Planning Committee

Wednesday 11 March 2015 at 7pm

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

1. Apologies for absence.  2. Declarations of interest (completed forms to be handed to the committee clerk).  3. Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2015.  4. Applications for planning permission, listed building consent, building  regulation approval and appeal information.*  5. Planning Appeal Decision: (a) Minton Distribution Centre, Wellingborough Road, Sywell.  6. Any other items that the Chairman decides are urgent.

* The reports on this agenda include summaries of representations that have been received in response to consultation under the Planning Acts and in accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010. Full transcripts and copies of the disclosable representations can be obtained from the Council’s website: http://www.wellingborough.gov.uk/viewplanningapplications and are also obtainable from the planning case files, which are available for inspection on request by ringing 01933 231568

Site viewing group for 10 March 2015 will be Councillors Ward, Griffiths, Timms and Scarborough.

John T Campbell Chief Executive

Date issued: 3 March 2015.

 Enclosed.

Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire NN8 1BP Tel: 01933 229777 Fax: 01933 231684 www.wellingborough.gov.uk

For further information about this agenda, please contact Fiona Hubbard on 01933 231519 or [email protected].

If you wish to address the committee on an agenda item you can register by:  completing the form on the council’s website at www.wellingborough.gov.uk/speakersform; or  completing the appropriate form which is available at reception desks; or  contacting Fiona Hubbard as detailed above.

Membership: Councillor Ward (Chairman), Councillor Griffiths (Vice Chairman), Councillors Bell, Henley, Hollyman, L Lawman, Maguire, Morrall, Scarborough, Timms and M Waters (11).

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM 2 PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 MARCH 2015

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT

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

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

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

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

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

DPI   Other  Registerable  DPI  Other  Registerable  DPI  Other

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

Declaration of interests: page 1 of 4 Extract (modified) from the Code of Conduct 2012 Part 2 – Interests

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

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

6 Other Interests 6.1 In addition to the requirements of Paragraph 5, where you have an interest described in paragraph 6.3 below in any business of the authority, and 6.1.1 where you are aware or ought reasonably to be aware of the existence of that interest, and 6.1.2 you attend a meeting of the authority at which the business is considered, you are expected to disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent. 6.2 Where your interest is a “sensitive interest” for the purposes of this Code, you need not disclose the details of the sensitive interest to the meeting, but merely the fact that you have an interest in the matter concerned. 6.3 You have an interest for the purposes of paragraph 6.1 of this Code where: 6.3.1 a decision in relation to that matter might reasonably be regarded as affecting the well-being or financial standing of you or a member of your family or a person or body with whom you have a close association to a greater extent than it would affect the majority of the Council Tax payers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the ward or electoral area for which you have been elected or otherwise of the authority’s administrative area, or

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

------

Appendix A

Disclosable Pecuniary Interests The duties to register, disclose and not to participate in respect of any matter in which a member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) are set out in Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011. Breaches of the rules relating to DPIs may lead to criminal sanctions being imposed. Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011 provides that a pecuniary interest is a “disclosable pecuniary interest” in relation to a member (M), if it is of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State and either: (a) it is an interest of M’s, or (b) it is an interest of: (i) M’s spouse or civil partner, (ii) a person with whom M is living as husband and wife, or (iii) a person with whom M is living as if they were civil partners, and M is aware that that other person has the interest. DPIs are defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 (SI No. 1464) as follows: Interest Prescribed description Employment, office, trade Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain. profession or vocation Sponsorship Any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from the relevant authority) made or provided within the relevant period in respect of any expenses incurred by M in carrying out duties as a member, or towards the election expenses of M. This includes any payment or financial benefit from a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992). Contracts Any contract which is made between the relevant person (or a body in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest) and the relevant authority— (a) under which goods or services are to be provided or works are to be executed; and (b) which has not been fully discharged. Land Any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the relevant authority. Licences Any licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy land in the area of the relevant authority for a month or longer. Corporate tenancies Any tenancy where (to M’s knowledge)— (a) the landlord is the relevant authority; and (b) the tenant is a body in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest. Securities Any beneficial interest in securities of a body where— (a) that body (to M’s knowledge) has a place of business or land in the area of the relevant authority; and (b) either— (i) the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body; or (ii) if the share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest exceeds one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that class. For this purpose: “the Act” means the Localism Act 2011; “body in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest” means a firm in which the relevant person is a partner or a body corporate of which the relevant person is a director, or in the securities of which the relevant person has a beneficial interest; “director” includes a member of the committee of management of an industrial and provident society; “land” excludes an easement, servitude, interest or right in or over land which does not carry with it a right for the relevant person (alone or jointly with another) to occupy the land or to receive income; “M” means a member of a relevant authority; “member” includes a co-opted member; “relevant authority” means the authority of which M is a member; “relevant period” means the period of 12 months ending with the day on which M gives a notification for the purposes of section 30(1) or 31(7), as the case may be, of the Act; “relevant person” means M or M’s spouse or civil partner, a person with whom M is living as husband and wife, or a person with whom M is living as if they were civil partners; “securities” means shares, debentures, debenture stock, loan stock, bonds, units of a collective investment scheme within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and other securities of any description, other than money deposited with a building society.

3 An other interest that satisfies the tests in paragraphs 6.4.1 to 6.4.3 shall also be known as a prejudicial interest for the purpose of declarations of interest at a meeting. 4 These rules are to the effect that if the matter is one on which an ordinary member of the public would be allowed to address the meeting you are provided with the same opportunity. If an ordinary member of the public is not allowed to speak on the matter, you cannot do so. Declaration of interests: page 3 of 4 DECLARING INTERESTS FLOWCHART – QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF

What matters are being discussed at the meeting?

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

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

Does the matter:

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

Declaration of interests: page 4 of 4

Agenda item 4

Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Committee Wednesday 11 March 2015 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

INDEX Application Location Page No.

WP/14/00736/FUL Land off The Sorrels Isham Site Viewing Group 2

WP/14/00809/FUL 2-4 Arthur Street Wellingborough Site Viewing Group 22

WP/14/00681/FUL 28 Hatton Avenue Wellingborough 31

WP/14/00716/REM Appleby Lodge 140-160 Sywell Road Wellingborough 34

WP/14/00776/FUL 52 Ecton Lane Sywell 44

WP/15/00003/FUL Land to rear of 9 Grange Way Irchester 51

WP/15/00009/OUT 95 Overstone Road Sywell 57

WP/15/00068/CRA Earls Barton Quarry Grendon Road Earls Barton County Matter 64

WP/15/00008/EXT Burton Wold Farm Wold Road Burton Latimer Other Borough 70

WP/15/00018/EXT Nene Park Station Road Irthlingborough Other Borough 75

WP/15/00086/EXT Burton Wold Farm Wold Road Burton Latimer Other Borough 81

Planning Committee 1 of 85 11 March 2015

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 11 March 2015

Site Viewing Group (Date of visit Tuesday 10th March 2015 at 10.20 a.m.)

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Paul Bateman WP/14/00736/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 4 November 2014 6 November 2014 5 February 2015 North Isham

Applicant A P Lewis & Sons Limited

Agent Mark Flood

Location Land off The Sorrels Isham Northamptonshire

Proposal Erection of 21 dwellings (including 11 affordable dwellings) and creation of vehicular access. AMENDED AND ADDITIONAL PLANS. AMENDED AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

PLANNING HISTORY WP/14/00736/FUL Determination pending. Erection of 21 dwellings (including 11 affordable dwellings) and creation of vehicular access. AMENDED AND ADDITIONAL PLANS. AMENDED AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

NOTE This application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 11th February 2015 for the site viewing group to visit.

Previous officers report 11th February 2015

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for consideration for the following reasons: The proposal conflicts with the prevailing development plan policies but recommended for approval nonetheless owing to material considerations of sufficient weight; The need for the Council to enter into a section 106 agreement; The Parish Council objects to the application; and The number of objections received from third parties

Planning Committee 2 of 85 11 March 2015

WP/14/00736/FUL

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/14/00736/FUL - Land off The Sorrels, Isham

With reference to BW/88/0250(o) the reason for the refusal, together with a summary of how the then proposed development did not accord with the policies stated for the refusal is given below.

'That part of the application site indicated for housing development is considered to be contrary to Policies P6(3), P7 and En1 of the approved Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and contrary to Policies RES8, RES 10 and ENV 3 of the proposed Replacement County Structure Plan.'

The proposal was considered to be contrary to both the County Structure Plan in place at the time and the emerging replacement County Structure Plan because the:

- application site was outside the established village framework - scheme did not constitute infilling - number of dwellings exceeded six - proposal did not relate to a pair of dwellings or a small terrace

An Appeal against the refusal decision was lodged with the Planning Inspectorate, but was subsequently withdrawn before the Appeal was determined.

It should be identified that none of the reasons for refusing the application were based on any highway opposition to the scheme. The Northamptonshire County Council in its consultation response dated 8 April 1988 did not raise any objection to the application on the grounds of danger to highway safety.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE As described above.

The application site is an irregularly shaped rectangular parcel of land located on the north-eastern corner of the village. It also includes an area of the rear garden of no. 22 Kettering Road. The application site lies outside the village policy line but is contiguous with it on two sides. Access to the site would be achieved via The Sorrels.

The site is vacant and appears not to have been used for cultivation or pasture recently. It slopes down gently from the south-west to the south-east which becomes slightly more pronounced towards the eastern end. On the north-eastern boundary of the site is a variety of hedgerow trees and on the north-western boundary, as well as hedgerow trees, are a number of mature specimens which have the benefit of Tree Preservation Orders.

On the south-western and south-eastern boundaries is a mix of domestic fences, walls and conifer hedging.

Amended layout plans were received on 15 January 2015.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance

Planning Committee 3 of 85 11 March 2015

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): 1 (Strengthening the network of settlements) 6 (Infrastructure delivery and developer contributions) 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction)

Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: G6 (Development within the open countryside) H4 (Housing in restraint villages and the open countryside) H8 (Affordable housing) H9 (Affordable housing)

Supplementary Planning Documents: Sustainable Design Biodiversity Trees and Landscape Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Development and Implementation Creating Sustainable Communities: Planning Obligations Framework and Guidance

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime Parking Affordable Housing

Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area

Planning Contributions Guide for Local Infrastructure - Informal Guidance

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Isham Parish Council - originally did not object to the application but made the following comments:

- request that a condition be imposed to remove the permitted development rights for rooms to be inserted in the roof spaces - criticism of the layout and resulting back garden spaces for some of the dwellings with a suggestion for an alternative arrangement - concern with highway safety during construction and suggestion that the development be temporarily accessed via Station Road. Alternatively, deliveries to the site be restricted to between the hours of 10:00 - 14:00. The size of the delivery vehicles be restricted to rigid vehicles only and construction workers vehicles not be parked in adjacent streets - requests that it be issued with a draft of the section 106 agreement for the affordable properties so that it it can comment on it - suggests the following 106 charges be put upon the development for facilities which are required in the village which would be used by occupiers of the development: - public footpath with lighting from the village to the cricket club - public footpath along the A509 to footpath TM9 - means of access for emergency vehicles and equipment to maintain the Parish Council's playing field

Planning Committee 4 of 85 11 March 2015

The Parish Council on 9 January 2015 stated the following:

"Just to advise you that the Parish Council have commented further on this application:

We note that amendments have been proposed by the applicant for the above which we have discussed and are of the opinion that they do not address the issues which have been raised and therefore we confirm our objection to the scheme.

We also note the Planning Policy statement and would ask that WBC establish the viability of the scheme before this application is presented to the Planning Committee and as part of this process we would request the viability appraisal is issued to us for our comment."

2. Northants Highways - the company has been made aware of the concerns expressed by local residents regarding matters of highway safety. The statutory consultee has, however, not objected to the application but has suggested a number of conditions

3. Northamptonshire County Council, Archaeology - reports an evaluation has been carried out which identifies that there are remains of an Iron Age settlement activity on the site. The remains are not of sufficient significance to require preservation on site, however, the proposed works will have a detrimental impact upon them and a programme of mitigation should be secured by a suggested condition.

4. Northamptonshire County Council Minerals and Waste - has identified that the majority of the eastern part of the application site is located within a Sand and Gravel Minerals Safeguarding Area and goes on to accept that Policy 32 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan is satisfied. The authority is also satisfied with the intended waste and recycling arrangements.

5. Northamptonshire County Council Development Management - requests the following section 106 contributions:

Primary Education - £69,312 Fire and Rescue - £1,932 Library Services - £4,348

6. Northamptonshire County Council Development Management also requests that a condition be imposed regarding the provision of fire hydrants and details the need for the development to facilitate superfast broadband connectivity.

7. North Northants Joint Planning Unit - offers detailed design advice

8. Borough Council of Wellingborough Design and Conservation Officer -

"I have nothing to add to the JPU comments on this scheme."

9. Natural England - has responded under the following headings:

Statutory Nature Conservation Sites - no objection Protected Species - advises that the applicant be assessed against its Standing Advice on its website

Planning Committee 5 of 85 11 March 2015

Local Sites - the Council should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on local sites Impact Risk Zones and Sites of Special Scientific Interest - refer to its website for further information Biodiversity Enhancements - suggests a number of enhancement measures Green Infrastructure - identifies the benefits of green infrastructure and points to its website for further details Landscape Enhancements - identifies that the site may give opportunities for landscape enhancements

10. Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area Natural Development Officer - identifies that the application site lies within the Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area which was designated by the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs in March 2012. The area was established to reconnect wildlife habitats and help species respond to the challenges of climate change. The Development Officer has concerns relating to: the submitted bat survey, the ecological survey data and disagrees with two of the conclusions

11. Green Environmental Consultants on behalf of the applicant - has supplied a detailed response to the Nene Valley Improvement Area comments

12. The Wildlife Trust - makes detailed comments regarding the submitted ecological appraisal. With regards to the specific bat information, the Trust suggests a condition as a way forward

13. Environment Agency - considers that planning permission could be grated for the development as proposed, subject to the imposition of a condition relating to mains foul drainage. The Agency identifies surface water drainage will be by way of infiltration and that the Council should satisfy itself as to its feasibility.

14. Anglian Water Services Limited - has made the following comments:

- identifies the company has assets close or in the site and requests that its Water Industry Act information be included on any permission - Broadholme Water Recycling Centre has waste water treatment capacity available - The company's sewerage system has capacity to accommodate the flows and the developer should make contact under the provisions of the Water Industry Act - refer to the Environment Agency with regards to a surface water strategy and flood risk

15. Borough Council of Wellingborough Finance - requests a section 106 monitoring fee of 5% of the total value and interest of 3% above base rate on any late payment

16. Borough Council of Wellingborough Landscape Officer -

"The trees along the north west boundary of the site are all included in the Northamptonshire County Council Tree Preservation Order 131 which was made in 1974. The trees are very much part of the rural landscape on the edge of the village, visible from both the road to Kettering and the road to Burton Latimer.

Planning Committee 6 of 85 11 March 2015

It would appear that some of the trees have died in the intervening years: T3, T6 and T9 were all elm, presumably casualties of Dutch elm disease. T5 was an ash the place of which has been apparently taken by a young elm tree. A full tree report has been submitted with the planning application. The root protection areas have been plotted and it should be possible to build as shown on the plan without losing any TPO trees but the report draws attention to the challenge of accommodating the turning area adjacent to the lime tree referenced T4 in the report (T7 in the TPO). No-dig construction will be necessary and I am not sure how well that will fit with highway standards if this is to be adopted by the highway authority.

