic Solutions, APPROVED Vodafone Limited Thrapston Road, Finedon. The replacement of existing 6 no. 2g T-Mobile antenna with 3 no. 2g antenna and 3 no. 3g antenna of smilar size. T- Mobile also adding a small flexi cabinet within their existing cabin.

WP/2010/0056/F Mr J Brown Land adjacent to 160 London AC Road, Wollaston. Erection of two residential dwellings - re-submission following withdrawn application WP/2009/0467/F.

WP/2010/0064/NMA Mr Michael Walker Land adjacent 9 Fellows REFUSED McCallum Homes Limited Close, Wollaston. Minor amendment to front elevation permitted under WP/2008/0349/F.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

The background papers for the planning and building applications contained in this report form part of the relevant files appertaining to individual applications as referenced.

Borough Council of Wellingborough, Built Environment, Croyland Abbey, Tithe Barn Road, Wellingborough.

- 113 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 23/03/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2009/1079/ B Weatherbys Thoroughbred Installation of air-conditioning, Limited replacement windows, partitions, REJECTED Sanders Road mezzanine floor storage area, Wellingborough diesel tank, link corridor and Northamptonshire lighting.

FP/2009/1599/ A Wellingborough Homes Remodelling and refurbishment. Limited APPROVED Thompson Court 9f Silver Street Wellingborough

FP/2010/0144/ Barrie Tilley Proposed rear ground floor 27 Chequers Lane extension. APPROVED Grendon

FP/2010/0167/ R Bainbridge Extension. 107 Main Road APPROVED C Wilby Northants

FP/2010/0168/ Mr and Mrs C Ridgway First floor extension. 32A Orchard Road APPROVED Finedon Northants - 114 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 23/03/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2010/0169/ Mr Victor Brown Loft conversion and internal 17 Hookhams Path alterations. APPROVED Wollaston Northants

FP/2010/0170/ Mr and Mrs M Alderman Proposed detached dwelling house 33 Gipsy Lane with integral double garage. APPROVED Kettering Northants

FP/2010/0172/ Deborah Mahon Single storey extension and Children And Young Peoples alterations to existing School APPROVED C Service Directorate buildings, to form new link building John Dryden House between existing School buildings 8-10 The Lakes and to create a new shared facility, Bedford Road including School Reception and Northampton Administration Rooms and a new Children’s Centre.

PS/2010/0175/ Aylesbury Vale District Council Alterations and extension. 66 High Street APPROVED Aylesbury Bucks

PS/2010/0181/ Kettering Borough Council Addition of 2 new classrooms to the Municipal Offices South end of the school with lobby APPROVED C Bowling Green Road area. Single storey reception Kettering extension to front of building (North) with additional staff offices and studio. - 115 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 23/03/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2010/0205/ Mr Robert Horne and Garage conversion. Miss Lisa Varrilli APPROVED 21 Cottesmore Way Wellingborough Northants

FP/2010/0206/ Ms A Barry Garage conversion. 17 First Avenue APPROVED Wellingborough Northants

FP/2010/0208/ Mr Paul O'Brian Two storey side extension. 19 Second Avenue APPROVED C Wellingborough Northants

FP/2010/0231/ Daniel Fitzgerald Construction of new disabled toilet Wentworth Lodge and installation of new foul APPROVED C Great North Road drainage run with connection to Welwyn existing sewer.

FP/2010/0237/ Alun Dicks Farm dwelling and associated Northfield Lodge Farm landscape. APPROVED Orlingbury Road Isham Kettering - 116 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 23/03/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2010/0248/ Robert Paintin Single storey rear extension. 2 Knights Close APPROVED Earls Barton Northants

PS/2010/0251/ Mrs C Barber Single storey rear extension and 24 Fosse Close internal refurbishment. APPROVED Wellingborough Northants

BN/2010/0262/ Patrick Wheat Strip of existing roof covering re-felt 38 The Pyghtles and batten and re-tile roof with ACCEPTED Wollaston existing tiles. Northants

DI/2010/0263/ Mrs D May Disabled adaptation (wet room). 10 Rydale Mount ACCEPTED Wordsworth Road Wellingborough

DI/2010/0264/ Mr Lawrence House modifications, new shower 3 Teal Lane room. ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants - 117 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 23/03/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2010/0265/ Mr and Mrs S Hale Single storey side extension. 44 Woodlands Road ACCEPTED Irchester Northants

FP/2010/0266/ Mr and Mrs K Graves Extension. 32 Lowry Close APPROVED C Wellingborough Northants