There are two semi mature trees within the main body of the site which could not be retained with the development. The tree in the NW corner needs to be relieved of the steps which have been nailed onto it, it is the plot in the north west corner of the site which is a problem. The protective fence required for the two TPO trees is shown as being reduced to allow a working area and the canopy would also need to be slightly reduced. The rear garden would be completely shaded. This is bad enough but the yew tree adjacent to the west boundary of the site is unfortunately very close to the proposed house. It is in the neighbouring property. Cutting it back by two metres would be more acceptable than the inevitable root damage, but this is a small tree. If the garage was incorporated in the main building the footprint could be taken away from the trees on this cramped corner site.

There is an abundance of space around the property on the south side of the footpath. I consider that this could have been better designed with the footpath possibly slightly re- routed.

A panning condition for the protection of the trees and hedges to be retained including no-dig construction should be attached if consent is granted. The boundary treatment needs to be considered in relation to the hedge."

17. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Protection - advises that the submitted site investigation addresses the contaminants on the site.

18. Borough Council of Wellingborough Housing Strategy -

"We would support the scheme as it brings forward much needed rural affordable housing on a rural exception site.

Background Post the finalisation of the Housing Needs Survey (HNS) 2010, in 2011 a Village Walk was carried out. This exercise identified a number of sites, which were then evaluated by Planning. At the time the site at Mill Lane was progressed, which was eventually withdrawn by the Landowners in 2012. Earlier this year agents on behalf of the land owner of The Sorrels site contacted Housing regarding bringing forward the site as a rural exception site.

Proposed Scheme The Housing section has been working with the Parish Council and the Developer to ensure that the proposed scheme meets the needs identified by local residents in the Housing Needs Survey 2014, whilst also taking into account the results in the 2010 Housing Needs Survey."

Planning Committee 7 of 85 11 March 2015

The table which can be accessed via the link below shows the comparison between the HNS 2010 and 2014 and the proposed mix on the site.

http://bcw- padms:8080/IDOXSoftware/IG_display/148729.pdf?docid=148729&appid=1002&locatio n=volume1&ext=pdf&page=0&size=1&version=0&ftrString=&displayTextAsIs=false&co de=INPTPNWSWJ

"This site is based on the NPPF (para 54) model for the provision of affordable housing, therefore there are some market houses to facilitate the affordable units.

As part of the consultation approach with the Parish Council, the comments made at the Parish Meeting by members of the public on the house types have been taken into account and the submitted plan now has bungalows to the rear of the existing properties.

S106 requirements A section106 agreement should be drawn up to ensure the delivery of the affordable housing, as this is a rural exception site.

The proposed location, tenure mix and house type are considered acceptable and are in line with housing need."

19. Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Policy - the scheme would be acceptable as long as it is sufficiently justified that the market housing element is the absolute minimum to facilitate the delivery of the affordable housing. Clarification on some of the issues raised above will go a long way towards achieving this.'

20. Wellingborough Norse - request that a section 106 collection be made for £1,575 for waste containers. The company points out that the Council is not legally obliged to provide containers free of charge

21. Northamptonshire Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor - has concerns relating to:

- surveillance over a public right of way and suggests a change to the layout - suggested removal of the public right of way link between Sorrel Close and Road B - need for front garden defensible space

With regards to illegal parking in the village the Police acknowledge that there can be problems at school drop off and pick up times. The Police records indicate that in the last two years there have been two recorded incidents of parking issues. However, there has been no mention of this issue at a recent Joint Action Group meetings or by the Parish Council. The Police say that they will become involved if parking is considered to be dangerous, causes an obstruction or community tensions and members of the public should call them on 101, or use the following website link www.northants.police.uk/forms/sct_priorities.aspx Alternatively, residents should ring 999 if it is considered to be an emergency.

Planning Committee 8 of 85 11 March 2015

22. Ramblers Association - does not raise an objection but requests a section 106 contribution be sought to improve the amenity value of the Public Rights of Way in the immediate vicinity of the application site

23. Neighbours - objections and comments have been received from a number of local residents who raise the following issues:

Planning policy - contrary to planning policy and use/designation of site as allotments - dispute regarding the housing needs assessment and no proven need for the development - smaller affordable units do not accord with the rural exception policy because they do not fit in with the larger dwellings along The Sorrels and in Sorrel Close

Planning history - planning history for a previously refused village hall on the site

Highway safety - increased traffic, parking and matters of highways safety, particularly at school drop off/pick up times. Currently insufficient parking for school staff and visitors - increased trend for home deliveries - impaired access for emergency vehicles - Isham bypass will unlock more suitable sites with appropriate accesses - dispute regarding information contained in the submitted travel statement - wear and tear on existing roads due to possible extended construction period - site should be accessed from Station Road

Design - criticism of the design and queries regarding exterior facing materials

Sustainability - few journeys to local amenities will be undertaken by foot, bicycle or bus due to: distances involved, unsuitability of surfaces, heavily trafficked A509 and no direct bus route to Burton Latimer - query regarding level of code of Sustainable Homes

Neighbour amenity - loss of privacy - other impacts on residential amenity: additional street lighting, noise - noted that dormer windows have been replaced by roof lights and request that a covenant be imposed on title deeds to prevent future alteration in the future

Archaeology - assumption that all archaeological issues will be addressed

Biodiversity - site plays an important ecological role and presence of wildlife such as bats and owls

Drainage - drainage concerns regarding ability of the site to absorb surface water

Planning Committee 9 of 85 11 March 2015

Crime and disorder - anti-social behaviour concerns due to public right of way

Other issues - query regarding validity of supporting information - precedent will be set for similar development - land ownership rights - need for a public meeting with villagers should the application be approved - unfair and unreasonable re-consultation time-scale - do not hide behind Government edicts

ASSESSMENT Material planning considerations:

- Conformity with the development plan - Effect on the visual amenity of the open countryside and setting of the village - Effect on the character of the village - Effect on neighbours' amenities - Highway safety - Public Rights of Way - Minerals and Waste - Drainage - Biodiversity - Crime and disorder - Sustainable travel - Land ownership - Planning obligation and community benefit

The Development Plan and Material Considerations The main issue is whether the proposed development is acceptable in the open countryside in the light of development plan policies and the provisions in the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPF).

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise".

'The application site lies outside the village policy line and the proposal is not exclusively for affordable housing. It is therefore in direct conflict with saved Policies G6, H4 and H9 of the Local Plan and Policy 1 of the CSS. However, the provisions for 'exception' sites in the policies are out of date in terms of paragraph 54 of the NPPF which also allows for the provision of market housing to facilitate the delivery of identified affordable housing needs.

There is no adopted guidance on the criteria for achieving this but Policy 13 of the pre- submission Joint Core Strategy (JCS), while not sufficiently advanced to be accorded significant weight in planning terms, provides useful clues. It states that '…Rural Exception Housing schemes should be purely affordable housing unless an element of market housing is essential to enable the delivery of the development. In such cases, the scale of market housing will be the minimum necessary to make the scheme viable

Planning Committee 10 of 85 11 March 2015

and should be tailored to meeting specific locally identified housing needs…'.

As such, to the extent that the market housing is solely for purposes of facilitating the delivery of affordable housing, the proposal would be acceptable. The viability appraisal should prove that this is so.

It can be seen from the above paragraph 54 guidance, the current development plan policies relating to rural exception sites are out of date and the NPPF now allows for the inclusion of some market housing within a scheme to allow for the delivery of an identified affordable housing need.

The application is accompanied by a commercially sensitive viability appraisal which confirms that the proposed amount of market housing is appropriate to facilitate the delivery of the intended number of affordable housing units.

In the light of the foregoing, the proposal justifies being accepted as an exception to policy, but with sufficient material consideration to be assessed in a favourable light.

The NPPF is also clear that sustainable housing development in rural areas should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The site lies on the edge of the village. Although it is outside the village policy line, it is nonetheless close to the core of the village and services. It is therefore in a sustainable location and consistent with the provisions in the NPPF.

Effect on visual amenity of the open countryside and setting of the village It is acknowledged that the proposed development will have an effect on the visual amenity of the open countryside and on the setting of the village, however, it is anticipated the effects will not be so detrimental to warrant recommending the application for refusal. This is because on the north-western and north-eastern boundaries of the site there is a distinct field boundary which would visually contain the proposed development so that it would not be an intrusive feature in the open countryside. Similarly, the mature hedgerows will ensure that the development will not overly affect the setting of the village.

The existing hedgerows could be the subject of a landscape planting scheme which could help to ensure their longevity and which would also safeguard the setting of the village.

Effect on the character of the village The proposed scheme has attracted criticism for a number of reasons with regards to its design.

It is acknowledged that the scheme includes some units which may be smaller than the dwellings nearby, but it is suggested that their size by itself does not mean that they are contrary to development plan design policy. It is considered that the design of the intended dwellings will not look out of place in this part of the village or result in the street scene being affected to any significant degree. Also, the development would not inflict any material harm on the wider character of the village to warrant recommending the application for refusal.

Planning Committee 11 of 85 11 March 2015

Effect on the Neighbours' amenities It is acknowledged that the proposed development would undoubtedly have an impact on the standard of amenity which is currently enjoyed by neighbours who adjoin or reside near to the application site. However, it is thought that any harmful effects will not be so significant to warrant refusing the application.

With regards to loss of privacy, it is accepted that there will be a degree of overlooking of private residential areas where there is none at the present time. However, the scheme has been designed with adequate intervening back to back privacy distances which will result in the existing, and future residents, all being able to expect a reasonable standard of privacy.

It is believed that the normal occupation of the proposed dwellings will not result in the existing residents from being subjected to unacceptable levels of noise. The Council's Environmental Protection Service has powers to investigate and control any occurrence of noise disturbance from a dwellinghouse as it deems necessary.

It is recognised that there may be an amount of disturbance during construction, but it is considered that it will be for a temporary period, and again, the Council's Environmental Protection Service has powers to enforce against any developer should a statutory nuisance occur.

With regards to street lighting, the modern design of the lamps mitigate against harmful and wasteful light spillage. It is not known if any street lights which are provided as part of the development will actually be switched on by Northamptonshire County Council.

Highway safety Concern regarding highway safety relating to traffic and car parking issues has been raised by a number of third parties due to the proximity of the school and the junction with the A509. The statutory highway consultee has been informed of the views of local residents.

The traffic issues related to the 'school run' are not exclusive to the nearby school and it is probable that if the development is approved any parking and access difficulties that may in the future be experienced in the area at drop off and pick up times will still most likely be attributable to the parents of schoolchildren.

The Northamptonshire County Council Education Department web page states that the academic year 2014 - 2015 will be 190 days, plus five training days. It should also be noted that during the normal school day there are usually two relatively short periods of time in which most of the traffic and parking congestion associated with a school occurs, apart from when parents' evenings, school plays etc are held.

If local residents do experience parking problems it would perhaps be useful to set out the enforcement regime with regards to car parking in the public highway.

Parking in front of a driveway is an offence under paragraph 217 of the Highway Code. Parking on a footpath is also an offence under paragraph 218 of The Highway Code.

The following recently updated information has been abstracted from the Northamptonshire County Council website on 20 January 2015.

Planning Committee 12 of 85 11 March 2015

BLOCKED ACCESS (OBSTRUCTION) Drivers who claim that they were unable to gain access to their private or commercial property (off-road or adjacent land to the public highway) are not entitled to park in contravention of any parking restriction.

Incidents involving vehicles that are causing an obstruction including where there are no parking restrictions must be reported to the Police.

BUILDERS/TRADESMEN Loading and unloading of tools and materials are allowed on yellow lines and in permit bays (not disabled bays) providing it is a constant activity. Once loading and unloading has taken place, the driver must park the vehicle in a car park or in another permitted area. A PCN may be cancelled if the motorist is able to provide evidence that loading and unloading had taken place at the time it was issued.

FOOTWAY/PAVEMENT PARKING Footway parking is not encouraged because of the obstructive nature and the dangers it presents to pedestrians and wheelchair users. Footways are also not designed to carry vehicle loads and this may cause damage to the footway and underlying services. A PCN will not be cancelled if it has been issued where a footway ban is in place. Signage will indicate where a footway ban applies.

Where a driver has had to cross a parking restriction such as a yellow line, parking on the footway/verge is not permitted. Motorists are reminded that restrictions apply to the extent of the public highway (which includes the footway).

SCHOOL KEEP CLEAR MARKINGS Parking on school keep clear markings can be dangerous and poses a danger to those attending and visiting the establishments. We strongly advise that parking in this way is discouraged and that motorists pay attention when driving and parking around schools. Please give due consideration to residents in the area (for example do not park at dropped kerbs giving access to off-street arrangements). Where restrictions are in place, a PCN may be issued and will not be cancelled under any circumstances.'

The applicant has been in discussions with WSP Ltd/Kier MG Ltd/Northamptonshire Highways on behalf of the Highway Authority during the course of the determination period to achieve an acceptable highway layout. The company has been steadfast in its stance of not objecting to the application but has, however, suggested a raft of conditions relating to the construction, layout and future maintenance of the highway.

The anxiety expressed by local residents is appreciated, however, in the light of no objection being lodged by the Local Highway Authority; it is considered that there is insufficient evidence on which to base a refusal of planning permission on the grounds of danger to highway safety.

Public Rights of Way WSP Ltd/Kier MG Ltd/Northamptonshire Highways on behalf of the Local Highway Authority and The Ramblers Association have suggested that works be undertaken to improve the nearby public rights of way surfacing and access. This request is considered to be reasonable and can be taken forward by way of the imposition of a suitable condition.

Planning Committee 13 of 85 11 March 2015

Minerals and waste The minerals and waste authority is content with the application.

Biodiversity With regards to protected species which could be affected by the development, The Wildlife Trust which acts as the Council's advisor, has suggested that a condition be imposed which would take into account and make provision for any bats which could be affected by the scheme.

There has been some dispute regarding other biodiversity issues raised by the proposed development, however, it considered they should not be accorded sufficient weight to recommend refusal of the application.

Conditions regarding landscaping and bat and bird boxes are also recommended which would require the inclusion of native plant species which would provide food and habitat for protected species and wildlife.

Crime and disorder The concern of the Police is acknowledged, however it is considered that its apprehension should not be accorded sufficient weight to refuse the application.

With regards to the potential for criminal activity due to the permeability of the scheme, the site can already be accessed and crossed by existing public rights of way which are incorporated into the layout of the development. In addition, the Police have not identified that there is any particular crime issue in Isham.

Sustainable travel There have been comments lodged regarding the sustainability of the development with specific reference to the unsuitable pedestrian and cycle routes and lack of a direct bus connection to Burton Latimer.

The NNCSS requires development to be able to access the use of sustainable means of transport and the NPPF at section 4 also promotes this theme. However, at paragraph 29 of the NPPF, the Government says it 'recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas.'

It is accepted that there may be no direct bus link to Burton Latimer, but Isham is on the Stagecoach X4 route which connects the village to Wellingborough and Kettering and beyond on a regular basis.

It is considered that for a village, Isham is located in a reasonably sustainable location, because it is in relatively close proximity to Kettering and also has the benefit of being on the X4 bus route. In the circumstances, it is considered that the lack of sustainable transport or suitable infrastructure being available to enable the future residents to use a bus, or conveniently walk or cycle to Burton Latimer is not seen as a convincing or robust reason for recommending the application for refusal.

Planning Committee 14 of 85 11 March 2015

Planning obligation and community benefit The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 at paragraph 122 sets out limitations on the use of planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990, as amended, to secure community benefits for a scheme. It applies where a relevant determination is made which results in planning permission being granted for development.