BN/2010/0267/ Mrs C Connolly Attached garage, not breaking 12 Town Close through internally. ACCEPTED Little Harrowden Northants

FP/2010/0268/ Mr and Mrs K Shooter Alterations. 15 Bush Close APPROVED Wellingborough Northants

BN/2010/0269/ Sam Steele Refurbishment. 12 Carlton Road ACCEPTED Turvey Bedfordshire - 118 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 23/03/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2010/0270/ G Pepper Bedroom above the garage, 43 Fairfield Road conservatory, chimney. ACCEPTED Isham Northants

DI/2010/0278/ Miss L Ryan Bathroom adaptation. 65 Gannet Lane ACCEPTED Kettering

BN/2010/0279/ Okay Aydin Extension. 52 Westfield Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2010/0280/ 8 Lorraine House Construction Demolition of existing house and Limited build of 7 houses and 9 flats per ACCEPTED 6th Floor Merit House planning permission Colindale WP/2007/0152/FP. London

BN/2010/0280/ 7 Lorraine House Construction Demolition of existing house and Limited build of 7 houses and 9 flats per ACCEPTED 6th Floor Merit House planning permission Colindale WP/2007/0152/FP London - 119 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 23/03/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2010/0280/ 6 Lorraine House Construction Demolition of existing house and Limited build of 7 houses and 9 flats per ACCEPTED 6th Floor Merit House planning permission Colindale WP/2007/0152/FP. London

BN/2010/0280/ 5 Lorraine House Construction Demolition of existing house and Limited build of 7 houses and 9 flats per ACCEPTED 6th Floor Merit House planning permission Colindale WP/2007/0152/FP. London

BN/2010/0280/ 3 Lorraine House Construction Demolition of existing house and Limited build of 7 houses and 9 flats per ACCEPTED 6th Floor Merit House planning permission Colindale WP/2007/0152/FP. London

BN/2010/0280/ 2 Lorraine House Construction Demolition of existing house and Limited build of 7 houses and 9 flats per ACCEPTED 6th Floor Merit House planning permission Colindale WP/2007/0152/FP. London

BN/2010/0280/ 1 Lorraine House Construction Demolition of existing house and Limited build of 7 houses and 9 flats per ACCEPTED 6th Floor Merit House planning permission Colindale WP/2007/0152/FP London - 120 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 23/03/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2010/0280/MA Lorraine House Construction Demolition of existing house and ST Limited build of 7 houses and 9 flats per ACCEPTED 6th Floor Merit House planning permission Colindale WP/2007/0152/FP. London

BN/2010/0280/ 4 Lorraine House Construction Demolition of existing house and Limited build of 7 houses and 9 flats per ACCEPTED 6th Floor Merit House planning permission Colindale WP/2007/0152/FP. London

BN/2010/0282/ Mr S Patel Remove chimney breasts to first 11 Gisburne Road floor bedrooms. ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

DI/2010/0288/ Mr Neagle Extend/convert garage into a 5 Muirfield Road shower room and bedroom with ACCEPTED Wellingborough access alterations. Northants

DI/2010/0289/ Mrs Williams Conversion of bathroom into a 62 Abbey Road shower room plus access ACCEPTED Wellingborough alterations. Northants - 121 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 23/03/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2010/0291/ Rizwan Moledina Removal of chimney from property 77 Wollaston Road as not longer used. This will aid ACCEPTED Wollaston removal of pillar on bottom floor to Northants increase shop space.

BN/2010/0292/ Delos Community Limited Structural support to chimney 1-3 Newton Close breast in kitchen. ACCEPTED Park Farm Industrial Estate Wellingborough

BN/2010/0293/ Mrs A Clarke Single storey extension. 59 Sandringham Close ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

FP/2010/0296/ Mr J Smith Single storey rear extension to 43 Farndish Road kitchen. APPROVED Irchester Northants

BN/2010/0297/ Ms Monica Gill Garage conversion to kitchen. 27 Queensway ACCEPTED Wellingborough - 122 -

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 23/03/2010

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2010/0298/ Mr Richard Day Garage conversion. 5 Brampton Close ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2010/0299/ Mrs Wills Minor work. 99 Stanwell Way ACCEPTED Wellingborough

DI/2010/0401/ Mrs Khan Bathroom conversion to a shower 62 Knox Road room and through floor lift. ACCEPTED Wellingborough Northants

DI/2010/0402/ Mrs Taylor Conversion of WC room into a 13 Hesperus shower room, ramped access to ACCEPTED Longfellow Road rear (Door Widening) Wellingborough