Planning obligations mitigate the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if it meets the following tests. Is the obligation:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

In addition to the above regulations the Government has recently updated its Planning Practice Guidance with regards to planning obligations and below is summary in relation to how the salient elements of the guidance have an influence on this proposal.

Local planning authorities should ensure that the combined total impact of planning conditions, highway agreements and obligations does not threaten the viability of the sites and scale of development identified in the development plan. It is acknowledged that the site is not allocated in the current development plan for housing, but it is considered that the principle of not requesting an obligation which would result in a site being unviable can be applied to this application.

The Government repeatedly states in its guidance that obligations must be entirely necessary and they must be fully justified and evidenced.

Applicants should submit evidence on scheme viability where obligations are under consideration and wherever possible, this should be open book.

There are specific circumstances where contributions for affordable housing and tariff style planning obligations (section 106 planning obligations) should not be sought from small scale and self-build development; however, these restrictions do not apply to development on Rural Exception Sites.

The applicant has supplied a supporting viability assessment with the application which has been studied and its findings are considered to be acceptable in relation to the need for market housing to support the delivery of affordable housing on the site. The assessment has not been put into the public domain because it contains confidential financial information.

The Parish Council has requested that it be a party to any section 106 negations; however, its involvement will not be possible because to be part of the negotiations it would have to contribute to the obligation. Although the Parish Council has suggested schemes which could be funded by a planning obligation it has not indicated that it is willing to contribute to any agreement or take on any responsibility for any part of the proposed development.

Planning Committee 15 of 85 11 March 2015

The Parish Council has asked for uncosted contributions for:

- a public footpath with lighting from the village to the cricket club - a public footpath along the A509 to footpath TM9 - a means of access for emergency vehicles and equipment to maintain the Parish Council's playing field

Isham Cricket Club lies approximately 1.8km to the west of the edge of Isham and it is considered that the request for funds for a footpath with lighting of this length in this location is not necessary to make the development acceptable, is not directly related to the development and is not fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposal.

There is already a footpath along the A509 to Public Right of Way TM9 to the south of the village. It may be narrow, but any need for the maintenance of its width and utility is the responsibility of Northamptonshire County Council. Therefore, it is considered that this request is also not necessary, not directly related to the scheme and is not fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposal.

It is accepted that residents from the proposed development might well use the Isham Parish Council's Playing Field. However, it is thought the emergency access is not necessary to render the proposal acceptable in planning terms because it does not relate sufficiently to the proposed development and it would be overly onerous on the developer to be solely responsible for providing the access.

CONCLUSION The proposal is contrary to the currently adopted development plan polices regarding housing development in the open countryside. However, the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework indicate that these policies are now out of date and a scheme which includes an element of market housing to allow for the delivery of affordable housing where there is an identified need can be acceptable.

The detracting issues which have been raised, principally: need, highway safety, biodiversity, sustainability, effect on neighbours and design are acknowledged but it is considered that individually and cumulatively they should not be accorded adequate weight to recommend refusal of the application. Therefore, the application is considered to be acceptable, subject to conditions and the completion of a section 106 agreement, for the reasons set out above.

RECOMMENDATION Delegate to the Head of Planning and Local Development to approve subject to the following conditions and following the completion of a section 106 agreement to ensure the occupation of 11 of the approved dwellings for affordable housing in perpetuity and for contributions towards: primary education, fire and rescue, library services and an administration fee.

CONDITIONS/REASONS

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

Planning Committee 16 of 85 11 March 2015

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. No development shall take place within the area indicated until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing.

Reason: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded, in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 141.

3. Before development commences representative samples of the intended exterior facing materials shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

4. Before development commences a scheme for the improvement of the section of Public Right of Way TM13 between the application site and Kettering Road and the section of Public Right of Way TM1 between the estate street and the eastern boundary of the site and the stile at the field boundary of TM1 shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the development is first occupied.

Reason: To satisfactorily improve the local public right of way network.

5. Before development commences an Estate Street Phasing and Completion Plan shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The Estate Street Phasing and Completion Plan shall set out the development phases and the standards, intermediate or final that estate streets serving each phase of the development will be completed prior occupation of dwellings served.

Reason: To ensure that the estate streets serving the development are completed and thereafter maintained to an appropriate standard in the interest of residential and highway safety; to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the highways infrastructure serving the development; and to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and users of the highway.

6. The development shall not be occupied until the estate street(s) affording access to those dwelling(s) has been completed in accordance with the Estate Street Phasing and Completion Plan.

Reason: To ensure that the estate streets serving the development are completed and maintained to the approved standard, and are available for use by the occupants, and other users of the development, in the interest of highway safety; to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the highways infrastructure serving the approved development; and to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and

Planning Committee 17 of 85 11 March 2015

users of the highway.

7. Before development commences details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as notice of an agreement has been entered into, under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a private management and Maintenance Company has been established, and the details submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing.

Reason: To ensure proper maintenance of the estate roads prior to their adoption by the local highway authority or other satisfactory maintenance arrangements have been established.

8. Before development commences details of the intended pedestrian to vehicle visibility splays shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The visibility splays shall be installed before the development is first occupied.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

9. Before development commences details of the measures to prevent surface water from draining onto the estate streets shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved measures shall be installed before the development is first occupied.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and sustainable urban drainage.

10. The first 5m of the private driveways in the rear of the estate roads shall be hard surfaced.

Reason: To prevent loose material from being dragged into the streets in the interests of highway safety.

11. No building works which comprise the erection of a building required to be served by water services shall be undertaken in connection with any phase of the development hereby permitted until full details of a scheme including phasing, for the provision of mains foul water drainage on and off the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details hereby approved. No building shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To prevent flooding, pollution and detriment to public amenity through provision of suitable water infrastructure.

12. Before development commences full details of the intended method of surface water drainage, including its ongoing maintenance, shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out incorporating the approved details.

Planning Committee 18 of 85 11 March 2015

Reason: In the interests of ensuring the development is satisfactorily drained.

13. Before development commences a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased or are dying shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To enhance the development in the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity.

14. Before development commences a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules of all landscaped areas, other than the residential curtilages, shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The management plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of ensuring satisfactory maintenance of landscaped areas not within residential curtilages.

15. Before development commences a tree protection plan, drafted in accordance with the recommendations and guidance set out in BS 5837:2005, shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved details shall be installed before any site works commence and shall be retained and maintained until the completion of all site operations.

Reason: To protect and safeguard trees which are the subject of a tree preservation order and other trees hedges which are a landscape feature.

16. Before development commences details of the provision of fire hydrants on the site shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved fire hydrants shall be installed and made operational before the development is first occupied.

Reason: In the interests of fire safety.

17. Before development commences details of the intended boundary treatment shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out in accord with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of privacy, security and visual amenity.

18. Before development commences details of the existing and proposed site levels together with the finished floor levels of the dwellings shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out in accord with the approved details.

Planning Committee 19 of 85 11 March 2015

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to protect the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers.

19. Before development commences an appropriate, active season, Bat Survey shall be carried out, during the May to August time period, and its findings submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The survey should include full details of a scheme of enhancement and mitigation measures including details of the number and location of bat boxes to be installed and a timetable for their implementation. The development shall not be begun until the local planning authority has approved the findings of the Survey and the development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the Survey's recommendations.

Reason: To protect any bats which may be present on the site.

20. Before development commences a scheme for the provision of bat and bird boxes shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the development is first occupied.

Reason: To provide habitat for bats and birds.

21. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no windows/dormer windows [other than those expressly authorised by this permission] shall be inserted into the roof on the rear elevation of plot numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 without the express planning permission of the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of privacy.

22. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), plot numbers 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 shall not be extended without the express planning permission of the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of the adjacent residential occupiers.

23. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no outbuildings shall erected in the rear amenity areas of plot numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 without the express planning permission of the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of the adjacent residential occupiers.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and

Planning Committee 20 of 85 11 March 2015

assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the Council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the approved development is consistent with the relevant provisions in The Framework. 2. The applicant is advised that planning permission does not automatically allow the construction of the vehicle crossing, details of which require the approval of the Highway Authority. In this regard you should contact the Highways Regulation Team Leader, Northamptonshire County Council, County Hall, George Row, Northampton, NN1 1AS prior to any construction/excavation works within the public highway. 3. 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

Planning Committee 21 of 85 11 March 2015

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 11 March 2015

Site Viewing Group (Date of visit Tuesday 10th March 2015 at 11.00 a.m.)

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Paul Bateman WP/14/00809/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 5 December 2014 15 December 2014 16 March 2015 Swanspool Wellingborough

Applicant Wellingborough Council, Property and Facilities Dept

Agent Mr Gerald Peck

Location 2-4 Arthur Street Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 3HH

Proposal Conversion of factory to residential accommodation totalling 12 units

PLANNING HISTORY WP/14/00809/FUL Determination pending. Conversion of factory to residential accommodation totalling 12 units

Reason for Committee Consideration

The Borough Council of Wellingborough is the applicant

THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDINGS The application site is a vacant three storey building with a concrete surfaced area between the front of the building and the highway; there is a larger concreted area at the rear. The building was originally a shoe factory which in more recent times has been used as a car repair business and a car parts retail operation. The folding doors, roller shutters and signage associated with the motor trade uses remain on the building.

There is an existing access through to the rear of the site which also serves an adjacent garage court.

The building is characterised by the number of large windows, many of which face towards the rear garden areas of the nearby residential properties.

The local area is generally residential in character with other former factory premises which have been converted into flats on the opposite side of the road.

Planning Committee 22 of 85 11 March 2015

WP/14/00809/FUL

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/14/00809/FUL - 2-4 Arthur Street, Wellingborough

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL As described with 15 car parking spaces at the rear of the site.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): Policies: 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) 6 (Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions) 7 (Delivering Housing) 9 (Distribution and Location of Development) 10 (Distribution of Housing) 12 (Distribution of Retail Development) 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction) 15 (Sustainable Housing Provision)

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy JCS: 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) 2 (Historic Environment) 4 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) 6 (Development on Brownfield Land and Land Affected by Contamination) 7 (Community Services and Facilities) 8 (North Northamptonshire Place Shaping Principles) 9 (Sustainable Buildings and Allowable Solutions) 10 (Provision of Infrastructure) 28 (Housing Requirements and Strategic Opportunities) 29 (Distribution of New Homes) 30 (Housing Mix and Tenure)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Development and Implementation Principles Sustainable Design Biodiversity Planning Out Crime Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northamptonshire Highways - states that the private driveway width does not meet its standards but does not raise an objection because it recognises that the access has previously served the commercial premises and also gives access to the extensive garaging at the rear.

Northamptonshire Highways recommends the re-instatement of the footway across the frontage of the site to discourage opportunist parking.

Planning Committee 23 of 85 11 March 2015

The consultee advises this Council to satisfy itself with regards to the suitability and adequacy of the car parking arrangements available to serve the needs of the proposed development.

2. Northamptonshire County Council Archaeology - provides a brief history of the building and recommends that provision be made, by way of a condition, for the investigation and recording of any remains of interests that will be affected.

3. Borough Council of Wellingborough Finance - requests the following:

- indexation in line with RICS - interest on late payments of at least 3% above the base rate - administration/monitoring fee of 5% of the total value of the section 106 agreement

4. Borough Council of Wellingborough Design and Conservation Officer - confirms that the building is not listed and is not located in a conservation area. However, the Design and Conservation Officer thinks that the building has sufficient character to be included in the Local List which could be adopted in approximately 12 months' time. The consultee accepts that the existing cast iron windows cannot be used in the development because they would not comply with the Building Regulations, but details a metal window frame product which would be preferable to plastic.

5. Northamptonshire Police - identifies that this area of Wellingborough suffers from crime and disorder and designing out crime should be a high priority. The Police go on to suggest a raft of crime prevention features which it recommends should be incorporated into the scheme.

6. Environment Agency - has no requirements for contributions towards infrastructure, services and facilities

7. Wellingborough Norse - requests a section 106 contribution of £600 towards the provision of communal waste containers because they are considered to be more appropriate for this type of development rather than individual bins. The company advises that the refuse storage area should be large enough to accommodate the size and number of its suggested waste containers

8. Neighbours - objections have been received from three nearby addresses and the occupiers cite the following reasons for opposing the scheme:

- loss of privacy - impact on daylight - loss of property value - effect on on-street parking - effects of dust and noise etc. during construction - highway safety and fire access issues - effect of demolition and length of development time - effect on access rights

Planning Committee 24 of 85 11 March 2015

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION: The proposal raises the following main issues:

- Conformity with the development plan and material considerations - Design, layout and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area - Effect on heritage assets - Effect on ecology and wildlife - Effect/impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and the future occupiers of the development - Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to the proposed access arrangement and off-road parking provision - Crime and disorder - Sufficiency of the planning obligations to secure community benefits and mitigate existing infrastructure

Conformity with the Development Plan and Material Considerations Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise".

The development envisages the use of a building within an urban area which is in a sustainable location and, upon the face of it, is considered to be in general accord with the development plan policy and the provisions of the NPPF. However, the application still falls to be considered in the light of all relevant and more specific development plan polices and the National Planning Policy Framework guidance which are discussed below.

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

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

The area is considered to be generally residential in character with terraced housing and a residential factory conversion nearby. It is considered that the intended change of use of the building from commercial to residential will not have a detrimental effect on the character of the area.

The proposed development would remove the unattractive signs, roller shutter doors and other evidence of commercial activity from the front of the building which will have a positive impact on the appearance of the area.

The front of the site is currently concreted over and it would be beneficial to the visual amenity of the street scene if this hard surface were to be removed and subsequently

Planning Committee 25 of 85 11 March 2015

landscape planted. A condition is recommended to achieve this recommended course of action together with another condition requiring details of who would be responsible for the maintenance of the area.

Effect on Heritage Assets The comments of the Council's Design and Conservation Officer indicate that the application building is not listed, nor is located in a conservation area. However, the Design and Conservation Officer considers that the building is of sufficient merit to be included on the impending Local List which could be adopted in a year's time.

The building could be considered as a non-designated heritage asset and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework says that the effects on these assets should be taken into account in the determination. The paragraph goes on:

'In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.'

It is considered the number and size of the existing windows in the building is one of its key features and the control of any replacement windows would be reasonable to ensure that any new windows are acceptable with regards to its imminent local listing.

Effect on Ecology and Wildlife Under paragraph 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, the Council has a duty, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of its functions, to conserve biodiversity.

It is considered that the proposal raises no material ecological, wildlife or biodiversity issues.

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development Policy 13 (l) of the NCCSS states that development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking;

Objections have been received from local residents who refer to, amongst other things: issues relating to impact on privacy, light reception and noise and disturbance.

The plans which accompany the application illustrate some of the existing windows being 'filled in', but there would still be a number of windows at first and second floor levels which would afford future residents of the scheme the opportunity to look downwards into the private amenity areas of some of the neighbouring dwellings. It is accepted that the existing windows currently allow anybody occupying the building the ability to look into the nearby garden areas, but the proposed residential occupation would result in a different occupation leading to more use of the windows by the future residents.

The need to control the new windows in any development of the building has been discussed above and it is suggested any new window design could incorporate any of the following features:

Planning Committee 26 of 85 11 March 2015

- obscure glazing in the lower panes - infill sections at the bottom of the windows to raise up the sill heights - partially 'bricking up' the lower sections of the windows

The above suggestions could all adequately negate the opportunity for the new residents to look downwards into the amenity areas of the surrounding residents. The windows at the front of the building would be unaffected by this course of action so it would retain its character and appearance in the public realm.

With regards to other impacts, for example noise and dust associated with demotion and construction, it is considered that there are regulatory regimes available to the Council under Environmental Protection legislation to adequately control any nuisances that may occur.

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety in Relation to the Proposed Access Arrangement and Off-Road Parking Provision Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that new development should have a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards and Policy 13 (n) goes on to say that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

Policy 15 (f) of the NNCSS goes on that in order to deliver sustainable residential communities higher densities will be sought particularly in the locations most accessible on foot, cycle and public transport, although increases in density should not detract from the traditional streetscape and built form where this is worthy of safeguarding.

The application site is considered to be in a sustainable location being close to the town centre and near to bus routes.

Residents have object to the application because they feel the development will have a detrimental impact on on-street parking and highway safety. These concerns are appreciated, however, Northamptonshire Highways does not oppose the scheme for the reasons set out above and in the light of no objection being lodged on behalf of the statutory consultee it is considered that there is insufficient evidence on which to base a robust highway safety reason for refusing the application.

The plans which accompany the application illustrate 15 off-road car parking spaces which is considered to be satisfactory, bearing in mind the type of residential units being proposed and the location of the site which is relatively close to the town centre.

The works that the company recommends in the highway at the front of the site can be achieved by way of the imposition of a condition.

Crime and disorder Under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988, the Council has a duty to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area.

Planning Committee 27 of 85 11 March 2015

The comments of the Police are noted and it is considered its advice can be taken forward by way of a condition which would require the submission for approval prior to development taking place of the necessary crime prevention measures.

Planning Obligations The NPPF at paragraph 204 states that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. This advice is reiterated under Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.

Wellingborough Norse has requested money to provide communal waste bins for the occupiers of the development. The company's request is noted, however, it is considered that it fails the statutory test because it is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

CONCLUSION The proposed development complies with the relevant development plan policies and is consistent with the provisions in the NPPF specifically in relation to promoting sustainable development, raising design standards, and conserving the heritage asset. In the absence of any material considerations of sufficient weight it is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION Approve subject to the following conditions.

CONDITIONS/REASONS

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

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

2. Before development commences representative samples of all new exterior facing materials shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

3. Before development commences full details of the intended fenestration design and materials shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The design shall include measures to protect the privacy of the nearby residential occupiers. The development shall be carried out in accord with the approved details. The approved window design and privacy protection measures shall be maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of protecting a heritage asset, visual amenity and to protect the privacy of nearby residential occupiers.

Planning Committee 28 of 85 11 March 2015

4. Before development commences details of the intended crime prevention measures shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out incorporating the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of crime prevention.

5. Before development commences a scheme of highway works to close the vehicular crossings over the frontage of the premises and to reinstate the footway with full height kerbs and surfacing shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved scheme shall be constructed before the development is first occupied.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

6. Before development commences details of the intended boundary treatment shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved details shall be installed before the development is first occupied.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, privacy and crime prevention.

7. Before development commences details of the intended refuse/recycling storage area shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The storage area shall be constructed before the development is first occupied and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the development has an adequate area for refuse/recycling storage.

8. Before development commences a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased or are dying shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To enhance the development in the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity.

9. A Landscape Management Plan, including phasing and implementation strategy, management responsibilities and maintenance arrangements for all landscaped areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the dwellings. The landscaped areas shall be maintained as approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

10. No development shall take place within the area indicated until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Planning Committee 29 of 85 11 March 2015

Reason: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded, in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 141.

11. The car parking area shall be constructed and brought into use before the development is first occupied and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure an adequate off-road car parking provision for the occupiers of the development in the interests of highway safety.

12. This consent is based on drawings 1517LOC, 1517-01A, 1517-02, 1517-E01, 1517-E02

Reason: To define this consent.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the Council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the approved development is consistent with the relevant provisions in The Framework. 2. The applicant is advised that planning permission does not automatically allow the construction of the vehicle crossing, details of which require the approval of the Highway Authority. In this regard you should contact the Highways Regulation Team Leader, Northamptonshire County Council, County Hall, George Row, Northampton, NN1 1AS prior to any construction/excavation works within the public highway. 3. 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

Planning Committee 30 of 85 11 March 2015

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 11 March 2015

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Mike Kilpin WP/14/00681/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 13 October 2014 13 October 2014 8 December 2014 Redwell East Wellingborough

Applicant Mr and Mrs Hinds

Agent Mr Rupesh Patel

Location 28 Hatton Avenue Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 5AP

Proposal Demolition of rear conservatory and erection of a single-storey rear extension

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/14/00681/FUL Determination pending. Demolition of rear conservatory and erection of a single-storey rear extension.

NOTE: A decision on this application was deferred at Planning Committee on 14th January 2015 for negotiations leading to revised scheme which would not block out light to neighbours at 30 Hatton Avenue. A glazed roof was suggested.

The agent is now requesting a decision on the scheme as originally submitted. The agent notes that the suggestion of a glass roof may not be successful in Building Regulation terms.

Previous officers report 14th January 2015

PROPOSAL: The proposal is a single storey rear extension on the rear of a dwelling in a terrace of 10 properties.

POLICY: Policy 13 of North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and National Planning Policy Framework. National Guidance Development Plan Policy and Supplementary Guidance.

Planning Committee 31 of 85 11 March 2015

WP/14/00681/FUL

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2014. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/14/00681/FUL - 28 Hatton Avenue, Wellingborough

CONSULTEES/RESPONSES: 1. Neighbour responses -

Ms C Moon 30 Hatton Avenue - the proposed extension will completely block out light from our kitchen - which is already a dark room. We have even removed an existing fence between ourselves and No 28 and replaced it with glass in order to let more daylight in.

Mr G Cobb 30 Hatton Avenue - I have spoken to our neighbours regarding the proposed extension and pointed out our objection due to it blocking light and view. Mr Hinds assured me that he will make further enquiries with his architect to see if the plans can be revised.

2. Councillor Warwick has requested a Site Viewing visit.

ASSESSMENT: Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy requires that a scheme be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respecting and enhancing the character of the surroundings and be in accordance with the environmental character of the area. The proposal would be on the south east side of the property with the joint outrigger with 28.

Conclusion It is considered that on balance the scheme is acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: Full planning permission.

CONDITIONS/REASONS

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

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

2. This consent is based on drawing no. N226-105.

Reason: To define this consent.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13. 2. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and

Planning Committee 32 of 85 11 March 2015

assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the Council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the approved development is consistent with the relevant provisions in The Framework.

Planning Committee 33 of 85 11 March 2015

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 11 March 2015

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Erica Buchanan WP/14/00716/REM

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 27 October 2014 28 October 2014 27 January 2015 Queensway Wellingborough

Applicant Prologis UK Limited

Agent Mrs Sara Jones

Location Appleby Lodge 140-160 Sywell Road Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 6BS

Proposal Infrastructure for Phases 1 & 2 including access road, site re-profiling, demolition of existing buildings, drainage features and landscaping Outline application was an EIA application and ES was submitted to LPA.

PLANNING HISTORY WP/14/00212/CND 07.05.2014 Details submitted pursuant to Condition 4 (Phase 2 Risk Assessment) of outline planning permission WP/2013/0190/OEIA WP/14/00312/CND 11.08.2014 Details submitted pursuant to conditions 3 (phasing), 9 (tree retention/felling), 10 (landscape strategy), 11 (landscape management plan), 15 (overall on and off site foul drainage strategy), 17 (overall surface water drainage strategy) of planning permission ref: WP/2013/0190/OEIA WP/14/00353/CND 08.08.2014 Details submitted pursuant to conditions 7 (construction and environmental management plan (CEMP)) and 22 (prevention of the deposit of mud and similar debris on to the adjacent highway) of planning permission WP/2013/0190/OEIA WP/14/00441/CND 08.08.2014 Details submitted pursuant to Condition 6 (archaeology) of planning permission ref: WP/2013/0190/OEIA WP/14/00716/REM Determination pending. Infrastructure for Phases 1 & 2 including access road, site re- profiling, demolition of existing buildings, drainage features and landscaping Outline application was an EIA application and ES was submitted to LPA.

Planning Committee 34 of 85 11 March 2015

WP/14/00716/REM

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2014. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:7,000 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: WP/14/00716/REM - Appleby Lodge, 140-160 Sywell Rd, Wellingborough when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999

BW/1977/0253 27.04.1977 Agricultural building (5,400 sq.ft) WP/1997/0183 14.05.1997 Installation of a 15m mast antennae dishes and ancillary development WP/1993/0016 Agricultural general purpose portal framed building BW/1986/0184 Single-storey dining / utility extension BW/1986/0756 Vehicular access BW/1985/0456 06.06.1985 Agricultural building comprising hay barn and lean to cattle sheds BW/1980/0302 25.02.1980 Erect lean to to existing building BW/1977/0751 19.10.1977 Erect lean to existing dutch barn WU/1966/0052 Refused 18.05.1966 Erection of farm house WP/2010/0144 Refused 21.06.2010 Conversion of the bungalow into three new individual 2 bedroom self contained flats SCO/2012/0001 21.08.2012 Scoping Opinion Request for outline planning permission for a strategic Employment Park (Use Classes B1(c), B2 & B8) with associated parking, highway infrastructure and landscaping. WP/2013/0190 18.12.2013 Demolition of existing buildings and development of site for a new employment park comprising use classes B1/B2/B8 together with ancillary offices, gatehouses, car parking and associated road infrastructure and landscaping (Outline application with only the access arrangement to be considered at this stage). WP/2005/0432 17.08.2005 Change of use from agricultural building and yard to building for sorting of waste and parking for lorries and skip bins WP/2000/0526 06.12.2000 General purpose agricultural building.

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

- The application has attracted more than 3 objections; - The neighbouring Parish Councils have objected.

Planning Committee 35 of 85 11 March 2015

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site is currently predominantly in arable use (Grade 2 agricultural land) but accommodates a number of buildings sited in close proximity to Sywell Road including two dwellings, farm buildings and barns. It extends to 67.19 hectares and is located immediately to the west of and abutting Park Farm Industrial Estate. Sywell Road forms the northern site boundary from which site access is currently provided. Open countryside lies to the south and east of the site. There is a fall of 11m across the site from the highest point (117.5m AOD) in the north-west to the lowest point (106.5m AOD) in the south.

The site has a number of under and over ground utilities including a double line of electricity pylons, electricity cables, two gas pipelines and a portable water main. The nearest villages are Hardwick about 780m to the north, Mears Ashby about 1.65km to the south and Wilby 1.3km to the south-east.

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL Members will recall that the application was deferred at last month's committee meeting, to allow the submission of additional landscaping information. Specifically clarification of the approved landscaping scheme to discharge the conditions on the outline consent and the landscaping scheme forming part of the current proposal. The applicants have submitted photomontages in response.

Outline consent was granted in July 2013 for the demolition of the existing buildings and development of the site for a new employment park comprising use classes B1/B2/B8 together with ancillary offices, gatehouses, car parking and associated road infrastructure and landscaping. The outline application included the means of access into the site off Sywell Road and to enable the environmental impact of the development to be properly tested a Development Parameters Plan was also prepared which set out the general layout of the infrastructure within the site and the maximum scale of the buildings.

Zone A extends to 9.19 ha (net) and is located at the north east corner of the site fronting Sywell Road which is proposed one to three units within this area with a maximum overall building heights within this zone will be 22m (+136.50 AOD).

Zone B extends to 11.59 ha (net) and is located to the south-east of the site will accommodate one to three units with a maximum overall height of the units in this zone will be 22m (+136.60 AOD).

Zone C extends to 11.12 Ha (net) and is located to the south-west of the site. This zone will accommodate between two and four units with a maximum overall height of the buildings in this zone will be 19m (+131.25 AOD).

Zone D extends to 12.89 ha (net) and is located to the north-west of the site fronting Sywell Road. This zone is split into two parts due to level differences in this location. The maximum heights in this zone vary with zone D south being 19 m and zone D north being 12m (+130.30m to 133.50m AOD).

Planning Committee 36 of 85 11 March 2015

The principle of this development has been established and accepted following the grant of outline consent. Access arrangements were considered as part of the consented outline proposal and is therefore not being considered as part of this application.

The current application seeks the approval of the reserved matters for the infrastructure provision for Phases 1 and 2, (Zones A and B) which includes an internal spinal access road, site re-profiling, demolition of existing buildings, drainage features and landscaping.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NCSS) Policy 8 - Delivering Economic Prosperity Policy 9 - Distribution and Location of Development Policy 11 - Distribution of Jobs Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) 3 (Landscape Character) 4 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) 5 (Water Environment, Resources and Flood Risk Management) 8 (North Northamptonshire Place Shaping Principles) 9 (Sustainable Buildings and Allowable Solutions) 10 (Provision of Infrastructure) 22 (Delivering Economic Prosperity) 23 (Distribution of New Jobs) 24 (Logistics)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework; Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Biodiversity Trees and Landscape

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED Full comments are available on the website

1. National Grid (Gas) - no objection subject to condition.

National Grid (Electricity) -

National Grid exercises its right to place a Holding Objection to the above proposal which is in close proximity to a High Voltage Transmission Overhead Line - ZA.

Planning Committee 37 of 85 11 March 2015

Applicants response 03/12/2014

Please consider the following:

The development proposals were fully described and discussed in detail with National Grid and a 'No Objection' letter was received from National Grid Transmission

2. Environment Agency -

Letter dated 02/02/2015 following the submission of the additional information:- The information submitted demonstrates that the proposed infrastructure works will not compromise the surface water drainage scheme for phases 1 and 2 of the development. We therefore withdraw our previous objection to the application submitted.

3. Natural England - raised no objection.

4. NCC Archaeology - no objection but further mitigation measures needed.

5. Campaign For Dark Skies - CFDS has no objection regarding this current application.

6. Northants Police Design and Crime Officer - Northamptonshire Police is unable to provide specific comment to the proposed application due to a lack of information at this time.

7. BCW Landscape Officer -

The plans submitted are much as before with 20% evergreen species on the northern boundary. The planting is very dense at one metre centres with some larger specimens for instant effect some of which are pine. This should provide good screening. The inclusion of yew which is shade tolerant and evergreen should help to provide dense understorey. The specimen tree planting adjacent to the entrance is of a more ornamental character with the inclusion of Chanticleer pear.

8. BCW Design and Conservation Officer - I have no comments on the application.

9. Ramblers -

The Ramblers would like to make a number of comments and request in regard to this development:- Footpath UL23 should not be enclosed and access could be via defined gaps We welcome the proposed footpath/cycleway into the site from Rutherford Drive A path from the "reinforced grass road" to footpath UL23 together with some improvement to the existing areas of Park Farm would establish a virtually traffic free pedestrian route from Wellingborough into this new extension.

The proposed planting of well-established trees along the western boundary is welcomed, but would like this planting to be extended along the southern boundary as far as Corries Spinney.

Planning Committee 38 of 85 11 March 2015

The ramblers see this development as a possible opportunity to improve the RoW network around Wellingborough by the creation of footpath from UL23 through the site screening area of its western boundary to Appleby Gate to link with bridleways TG9 and UL25

10. Wellingborough Old Grammarians -

While the Wellingborough Old Grammarians is not against the proposal in principle, as our Sports Ground property is adjacent to the proposed development we would request that due consideration is given to the following items :- Vehicle and pedestrian access, drainage, utilities and any future development is not compromised by the proposed development. Our Title Deeds to the land are not affected. Security of our Ground needs to be taken into account during and after the proposed development.

11. Wellingborough Civic Society -

Concern of extent of green field building Site is ancient pasture land This area holds a strong historical connection with The Diggers and Levellers The gaining of planning permission would heighten traffic problems in Isham village The impact on Little Harrowden village could be the same! Loss of habitat for flora and fauna! Existing industrial estates in the town be rigorously checked for unused units Grassed open spaces around all industrial buildings used as allotments Factory units should be Solar panels placed on all factory roofs with no exceptions Green roofs or gardens on factories to replace loss of habitat for birds as standard! Wellingborough appears to be the place of choice for a wealth of new industry which is excellent, our town needs this to thrive and grow, but not at the expense of our green spaces and open countryside Surely a compromise can be found for both, green fields and factories?

12. Parish Councils -

Isham Parish Council Wish to object in the strongest possible terms against this application being approved and undertaken until there is an alternative route for additional traffic, most of which is likely to be heavy vehicles, which this proposed development would produce. The current level of traffic through Isham is as you are more than aware already at an unacceptable level. The thought of additional development in the proposed area can only exacerbate the present problem even further and make the situation in Isham intolerable for its parishioners.

Wilby Parish Council - No objection to the plans submitted. However, we are keen to ensure that the increase in HGV activity which will inevitably produce does not result in an increase in the already unacceptable number of HGVs breaking the 7.5 ton limit through Wilby.

Planning Committee 39 of 85 11 March 2015

Mears Ashby Parish Council - The drawings supporting this planning application were reviewed and the following conclusion was reached:- namely that insufficient bund heights and planting is being proposed to sufficiently reduce the visual impact of this proposed development. Most of the planned planting involves immature/young trees of up to 1.5 meters in height and shrubs and bushes standing up to 600 mm high.

Regarding the entrance/exit to the site, it is considered that the alternative Rutherford Drive location would result in a traffic flow into and out of the site with less impact on surrounding villages,

Hardwick Parish Meeting - We object to this application on the ground that it imposes a wrong and misplaced access road to the warehousing site and includes totally inadequate landscaping.

13. Neighbour Consultation - 9 objections received, 6 from Mears Ashby, 2 from Hardwick Village, 1 from Wellingborough -

- Oversized development on agricultural land - Land could be used for food - Increase in traffic and noise, this development will generate 2000 vehicle movements per day - Roads not suited to HGV or commuter traffic conflicts with cyclists - HGV's already ignore traffic signs for 7.5 ton limit and go through local villages - Warehousing is not needed - Not ecologically sustainable - This is about nothing less than saving the planet, one back yard at a time - Access should be re-positioned to Rutherford Way - Distribution employs very few people and does nothing for the local economy - Distribution is purely the logistics of moving goods and requires only basic skills; there is no evidence of enhancement of skills - Wellingborough Council have a duty determine applications within the full list of policy requirements

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The proposal raises the following main issues:

- Conformity with the development plan - Design, layout and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area - Effect on landscape visual amenity - Effect on ecology and wildlife

Conformity with the Development Plan and Material Considerations Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise".

Policy 13 (h) and (o) of the NCSS states that new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, and to respect and enhance the

Planning Committee 40 of 85 11 March 2015

character of its surroundings. This principle is also reflected in NPPF where in considering the design of the built environment development should contribute positively to making places better for people, and this concept is also reflected in the guidance contained in that of the SPD: Sustainable Design.

The proposal relates to the infrastructure and landscaping of the site. The main infrastructure comprises an internal spinal road with access to the areas for Phase 1 and 2. This spinal road would be central to the site and located where the existing buildings are. The siting, layout and arrangement of the spinal road are broadly consistent with the details approved at the outline stage. In terms of the landscaping this is discussed in detail later within the report.

It is therefore considered that the infrastructure does not harm the character and appearance of the area and is considered to be in accordance with Policy 13 (h) and (o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Design, Layout and the Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Area The main aspect of the current proposal is the impact on the landscape. The main concerns from local residents have been regarding the height of the bunds and the amount of trees planted.

It should be noted that the outline consent was subject to landscape conditions which have subsequently been discharged.

Specifically Conditions 9 (Tree retention and removal), 10 (Landscape Infrastructure) and 11 (Landscape Management Plan) these conditions where discharged on the 4th July 2014.

The Landscape infrastructure (condition 10) included details of the bunds, their height and the phasing strategy for the landscaping. This conception landscaping scheme forms the basis of the current application.

The proposed structural landscape design for the site has been developed in response to the development parameters plan and relates to detailed planting on the boundary, ecological area cycle and pedestrian paths

The landscape strategy of the proposal is to create ecological corridors and include swales, hedgerows, species rich grasslands and native woodland planting which interlink throughout the site:

The approved landscape buffer on the western boundary of the site will be mounded to provide low level screening of the site from the rural landscape to the west.

The height of the bund will vary potentially between 2m, (at its northern end adjacent to Zone D) and up to 4m above the existing ground levels (at the southern end adjacent to Zone C). This boundary will be planted with extra heavy standard trees of Field Maple, Norway Maple, Turkish Hazel, London Plane, Pear, Mountain Ash and Small Leaved Lime. In addition the landscaping includes woodland planting with feathered trees planted in single species groups of 3-7 at 3m apart and 3m from extra heavy standard trees, and shrubs to be planted in groups of 11-25 of the same species on a 1.5m grid.

Planning Committee 41 of 85 11 March 2015

It is considered that this landscaping scheme would mature to screen the development and provide a significant soft edge between the rural and urban landscape. The formation of the mound and planting to the western boundary will be carried out as part of the first phase of the site development in conjunction with the initial earthmoving operations

Along the northern boundary with Sywell Road it is proposed to create a mounded strip which will also be planted with a mixture of extra heavy standard trees and woodland mix. In addition, some larger stature pines (Austrian and Scots) will be planted on the corner of the site at the junction of Sywell Road and Moonshine Gap to provide greater impact initially. These will develop to provide screening of the development from sensitive locations particularly those within Hardwick village to the north-east.

Further woodland planting and wildflower grassland is proposed on the southern boundary and link into Corrie's Spinney.

On the eastern boundary of the site the presence of the overhead power lines prevent extensive tree planting and the proposal is to create an area of habitat suitable for Great Crested Newts. This includes drainage attenuation features, and wildflower grassland with some thicket planting.

The proposed landscaping scheme submitted in accordance with the approved conception landscape strategy would not harm the character of the area and is of a design to provide a soft buffer separating the open countryside from the development site and therefore is in accordance with Policy 13 (h) and (o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy

Effect on Ecology and Wildlife The proposal includes ecological and wildlife enhancements in the provision of the Great Crested Newt habitats, the underground tunnels for amphibians in accordance with the ecological report submitted with the Outline application.

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) and SPD on Sustainable Design require new development not to cause an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking.

The main concerns raised by local residents are the development of the site, the access into the site from Sywell Road and the routing of the Lorries. However these were established with the outline consent and are not within the remit of the current application.

It is, therefore, considered that within the scope of this current application is in compliance to Policy 13 (l) of the Core Spatial Strategy or paragraphs 17 and 196 of the NPPF.

Planning Committee 42 of 85 11 March 2015

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety in Relation to (the Proposed Access Arrangement and Parking Provision) Concern was raised by Hardwick parish meeting that the proposal does not include footpath and cycle track along Sywell Road: however these are subject to condition 25 (b) of the outline application and details will be submitted in due course.

CONCLUSION The proposed development complies with the relevant development plan policies and is consistent with the provisions in the NPPF specifically in relation to promoting sustainable development, raising design standards and conserving the environment.

RECOMMENDATION Approve subject to the following conditions.

CONDITIONS/REASONS

1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans (32 rev F, 21728/001/022 Rev F, 21728/001/023 rev B, 21728/003/001 Rev F, 21728/012/031 Rev C, 33 rev C, 34 Rev C and A022 Rev C) deposited with the local planning authority on the 28th October 2014.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the Council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the approved development is consistent with the relevant provisions in The Framework. 2. National Grid Plant Protection should be contacted prior to work commencing for further guidance to be given and agreed.

Planning Committee 43 of 85 11 March 2015

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 11 March 2015

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Erica Buchanan WP/14/00776/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 24 November 2014 5 December 2014 30 January 2015 West Sywell

Applicant Ray Middleton

Agent Ian Lapsley

Location 52 Ecton Lane Sywell Northampton Northamptonshire NN6 0BA

Proposal Demolish existing bungalow and erect two new dwellings with garaging and associated landscaping and access - re-submission following refusal of WP/14/00270/FUL - amended plans

PLANNING HISTORY WP/14/00270/FUL Refused 06.08.2014 Demolish existing bungalow and build 2 new houses. AMENDED PLAN WP/14/00776/FUL Determination pending. Demolish existing bungalow and erect two new dwellings with garaging and associated landscaping and access - re-submission following refusal of WP/14/00270/FUL - amended plans WR/1968/0273 06.02.1969 Bungalow

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

Councillor Bass has requested the application be determined by the Planning Committee and requested a site inspection

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site comprises a large bungalow with outbuilding located on the western side of Ecton Lane. The property forms part of a linear group of properties with a front stone wall extending along the road forming a boundary to the majority of the properties.

The general streetscene is of residential properties of various styles and types on varying size plots.

Planning Committee 44 of 85 11 March 2015

WP/14/00776/FUL

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/14/00776/FUL- 52 Ecton Lane, Sywell

To the south of the site is an access track leading to no. 56 Ecton Lane which is positioned to the rear of the application site. South of the access track is no. 58 which is a detached two storey dwelling position towards the rear of its plot and because of the changing ground levels is set at a lower level than the application site (Between 1m and 2m).

To the north of the site is no. 50 which is a single storey bungalow with flank windows facing the site.

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL Members will recall that permission was refused for a previous scheme for two detached houses. The application was refused for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed dwellings by reason of their siting, layout, height, scale and massing would be detrimental to the living conditions and amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling no. 58 Ecton Lane in relation to visual outlook and overbearing impact contrary to Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

2. The proposed additional access located in close proximity to the combined access driveways for nos. 54 and 58 Ecton Lane is considered to have a detrimental effect on highway safety and is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy 13 (d and n) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

The current proposal has been submitted to overcome the reasons for refusal.

The proposal is for two detached properties with a single access. The proposed dwellings are two storeys with front gable and hipped ends with cat slide roof. The plans have been amended to plot A to overcome concerns raised by the neighbouring property (no. 58) in that the house is set at a lower height as a low pitched roof dormer window, a single chimney and the detached garage moved away from the boundary.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) 9 (Distribution and Location of Development) 10 (Distribution of Housing) 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction)

Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policies: G4 (Development within the Limited Development and Restricted Infill Villages)

Planning Committee 45 of 85 11 March 2015

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) 3 (Landscape Character) 4 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) 9 (Sustainable Buildings and Allowable Solutions)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Biodiversity Planning Out Crime Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Northants Highways - no objection subject to conditions.

2. NCC Archaeology - no objection.

3. BCW Design and Conservation Officer - no comments to make.

4. BCW Landscape Officer -

Garage for plot B is too close to conifers in neighbour's garden (no. 50) construction might need to be designed to minimise root damage. Ideally it would be moved a bit further away from the boundary.

The trees adjacent to the curtilage of 58 due to the separation provided by the access road and the ground levels root damage should not be a concern.

The boundary treatment needs to be considered for the visual impact on the neighbouring properties. A hedge would be better than a fence.

5. Councillor Bass -

Should be an appropriate supporting wall along the boundary with access to no. 56.

Concern that the trees at no. 58 may fall and damage the proposed dwellings if approved.

Boundary fence with no. 50 should be replaced.

6. Parish Council - no objections subject to

- hedge and retaining wall on southern boundary - Close boarded fence on northern boundary - Silver Birches in the front northern garden of no 58 be felled and replaced with agreed species at the expense of the applicant.

Planning Committee 46 of 85 11 March 2015

7. Neighbours - 1 comment and 1 objection -

Comment - 46 Ecton Lane Concerns with speeding traffic and the access - more speed signs need to be erected.

Objection - 56 Ecton Lane Proposal is worse than the previously refused scheme. There is a 5 year land supply. 1 house would be more suitable.

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The proposal raises the following main issues:

- Conformity with the development plan - Design, layout and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area - Effect/impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and the future occupiers of the development - Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to (the proposed access arrangement and parking provision)

Conformity with the Development Plan and Material Considerations Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise".

Policy 1 of the NNCSS states that in the rural areas development will take place on sites within village boundaries, subject to criteria to be set out in development plan documents and Policy 10 allows for limited development in villages.

With regards to the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, Sywell is defined as a Restricted Infill Village by saved Policy G4 where it states that development will be granted planning permission if it is within the village policy line as defined on the proposal map (1) and would not have an adverse effect on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs (2).

The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policy for England. Paragraph 49 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and paragraph 50 seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, and the creation of mixed communities.

The site lies within the village policy line and is generally in accordance with Policies 1 and 10 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and with saved Policy G4 in the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

Design, Layout and the Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Area Policy 13 (h) of the NNCSS requires new development to respect and enhance the character of its surroundings. The general character of the area is of detached properties on large plots, whilst the application subdivides the plot it is considered that

Planning Committee 47 of 85 11 March 2015

due to the varying sizes of plots and site coverage in the area, the proposed sub- division reflects the character of the area.

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) require new development not to cause an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out the 12 core principles one of which is to seek to secure high quality design and good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

The layout and positioning of the proposed dwellings due to the space separation with the existing neighbouring properties is not considered to harm the amenities of the neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, overlooking and noise.

Whilst there is a height differences between the application site and the neighbouring property (no. 58). It is considered that the lower height of the proposed dwelling nearest to no. 58 (plot a) is considered to be acceptable and reduces its impact in terms of loss of light and outlook.

In terms of impact on the neighbouring property to the North of the site (no. 50) there is a concern that the proposed dwelling (plot b) would have a detrimental impact on this property in terms of loss of light. There is a flank window facing the site which could result in loss of light due to the angle of the sun and the height of the proposed dwelling.

However due to the space separation of the proposed dwelling it is considered that the proposed dwelling would not harm the neighbouring property in terms of loss of light.

The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy 13 of the NNCSS and the NPPF

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

The Highway Authority has not objected to the proposal on the grounds of danger to highway safety and the proposed single access is considered to overcome the reason for refusal.

CONCLUSION The proposed development complies with the relevant development plan policies and is consistent with the provisions in the NPPF specifically in relation to promoting sustainable development, raising design standards, conserving the environment etc. In the absence of any material considerations of sufficient weight, it is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions.

Planning Committee 48 of 85 11 March 2015

RECOMMENDATION Approve subject to the following conditions.

CONDITIONS/REASONS

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

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

2. This consent is based on drawings LSD149-01-22A, LSD149-01-21A, LSD149-01- 20A, LSD149-01-25A

Reason: To define this consent.

3. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

4. The means of vehicular access must be laid out as a shared private drive to a width of 4.5m for a distance of 10m in rear of the highway boundary.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

5. Pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2.4m x 2.4m (2m x 2m where satisfactory turning facilities are provided within the site) must be provided and maintained on both sides of the point of access.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

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

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

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

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

8. No development shall take place until, a plan and elevation indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatments to be erected have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

Planning Committee 49 of 85 11 March 2015

INFORMATIVE/S 1. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the Council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the approved development is consistent with the relevant provisions in The Framework. 2. The existing vehicular crossing must be closed and all highway surfaces made good, a new vehicular crossing constructed and all highway surfaces affected by the proposed operations reinstated in accordance with the specification of the local highway authority and subject to a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980.

Planning Committee 50 of 85 11 March 2015

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 11 March 2015

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Erica Buchanan WP/15/00003/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 6 January 2015 6 January 2015 3 March 2015 Irchester Irchester

Applicant Mr and Mrs Patel

Agent Mr Patrick Dooley

Location Land to rear of 9 Grange Way Irchester Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN29 7BQ

Proposal Proposed single storey dwelling

PLANNING HISTORY WP/14/00597/FUL Application withdrawn/undetermined 14.10.2014 Proposed 2 no. dwellings (single storey) WP/15/00003/FUL Determination pending. Proposed single storey dwelling

Reason(s) for Committee consideration:

- Councillor Elliott has requested a site viewing: and - The Parish Council have raised objection to the proposal

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site comprises the rear garden of 9 Grange Way Irchester. Properties in the area are primarily two storey dwelling houses and no. 9 is an end terrace. To the front and side of no. 9 is a footpath which is a Right of Way and provides a pedestrian link between London End and Grange Way.

No. 9 being a corner plot benefits from an unusually larger amenity area than most plots, which the application proposal seeks to take advantage of. Nonetheless, the pattern of the surrounding development is discernible, with pairs of semi-detached dwellings with long gardens being the predominant arrangement.

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL The current proposal is for a single dwelling in the rear garden to no. 9 and is a revised scheme to that previously submitted and withdrawn for a pair of dwellings.

Planning Committee 51 of 85 11 March 2015

WP/15/00003/FUL

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 WP/15/00003/FUL- Land to rear of 9 Grange Way, Irchester ± GetMapping PLC 1999

The application is for the sub-division of the rear amenity area and the construction of a single storey two bedroom dwelling in the rear. There is no parking proposed as part of the scheme and no vehicular access to the site.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) 9 (Distribution and Location of Development) 10 (Distribution of Housing) 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction)

Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policies: G4 (Development within the Limited Development and Restricted Infill Villages)

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) 3 (Landscape Character) 4 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) 9 (Sustainable Buildings and Allowable Solutions)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Biodiversity Planning Out Crime Parking

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

The proposed development includes no dedicated accommodation or access for parking purposes. Off-street parking accommodation for new developments should comply with relevant parking standards and policies which should generally be Northamptonshire County Council's residential parking standards contained in the 'Place and Movement Guide'. On-street parking within a highway cannot be allocated or assigned to any individual person or property. You should satisfy yourself as to the acceptability of the arrangements to be made to serve the travel and parking needs of the proposed development.

2. Councillor Elliott - raised objection and requests a site inspection. He also commented that the current proposal is an improvement on previous scheme in terms of impact on neighbour amenity, but parking provision is still an issue.

3. Parish Council - objects - no parking and restricted access.

Planning Committee 52 of 85 11 March 2015

4. Neighbours - objections from nos. 1, 5 and 10 Grange Way -

- Land inaccessible - No parking provided - On street parking a problem - Only access to site is via a walkway - Problems for emergency services - Concerns over foul and surface water drainage - Site is too cramped for another dwelling.

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The proposal raises the following main issues:

- Conformity with the development plan and material considerations - Design, layout and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area - Effect/impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and the future occupiers of the development - Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to (the proposed access arrangement and parking provision)

Conformity with the Development Plan and Material Considerations Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise".

Policy 1 of the NNCSS states that in the rural areas development will take place on sites within village boundaries, subject to criteria to be set out in development plan documents and Policy 10 allows for limited development in villages.

Irchester is defined as a Restricted Infill Village by saved Policy G4 of the LP which states that development will be granted planning permission if it is within the village policy line as defined on the proposal map (1) and would not have an adverse effect on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs (2).

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government's planning policy for England. Paragraph 49 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and paragraph 50 seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, and the creation of mixed communities.

Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out the 12 core principles one of which is to seek to secure high quality design and good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

The site lies within the village policy line and comprises garden land belonging to no. 9 Grange Way and is conformity of Policies 1 and 10 of the NNCSS and Policy G4 of the LP.

Planning Committee 53 of 85 11 March 2015

However the site does not front a highway and there would be no vehicular access to the site and therefore conflicts with Policy 13 (d). Furthermore, the proposed tandem development is not consistent with the form and pattern of the surrounding development.

Design, Layout and the Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Area Policy 13 (h) of the NNCSS and Policy G4 of the LP requires new development to respect and enhance the form and character of its surroundings.

The proposed backland development to be built in tandem with an existing dwelling represents a significant variation from the established pattern of the surrounding development. Although there are existing properties fronting Grange Way, the proposed dwelling does not follow the building line established by the other dwellings on this frontage and this cannot be ignored. In the circumstance, the proposed development being sited forward of the established building line, would be detrimental to the appearance of the street scene.

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) require new development not to cause an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out the 12 core principles one of which is to seek to secure high quality design and good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

It is considered that the proposed dwelling due to its scale, layout and siting would not harm the living conditions in terms of loss of light or overlooking and therefore is in accordance with Policy 13 (l) and the NPPF.

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety in Relation to (the Proposed Access Arrangement and Parking Provision) Policy 13 (d) of the NNCSS requires new development to have a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards. This is also reflected in the Parking SPG which requires new development to have off-street parking for 1.5 spaces in accordance with Northamptonshire County Council's residential parking standards contained in the 'Place and Movement Guide'.

On-street parking within a highway cannot be allocated or assigned to any individual person or property and therefore the proposal fails to meet the criteria for parking provisions nor can the required parking provision be achieved.

Public footpath TL19 is situated adjacent to the site of the application and is intended to provide access to the land. The standard requirements should be followed if any of the construction works are to be carried out in close proximity to the Public Right of Way.

Other material considerations In response to objections raised by local residents the applicants have confirmed that -

Planning Committee 54 of 85 11 March 2015

- Access - will be via 9 Grange Way so equipment/supplies will not need to be taken up the alley.

- Deliveries - this is an issue that the developer will address and every due care will be taken to keep disruption to a minimum.

- Parking - we have submitted further supporting evidence regarding parking in this location, and we do not feel that this is a reason for a refusal.

- Services - this is for the developers and utilities companies to address.

- Foul drainage - previous blockages were a result of a soil pipe change at number 9 (2005) where the builder left rubbish in the drain. This was addressed by professionals and the problem was resolved with no reoccurring issues.

Obviously, prior to the commencement of any works we would hope that the developer would consult and liaise with the neighbours to ensure that the build, if approved, causes the least disruption to the surrounding properties.

CONCLUSION The proposed development deviates from the pattern of the surrounding development and is detrimental to the street scene. The backland location makes vehicular access and parking provision impossible and therefore the proposal conflicts with NNCSS Policy 13 (d) and (h) and Policy G4 of the LP.

RECOMMENDATION Refuse for the following reasons.

REASONS

1. The proposed backland development to be built in tandem with an existing dwelling represents a significant variation from the established pattern of the surrounding development. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling does not follow the building line established by the other dwellings on this frontage and would detrimentally affect the street scene. The proposal development therefore fails to respect the form and character of the surroundings, in conflict with North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (h) and Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4. 2. The proposed dwelling is in a backland location with no vehicular access to the front and as such provision for off street parking cannot be achieved contrary to Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy which requires new development to have a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards.

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13: General Sustainable Development Principles

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

Planning Committee 55 of 85 11 March 2015

Meet needs d) Have a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards;

Raise standards h) Be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings and be in accordance with the Environmental Character of the area;

Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4

In the limited development and restricted infill villages development will be granted planning permission, subject to more specific policies regarding individual sites areas or uses, if it:

1. Is within the village policy lines, as defined on the proposals map;

2. Will not, either individually or cumulatively with other proposals, have an adverse impact on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the Council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant provisions in The Framework.

Planning Committee 56 of 85 11 March 2015

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 11 March 2015

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Paul Bateman WP/15/00009/OUT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 8 January 2015 8 January 2015 5 March 2015 West Sywell

Applicant Mr and Mrs James and Mary Howkins

Agent Richard S Ward

Location 95 Overstone Road Sywell Northampton Northamptonshire NN6 0AW

Proposal Erection of single storey dwelling within the curtilage of existing dwelling. Retention of existing dwelling and alteration of existing access to accommodate additional dwelling - (re-submission of application following refusal of planning permission ref: WP/14/00459/OUT

PLANNING HISTORY WP/14/00459/OUT Refused 01.10.2014 Erection of two houses within the curtilage of an existing dwelling at 95 Overstone Road, Sywell. Retention of existing dwelling and alteration of existing access to accommodate new dwellings - amended plan WP/15/00009/OUT Determination pending. Erection of single storey dwelling within the curtilage of existing dwelling. Retention of existing dwelling and alteration of existing access to accommodate additional dwelling - (re-submission of application following refusal of planning permission ref: WP/14/00459/OUT WR/1973/0215 27.06.1973 Extension to lounge, kitchen, dining room and construction of garage WR/1956/0086 23.08.1956 Rebuilding garages, covered way and fuel store WR/1951/0027 14.04.1951 Extension

Planning Committee 57 of 85 11 March 2015

WP/15/00009/OUT

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/15/00009/OUT - 95 Overstone Road, Sywell

Reasons for Committee consideration:

- The application has attracted more than 3 objections - Councillor Bass has requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site is the large front garden area of no. 95 Overstone Road which has a number of mature trees and shrubs growing in and around it. In the front garden area of no. 97 Overstone Road to the southwest is a group of trees which are the subject of Tree Preservation Order - T9/110/G1 refers.

Further to the southwest is Woodford Chase which has been developed relatively close to the highway boundary.

Adjoining the site to the northeast is the rear garden area of a bungalow which fronts onto Park Close. Further along Overstone Road to the northeast is Brembridge Close where the two dwellings at the junction are located a similar distance back from the Overstone Road frontage as the proposed scheme.

The application site is not located in the Sywell Conservation Area and none of the walls or structures on or adjacent to the site are listed.

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL Councillors may recall that an outline application for two houses was refused at the Planning Committee meeting on 1 October 2014 for the following reason:

'The proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site which would lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity for the occupiers of nearby dwellings. It would be contrary to Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (Section 17).'

The current application is in outline form with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. The description of the application indicates that permission is now being sought for a single storey dwelling at the front of the site.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance Technical |Guidance to the national Planning Policy Framework

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) 7 (Delivering Housing) 9 (Distribution and Location of Development) 10 (Distribution of Housing) 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction) 15 (Sustainable Housing Provision)

Planning Committee 58 of 85 11 March 2015

Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policies: G2 (Flood Protection) G4 (Development within the Limited Development and Restricted Infill Villages)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework; Development and Implementation Principles Sustainable Design Biodiversity Trees on Development Sites Planning Out Crime Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Sywell Parish Council - does not object to the application on the proviso that the development should only be approved as a bungalow

2. Northamptonshire Highways - does not object to the application but details a number of specifications.

3. Northamptonshire County Council Archaeology - no objection.

4. Borough Council of Wellingborough Landscape Officer - identifies the trees on and adjacent to the site and believes that it should be possible to construct a dwelling in the front garden. The Landscape Officer recommends the imposition of a tree protection condition.

5. Neighbours - objections have been received from the occupiers of five nearby properties who cite the following reasons for opposing the application:

- siting is too flexible and in front of the building line, Sywell has many properties with similar front gardens and scheme will be a precedent - detrimental effect on historic walls around the site - high water table combined with felled trees and recent new builds exacerbates the problem - loss of privacy - reduction in wildlife habitat - impact on highway safety due to parking issues, particularly at school run time during the school term - Wellingborough Council has exceeded its housing quota - overdevelopment of the site, at odds with the ambiance of the area - plan is not a true representation - reference to the 45° guidance contained in the Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance

One of the objectors does think that there is scope for a plot on the site.

6. Councillor J Bass - requests that the application be put before the Planning Committee for determination due to the nature of the application and because there has been a previous refusal on the site.

Planning Committee 59 of 85 11 March 2015

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The proposal raises the following main issues:

- Conformity with the development plan and material considerations - Design, layout and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area - Effect on heritage assets - Effect on ecology and wildlife - Effect/impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and the future occupiers of the development - Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to the proposed access arrangement and parking provision - Other issues

Conformity with the Development Plan and Material Considerations Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise".

The general principle of the development taking place within the Sywell Village Policy Line is considered to be in compliance with development plan policy and Government guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. However, the support in principle in the general development plan policies and the NPPF is subject to detailed consideration of the site specific policies and matters such as: the emphasis on the importance of good design, effects on neighbours' amenities, highway safety, trees, biodiversity and the effect on the character and setting of the village.

Mention has been made of the Council's deliverable five year housing supply as required by Government and that there is no need to permit the proposed development. These comments are noted; however, the meeting of the five year supply requirement is in itself not seen as a reason for refusing the application. This is because the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 14 states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through the decision-taking process. The NPPF goes on to say that development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay.

Design, Layout and the Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Area With regards the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) the following chapter 13 policies are relevant: (a) Incorporate flexible designs for buildings and their settings, including access to amenity space, enabling them to be adapted to future needs and to take into account the needs of all users (h) new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings. (i) development should create a strong sense of place by strengthening the distinctive historic and cultural qualities and townscape of the towns and villages through its design, landscaping and use of public art. (o) development should conserve and enhance the landscape character; historic

Planning Committee 60 of 85 11 March 2015

landscape designated built environmental assets and their settings, and biodiversity of the environment making reference to the Environmental Character Assessment and Green Infrastructure Strategy.

Policy 13 (h) of the NNCSS and Policy G4 of the LP requires new development to respect and enhance the form and character of its surroundings.

On this side of Overstone Road, the pattern of development is fairly regular, with most buildings significantly set back from the street frontage. The proposed development comprising a building that is significantly forward of the established building line is unacceptable and represents a significant variation from the established spatial pattern of the surrounding development. In the circumstance, the proposed development would be detrimental to the appearance of the street scene.

There are examples nearby at Brembridge Close and Woodford Chase, where the dwellings are closer to the highway than the proposed development. However, these should not be the determinant for assessing this proposal in a different location and circumstance.

The view has been expressed by objectors that the proposed development would be an overdevelopment of the site and this opinion is acknowledged. However, given the site area and the site coverage of neighbouring plots, it is possible to fit in 2 dwellings on this site if appropriately laid out and would be sufficient to ensure that the site retains a reasonably open character.

Effect on Heritage Assets There will be works to the front boundary wall of the application site to achieve the necessary access standards and objectors to the application have identified that the wall is of some antiquity.

As identified above, the application site is not in a conservation area and the walls around the site are not listed, therefore it is considered that they are not designated heritage assets and insistence on their preservation cannot be justified.

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

Adverse comment has been received regarding the future of the trees on the application site and the adjoining land.

The comments of the Council's Landscape Officer are acknowledged and it is considered reasonable (if the proposal were to be considered acceptable) to impose a condition which would require the submission for approval before development commences, of a Tree Protection Scheme in accordance with British Standard BS5837.

The concern regarding wildlife and habitat is acknowledged, but it is considered that there is no evidence to suggest that any protected species or wildlife habitat of any particular significance would be harmed by the development. It would perhaps be worth mentioning the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the requirement for any developer to abide by its provisions.

Planning Committee 61 of 85 11 March 2015

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that new development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area by reason of loss of light or overlooking.

It is recognised the development would have an effect on the standard of amenity that the occupiers of the adjacent and nearby dwellings currently enjoy. However, it is considered that the development would not have such a deleterious effect on them to warrant recommending the application for refusal for the following reasons:

- a single storey dwelling would not cast a significant shadow across neighbouring properties - there would not be any material loss of privacy - bungalows would also not have an overly harmful massing effect on the outlook of surrounding occupants

If the proposal were to be considered in a favourable light, the imposition of condition restricting the approval of any reserved matters application to a single storey would be sufficient to reduce the impact of the development in the nearby residential occupiers.

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

The comments lodged by local residents with regard to the proposed access, traffic generation and matters of highway safety, including the proximity of parking associated with the school are noted. Crucially however, the statutory consultee has not objected to the development but has commented by quoting its standard access specifications which can adequately be addressed at the approval of reserved matters stage.

In the light of no objection being lodged by Northamptonshire Highways it is considered that there is no robust reason for refusing the application on the grounds of danger to highway safety.

Other Issues With regards to a high water table, this issue would be dealt with by the Building Regulations on a site specific basis.

CONCLUSION The proposed development deviates from the pattern of the surrounding development and is detrimental to the street scene. It is therefore in conflict with CSS Policy 13 (h) and Policy G4 of the LP.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following reasons.

Planning Committee 62 of 85 11 March 2015

REASONS:

1. The proposed development to be built in tandem with an existing dwelling represents a significant variation from the established spatial pattern of the surrounding development. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling does not follow the building line established by the other dwellings on this frontage and would detrimentally affect the street scene. The proposal development therefore fails to respect the form and character of the surroundings, in conflict with North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (h) and Local Plan Policy G4.

Policy 13

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

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

POLICY G4

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

1. IS WITHIN THE VILLAGE POLICY LINES, AS DEFINED ON THE PROPOSALS MAP;

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

LIMITED DEVELOPMENT VILLAGES ARE: EARLS BARTON; FINEDON; AND WOLLASTON

RESTRICTED INFILL VILLAGES ARE: BOZEAT; ISHAM; ECTON; LITTLE HARROWDEN; GREAT DODDINGTON; LITTLE IRCHESTER; GREAT HARROWDEN; MEARS ASHBY; GRENDON; ORLINGBURY; HARDWICK; SYWELL (EXCLUDING THE OLD; VILLAGE); IRCHESTER AND WILBY

Informative/s 1. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the Council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant provisions in The Framework.

Planning Committee 63 of 85 11 March 2015

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 11 March 2015

COUNTY MATTER

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Alan Chapman WP/15/00068/CRA

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 5 February 2015 5 February 2015 26 February 2015 Earls Barton Earls Barton

Applicant Hanson Quarry Products Europe Limited

Agent Dan Szymanski

Location Earls Barton Quarry Grendon Road Earls Barton Northampton Northamptonshire

Proposal Retention of car parking area

PLANNING HISTORY WP/15/00068/CRA Determination pending. Retention of car parking area WP/15/00084/CRA 18.02.2015 Non-Material Amendment to Planning Permission SN/2006/1670 for a new drainage channel WP/2013/0627 19.12.2013 Non-Material Amendment to Planning Permission 10/00066/EXT to amend working programme. WP/2010/0443 17.11.2010 Replacement of extant planning permission 07/00050/MIN (WP/2007/0625/C) to extend the time limit for implementation by two years at Earls Barton Spinney Quarry, application for a sand and gravel quarry with restoration of flood plain habitats and agriculture WP/2012/0270 04.07.2012 Non-material amendment to planning permissions SN/2006/1670 and WP/2007/0039 to transport up to 1000 tonnes of sand and gravel by road using lorries over a period of 1-3 days. WP/1996/0340 01.11.1999 Sand and gravel extraction at low level to agriculture, construction of site access to the A509 with sales from site together with transport of as-raised material by road for processing at Pioneer's Earls Barton plant site

Planning Committee 64 of 85 11 March 2015

WP/15/00068/CRA

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 WP/15/00068/CRA - Earls Barton Quarry, Grendon Road, Earls Barton ± GetMapping PLC 1999

WP/2008/0405 17.09.2008 Variation of condition 12 of planning permission WP/2006/0359/C to extend the date by which the development should be completed by 12 months to 15 August 2009 WP/1997/0134 07.05.1997 Installation of additional quarry offices WR/1973/0263 16.11.1973 Use of water for sports, boating etc. WR/1971/0174 24.09.1971 Sand & gravel extraction WR/1971/0333 07.03.1972 Replacement of existing gravel plant and the inclusion of an ironstone plant, new weighbridge and office, new access to old level crossing WR/1966/0250 07.03.1967 Extraction of sand and gravel WR/1965/0172 20.08.1965 Inflam. store WR/1948/0065 03.01.1949 Continuation of gravel workings WR/1948/0001 31.08.1948 Slashing and grading plant BW/1980/0166 10.10.1980 Temporary erection of an asphalt mixing plant for supplying materials for the A45 expressway BW/1979/0400 Refused 17.10.1979 Oil storage and distribution depot WR/1960/0166 19.10.1960 Concrete casting yard WR/1960/0023 04.03.1960 Office extension WR/1959/0124 17.10.1959 Weighing and mixing plant WR/1959/0053 10.06.1959 Loading plant WR/1956/0067 16.11.1956 Extraction of sand and gravel BW/1983/0712 06.03.1984 Renewal of planning consent for the extraction of sand and gravel BW/1978/0670 25.06.1979 Tipping of inert waste to fully restore the land to original contours and agricultural use following extraction of sand and gravel

Planning Committee 65 of 85 11 March 2015

BW/1978/0341 27.10.1978 Extraction of sand and gravel and restoration to agriculture and lakes WP/1998/0346 Refused 02.10.1998 Planning application for the continued processing of sand and gravel at Earls Barton Quarry in the county of Northamptonshire to include the importation of sand and gravel from Church Farm Bozeat, vi Hardwater Crossing and land adjoining, the use of a field conveyor system and the continued use of the quarry plant, silt lagoon and offices and subsequent restoration to a lake and landscaped amenity areas WR/1951/0094 16.01.1952 Extension to gravel workings WR/1951/0031 10.07.1951 Sand and gravel workings WP/1998/0077 Refused 31.03.1998 Continued processing of sand and gravel at Earls Barton Quarry in the County of Northants to include the importation of sand and gravel from Church Farm Bozeat via Hardwater Crossing and land adjoining, the use of a field conveyor system and the continued use of the quarry plant, silt lagoon and offices and subsequent restoration to a lake and landscaped amenity areas BW/1984/0995 25.02.1985 Renewal of planning consent BW/1978/0670 to allow for completion of tipping operations in order to fully restore to original contours and agricultural use WR/1965/0243 20.12.1965 Proposed diversion of existing 33,000 volt overhead electricity line WR/1972/0109 21.07.1972 Factory and offices WP/2007/0625 20.03.2008 Sand and gravel extraction with restoration to flood plain habitats and agriculture. WP/2007/0039 28.02.2007 Winning and working of sand and gravel with progressive restoration to wet woodland and agriculture utilising imported inert materials. BW/1974/0061 01.01.1974 Extraction of sand and gravel BW/1976/0258 28.07.1976 Overhead electricity cable WP/2006/0359 11.10.2006 Importation and deposition of inert waste materials into former mineral extraction area with restoration to improved wetland.

Planning Committee 66 of 85 11 March 2015

WR/1964/0224 31.12.1964 Extraction of sand and gravel WP/2005/0443 Application withdrawn/undetermined 28.09.2005 Importation and deposition of inert materials with restoration to improved wetland WP/2005/0767 20.12.2005 Proposed importation, stockpiling and distribution of aggregate. WP/2003/0328 18.06.2003 Infilling of an unused drainage channel through the importation of a limited amount of inert waste material in order to improve the accessibility and safety of Earls Barton Quarry plant site area WP/2002/0266 22.05.2002 Extraction of sand and gravel, the construction of two new highways access points, the importation of inert waste materials to assist in the progressive restoration of worked out areas and the importation of minerals via a new mineral field conveyor. WP/2001/0625 05.12.2001 Variation of conditions for a time extension, in order to carry out further restoration to agriculture at Earls Barton Quarry, Northamptonshire WP/2003/0018 29.01.2003 Importation, storage and processing of sand and gravel from Stanwick quarry. WP/2001/0214 01.07.2001 Extraction of sand and gravel and restoration to agriculture by the importation of inert waste together with the processing of the sand and gravel at the nearby plant site.

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

- The proposal is a Northamptonshire County Council application (NCC Reference: 15/000007/MINNMA) within the Borough of Wellingborough; - The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the application's existence and to provide the Members with the opportunity to minute any concerns they may have that can then be reported back to NCC via the official minutes of the Planning Committee.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS This is an application being determined by Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) and the site is located due south of the River Nene, to the east of Grendon Road and opposite 'The Gate House', within the southern-most part of the parish. The site is a pre-existing gravel surfaced car-park to serve the employees of and visitors to the active quarry. The site is flat, within the floodplain, and is partly surrounded by mature vegetation. Earls Barton Quarry main site office and weighbridge is located immediately to the east of the car-park.

Planning Committee 67 of 85 11 March 2015

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL The applicant is seeking a non-material amendment to their planning permission so as to regularise the car-park which was installed without the prior consent of NCC.

The applicant's reasoning for the provision of the car-park is to segregate employees and visitors from the main haul road into the quarry so as to create a safer working environment. This arrangement would ensure that lorries associated with the quarry are directed away from the car traffic.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction)

Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policies: G2 (Flood Protection) G6 (Development within the Open Countryside)

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) 3 (Landscape Character) 4 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) 5 (Water Environment, Resources and Flood Risk Management) 20 (Nene and Ise Valleys)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance - Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework; Development and Implementation Principles; - Biodiversity; - Trees and Landscape.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED Wellingborough Borough Council is a consultee only on this 'County Matter' and therefore no consultations have been carried out on this application by the Borough.

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The proposal raises the following main issues:

- Design, layout and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; - Effect on ecology and wildlife; - Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to the proposed parking provision.

Planning Committee 68 of 85 11 March 2015

Design, layout and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area It is considered that the proposed car-park would have very limited material effect on the visual amenity and character of the area as it is part and parcel of a pre-existing quarrying operation/site.

Effect on ecology and wildlife It is considered that the proposed works would not detrimentally cause harm to the local ecology, and the applicant should be fully aware of the duties placed upon them by National and European law with regards to protected species of fauna and flora and their associated habitats.

Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to the proposed parking provision) It is expected that the proposed car park would provide a safer environment for all employee and visitors. However, NCC should satisfy themselves that to ensure that highway safety is maintained, they ensure that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document 'Highway Authority Standing Advice', as applicable, be applied to this planning application. NCC should also satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the proposed parking accommodation serving the site.

CONCLUSION The proposed development would not cause any significant and demonstrable harm to the landscape, local ecology, the floodplain or prejudice highway safety. In the absence of any material considerations of sufficient weight, it is recommended that no objection be raised to the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION No objection is raised to the proposed development.

Planning Committee 69 of 85 11 March 2015

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 11 March 2015

OTHER BOROUGH

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Alan Chapman WP/15/00008/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry 8 January 2015 8 January 2015 29 January 2015

Applicant Mr Clouston

Agent Kettering Borough Council

Location Burton Wold Farm Wold Road Burton Latimer Northamptonshire

Proposal Full application with EIA: Erection of 3 no. 136.5m wind turbines, 1 no. 85m anemometer mast, control building and associated works to access and tracks

PLANNING HISTORY WP/14/00503/EXT 13.08.2014 Environmental Statement Scoping Opinion: Request for a Scoping Opinion for wind farm extension (Revised scheme KET/2011/0506) WP/14/00525/EXT Determination pending. Proposed revised layout of Burton Wold Wind Farm South WP/14/00537/EXT 04.09.2014 Construction and operation of solar photovoltaic farm including ancillary infrastructure. WP/15/00008/EXT Determination pending. Full application with EIA: Erection of 3 no. 136.5m wind turbines, 1 no. 85m anemometer mast, control building and associated works to access and tracks WP/15/00086/EXT Determination pending. Solar photovoltaic farm and ancillary infrastructure

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

- The application and has been submitted to Kettering Borough Council (KBC Reference: KET/2014/0861) for determination;

Planning Committee 70 of 85 11 March 2015

WP/15/00008/EXT

- The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the application's existence and to provide the Members with the opportunity to minute any concerns they may have that can then be reported back to KBC via the official minutes of the Planning Committee.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The development site is located approximately 1.5km east of Burton Latimer and 1.2km northwest of Finedon, to the south of the existing Burton Wold Wind Farm (BWWF) and east of the A6 road running between the two settlements.

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL The site was originally granted planning permission in April 2011 for a wind farm consisting of five (5) turbines up to 100m to tip, each with a generating capacity of up to 2.3 megawatts (MW) of electricity (KBC Ref: KET/2011/0506 and BCW Ref: WP/2011/0406/OB). This 2011 wind farm scheme was not implemented.

Due to advances in wind farm technology, then the applicant has submitted this revised wind farm scheme to take advantage of modern turbines being able to generate in excess of 3 MW. As a consequence of proposing to install this type of modern turbine, the layout and scale of the scheme has had to be revised to take account of the local topography and proven wind resource. The resultant scheme favours reducing the number of turbines from 5 to 3, whilst at the same time being able to increase electricity output from the site.

This proposal consists of three (3) wind turbines up to 136.5m to tip, an 85m tall permanent anemometer mast (to measure wind speeds), a control building, underground cabling, associated hard standing areas (including crane pad, access track and temporary lay down areas) and a temporary construction compound.

The installed capacity of the project is estimated to potentially produce a maximum of 8.55MW (based upon the applicant's reference wind turbine model: a GE 2.85/103), although the actual output is dependent upon the applicant's final turbine selection.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction)

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED Wellingborough Borough Council is a consultee only on this application and, therefore, no consultations, other than BCW Planning Policy, have been carried out on this application by the Borough.

Planning Committee 71 of 85 11 March 2015

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The proposal raises the following main issues:

- Conformity with the Development Plan - Effect on landscape visual amenity - Effect/impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and the future occupiers of the development - Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to construction traffic - Other matters

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

To this regard, it is thought that the proposal is in accord with Policy 14.

Effect on landscape visual amenity Policy 13 of the NNCSS makes no specific reference to wind farms but, states that development proposals should not have an adverse impact on the landscape character and enhance the character of its surroundings. The principle of a wind farm at this location has been established by virtue of the earlier planning decisions for a 5 turbine wind farm. To this end, it is considered that this proposal for a 3 turbine wind farm should also be considered as being acceptable and would not have a significantly adverse impact upon the landscape.

The proposal is for a reduced number of turbines and would form an extension to existing and operational BWWF as well as the approved northern extension to the BWWF. On balance, the proposal for 3 as opposed to 5 turbines would be considered to be acceptable because it reduces the number of structures in the wider landscape and is set against a backdrop of an operational wind farm. This is perceived to be a preferred option to the erection of an isolated proposal set within the open countryside devoid of wind farms.

Effect/impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and the future occupiers of the development The main issues which would be of concern to local residents are thought to be shadow flicker and noise.

The shadow flicker assessment provided by the applicant is thought to be acceptable as it sets out what the likely impacts would be upon those properties thought to be the most sensitive and the mitigation measures (e.g. screening, automatic turbine control systems) to address any adverse effects. With regard to these mitigation measures and the shadow flicker study area drawing, it is considered that the most sensitive properties would be afforded sufficient protection to safeguard against demonstrable and significant harm to residential amenities.

Planning Committee 72 of 85 11 March 2015

The noise assessment provided by the applicant has identified six locations representative of the nearest noise sensitive properties. In line with 'The Assessment and rating of Noise from Wind Farms' (ETSU-R-97) and the guidance contained in the publication 'A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and rating of Wind Turbine Noise', the applicant has presented findings to suggest that the noise generated by the proposal would not exceed the noise limits cited in the above guidance documents that above which would be unacceptable and of harm to residents. Again, mitigation measures are proposed to ensure noise sensitive properties would not be subjected to demonstrable and significant harm. Such measures include automatic controls on the turbines to regulate their operation during certain weather conditions when noise emission poses the greater threat.

Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to construction traffic It is not thought that the construction traffic (heavy/large goods vehicles) associated with this proposed development would cause unnecessary nuisance to highway users or to local residents within the borough of Wellingborough, as the applicant proposes a pre-defined construction access route along the A14 and the A6. Construction traffic is proposed to be routed into and out of the site off the A6 with all traffic being directed from the access point direct to the A6/A14 road junction. Consequently, no such traffic should be approaching the site from the south through Finedon.

However, KBC should satisfy themselves that the proposals ensure that highway safety is maintained and that the highway standards and planning conditions recommended by the local highway authority and the Highways Agency are observed and be applied to this planning application.

Other matters Other material planning matters that KBC should endeavour to explore during their consultation exercise with the relevant consultees prior to determining this application are considered to be: - Land use considerations; - Cumulative visual impact; - Ecology and Nature Conservation; - Historic Environment; - TV Interferences; - Socio-economic impacts; - Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology; and - Air Traffic Control.

CONCLUSION It is concluded that no objections are raised to the planning application and that KBC be advised that the above matters are properly mitigated.

RECOMMENDATION No objection is raised to the proposed development, subject to Kettering Borough Council satisfying themselves that the following matters have been satisfactorily assessed:

Planning Committee 73 of 85 11 March 2015

- Landscape visual amenity impacts; - Noise impacts; - Shadow flicker impacts; - Access and Highway Safety impacts; - Land use considerations; - Cumulative visual impact; - Ecology and Nature Conservation impacts; - Historic Environment impacts; - TV Interferences; - Socio-economic impacts; - Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology impacts; and - Air Traffic Control impacts.

Planning Committee 74 of 85 11 March 2015

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 11 March 2015

OTHER BOROUGH

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Alan Chapman WP/15/00018/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry 14 January 2015 14 January 2015 4 February 2015

Applicant Conalgen Enterprises SA

Agent Rosalind Hair

Location Nene Park Station Road Irthlingborough Northamptonshire

Proposal Outline: Demolition of existing football stadium and associated infrastructure and erection of new retail and leisure development including retail (A1) foodstore (A1), Cinema (D2), hotel (C1), restaurants (A3/A5) and new community football facility along with access and parking (all matters reserved except access). Including Environmental Statement (EIA). AMENDED DETAILS AND SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

PLANNING HISTORY WP/14/00226/EXT 09.06.2014 Mixed use urban extension comprising residential development up to seven hundred dwellings (20ha), employment development within use classes B1, B2 and B8 (7.5ha) land for the expansion of Huxlow Science College (5.79ha), open space (8.9ha) and structural landscaping (10.3ha) and associated highway and drainage infrastructure including new roundabout junction on Finedon Road (A6) WP/14/00695/EXT 03.12.2014 Variation of conditions 1, 5, 6, 8, 15, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 as per section 2 of the submitted planning statement pursuant to planning permission 12/00010/FUL - 'Rushden Lakes: Hybrid Planning Application comprising: Full application for the erection of a home and garden centre, retail units, drive thru restaurant, gatehouse, lakeside visitor centre, restaurants and boat house, together with proposals for access. Outline: application for the erection of a hotel, crèche and leisure club with some matters reserved (appearance). Plus removal of ski slope

Planning Committee 75 of 85 11 March 2015

CHK

.com 4BL . / Revision any . and to setting Ltd all SCALE CV34

prior

company Wright NOT Date NOV 2014 & the WP/14/00018/EXT DO . of for checking for Warwick discrepancies .A

.corstorphine-wright drawing any S . Corstorphine the consent the of this No responsible with www Street be from w

Scale Drawing without 1:1250 0300

. architect and Leisure

taken is vested the site work Brook Size

be

and

A1 to the NOTES Paper PLANNING reproduced 288992 drawing visit only Hall or ENTERPRISES this Retail and notifying and construction of 01926 or PLan DATE

copied PT Brook t Checked be . Park Title dimensions No not copyright dimensions contractors must contractors CONALGEN Nene Rushden REVISION Client Project Drawing Drawn Project The must Figured All out manufacture NOTES: Location RBJ 131100

Bollards

SM SM

Weir

Navigation

Nene River

Twrs

L

SM SM LANE

Pitch

MARSH

SM SM Football

Twrs L Pitch

Twrs L Football Mast Court Games Stands Centre House Business Waterside Wair Stand Air Centre

Diamond WAY The

Diamonds DIAMOND Ground) and Stand (Football Rushden Twr L Stand Terrace Banke De Peter Park .9m Clinic GVC 37 Nene Outpatients

ESS

LANE MARSH Twr L

WAY

ATTLEY WAY

Sta DIAMOND Ppg GP

6 Sta A Sub El Depot Centre Diamonds Business

and associated site levelling, landscaping, habitat management and improvement works, vehicular access and servicing proposals together with the provision of car and cycle parking and a bus stop' dated 20.12.2012 WP/15/00018/EXT Determination pending. Outline: Demolition of existing football stadium and associated infrastructure and erection of new retail and leisure development including retail (A1) foodstore (A1), Cinema (D2), hotel (C1), restaurants (A3/A5) and new community football facility along with access and parking (all matters reserved except access). Including Environmental Statement (EIA). AMENDED DETAILS AND SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

- The application and has been submitted to East Northamptonshire Council (ENC Reference: 14/02310/OUT) for determination; - The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the application's existence and to provide the Members with the opportunity to minute any concerns they may have that can then be reported back to ENC via the official minutes of the Planning Committee.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The development site is the former Rushden and Diamonds Football Club stadium and surrounding complex, located off the A6 roundabout at the southern approach to Irthlingborough.

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL This outline planning application has been submitted to East Northamptonshire Council (ENC), for the demolition of the existing vacant football stadium and associated infrastructure and erection of new retail and leisure development including retail (A1), food-store (A1), cinema (D2), hotel (C1), restaurants (A3/A5), new community football facility and associated car parking as well as ecological improvements to the wild area at the northern tip of the site. The application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved apart from access.

Further details of the proposed development are:

- Cinema (8 screens) with a gross internal area of 2,248 square metres. - 7 retail units (approximate gross internal area of 6,706 to 7,672 square metres) with one dedicated to a large food store and 6 no. restaurants ranging from 300m2 to 1,800m2. - A four-storey (80 bedrooms) hotel at circa 3,700 square metres. - Develop a community football facility to the north of the site using the currently vacant training pitch and former sports and exhibition centre. - 650 total car parking spaces for customers. - Landscape improvements to the application site boundaries of the existing and

Planning Committee 76 of 85 11 March 2015

proposed car parking area along with improvement of the riverside (River Nene) area within the application boundary and therefore providing a riverside leisure facility. - A new pedestrian footpath connecting the site to the A6 road.

The application site contains two vacant buildings that are to be demolished to make way for the new leisure and retail development. One is the football stadium, which although has received much investment in the past, has remained uneconomical to run and so remains vacant. The other is much smaller building due north of the stadium.

Supporting information with the application indicates that there is little chance of the grounds returning to their former glory and that there is a significant risk of the buildings and surrounding grounds falling into disrepair. Additionally if the site does remain vacant it will only prove to be a disadvantage to the local community and would therefore only benefit from being redeveloped.

The submitted Retail Impact Statement (RIS) draws reference to the recent appeal concerning Rushden Lakes and Wellingborough Council's position of support towards Rushden Lakes. The RIS provides an assessment of this outside-of-town-centre retail, leisure and office development on its potential impact upon the vitality and viability of neighbouring town centres. With regards to Wellingborough, the RIS reports that the Rushden Lakes appeal decision confirmed that there was no planned investment in Wellingborough, and there is, therefore, nothing to impact upon.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 12 (Distribution of Retail Development) 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles)

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 12 (Town Centres and Town Centre Uses)

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED Wellingborough Borough Council is a consultee only on this application and, therefore, no consultations, other than BCW Planning Policy, have been carried out on this application by the Borough.

BCW Planning Policy Object to the proposal for the following reasons:

1. It is inconsistent with the planned growth as identified in JCS Policy 12. 2. Sequential testing of the proposal fails to consider the settlement hierarchy. 3. The retail impact assessment fails to the proposal's impact on Wellingborough town centre.

Planning Committee 77 of 85 11 March 2015

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The proposal raises the following main issues:

- Effect on Wellingborough town centre; - Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to the proposed access arrangement;

Effect on Wellingborough town centre Settlement and retail hierarchy:

Policy 1 of the Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) adopted in 2008 provides a settlement hierarchy for North Northamptonshire. It focuses development towards the urban core, mainly Kettering, Wellingborough and Corby. Many towns in East Northamptonshire, including Irthlingborough Town, are designated under the "Smaller Towns" category, where they are described as secondary 'focal points' with emphasis on regeneration. Here, the scale of development will relate to infrastructure provision and regeneration needs. In terms of retail, Policy 12 of the CSS focuses retail development on the three towns of Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby. In the plan, there is no special strategy for Rushden but, town centre development is encouraged. Irthlingborough is designated a 'localised convenience and service centre', where the focus is on environmental improvements and upgrading of retail stock. Crucially, it states that the scale of retail development should be appropriate to the role and function of the centre where it is located. Any major retail development would need to be assessed to establish that they are not adverse to the long term vitality and viability of other town centres.

The Inspector in the Rushden Lakes decision concluded that Policies 1 and 12 of the CSS are out of date in respect of Rushden. Policy 11 of the pre-submission Joint Core Strategy (JCS), currently under consultation, proposes a different hierarchy where Rushden Town is escalated to the Growth Town category and other towns, including Irthlingborough, be rebranded as Market Towns. The emerging plan retains the urban oriented focus of the CSS but ascribes a service role to the Market Towns, in the case of Irthlingborough, to serve the local community and wider rural hinterland. Policy 12 directs major retail development to Corby and Kettering towns (Northern Area), with Wellingborough and Rushden (the Southern Area) providing a retail offer which compliments Rushden Lakes. In terms of Market Towns, development in the town centres is supported where the scale and nature of the proposal is consistent with the role of the market town in providing mainly convenience shopping and local services. Other development opportunities outside these towns will be identified in Part 2 of the Local Plans where "these do not undermine the focus of retail development at the town centres of the Growth Towns". It also calls for sequential testing and impact assessment of out of centre developments as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The North Northamptonshire Retail Capacity Study (2014) identifies the need for additional 4,100 square metres of convenience goods floor space in the southern area by 2031, for which only 1,100 square metres would be required up to 2021. Rushden Lakes, which will provide around 27,000 square metres of retail sales area, will absorb earlier retail capacity in the southern region. The Rushden Lakes development is expected to exhaust the comparison retail expenditure for the plan period in the southern area. The proposed level of retail provision in the southern region is expected to retain a higher proportion of retail expenditure in the region and contribute towards self-sufficiency.

Planning Committee 78 of 85 11 March 2015

The proposed development is on a scale that is inconsistent with the existing and emerging spatial role of Irthlingborough as a secondary focal point for development although it partially fulfils the regeneration objective integral to both policies. In terms of retail, it is contrary to the existing and emerging role of Irthlingborough as a localised centre for convenience shopping. At 6,706 square metres of A1 class uses, the proposal would significantly exceed the amount of planned growth in the southern region. This highlights the proposal's unsustainability.

Sequential testing:

The application site is out of centre and must be subjected to sequential testing in accordance with the NPPF. This requires that suitable (in or edge of centre) sites are not available, but involves the developer demonstrating flexibility in terms of format and scale. However, there is no requirement for disaggregation. A suitable site is one which accommodates the proposed development. As such, no separate sequential analysis has been carried for leisure facilities. Considering the settlement hierarchy and the scale of the proposed development, which should ideally be directed to larger urban centres, the catchment area for sequential testing must include Wellingborough. The planning and retail impact assessment accompanying the application states that the search area is limited to zones, 9, 10 and 11 of North Northamptonshire Retail Study but goes on to say it is focused on Irthlingborough, Higham Ferrers and Rushden only. This is erroneous. The applicant must apply the sequential test to Wellingborough and other larger towns and demonstrate flexibility in terms of scale and format.

Retail impact assessment:

Paragraph 26 of the NPPF requires an assessment of the impacts (if any) of proposed retail, leisure (including hotel and cinema) and office developments on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a town centre and on town centre vitality and viability. This applies to developments above a threshold of 2,500 square metres where no local impact threshold exists.

The Inspector in the Rushden Lakes application suggested that there was no evidence that any planned investment in Wellingborough is being actively progressed, or that any plans have reached no further than embryonic stage, or that any developer is committed. This was against a background where the Wellingborough Chamber of Commerce and the Council supported the Rushden Lakes proposal. The sites allocated in the Town Centre Area Action Plan have not progressed and are being reassessed. This situation has not changed in the town centre.

In terms of the impact on town centre vitality and viability, it should be noted that the Rushden Lakes development is expected to account for most, if not all, of forecast additional comparison goods spending in the southern area and will draw 12% of Wellingborough's comparison shopping turnover. Therefore, there is no requirement for additional capacity until after 2026, depending on the performance of Rushden Lakes. The need for additional capacity can only be reviewed and monitored when Rushden Lakes is fully established; expected around 2018/19. The effect of the proposed development would be to draw further trade from Wellingborough town centre.

Planning Committee 79 of 85 11 March 2015

The retail impact assessment in the planning statement is inadequate with regard to the NPPF and guidance because it fails to sufficiently assess the quantitative and qualitative impact of the proposed development on Wellingborough town centre. It overly relies on conclusions from the Rushden Lakes application. The applicant should carry an impact assessment clearly assessing, among other things, state of Wellingborough's existing centre and the nature of the current patterns and the proposal's trade draw from Wellingborough's town centre. This must apply to the retail and leisure uses. The planning guidance is very clear that town centres of low activity, high vacancy rates and low retail demand could be very vulnerable even to modest trade diversion. The assessment must be in accordance with the guidance on applying the impact test as found in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to the proposed access arrangement ENC should satisfy themselves that the access arrangements ensure that highway safety is maintained and that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document 'Highway Authority Standing Advice', as applicable, be applied to this planning application.

CONCLUSION It is concluded that objections be raised against the planning application.

RECOMMENDATION An objection be raised against the proposed development for the following reasons:

(i) The proposed development is on a scale that is inconsistent with the existing and emerging spatial role of Irthlingborough as a secondary focal point for development. In terms of retail, it is contrary to the existing and emerging role of Irthlingborough as a localised centre for convenience shopping. At 6,706m2 of A1 class uses, the proposal would significantly exceed the amount of planned growth in the southern region for the period up to 2021.

(ii) Considering the settlement hierarchy and the scale of the proposed development, which should ideally be directed to larger urban centres, the catchment area for sequential testing must include Wellingborough and not restricted to Irthlingborough, Higham Ferrers and Rushden only. The sequential test must demonstrate flexibility in terms of scale and format.

(iii) The retail impact assessment in the planning statement is inadequate in terms of the NPPF and guidance because it fails to sufficiently assess the quantitative and qualitative impact of the proposed development on Wellingborough town centre. The applicant should carry an impact test clearly assessing, among other things, Wellingborough's state of the existing centre, the nature of the current patterns of trade and the proposal's trade draw from Wellingborough's town centre.

Planning Committee 80 of 85 11 March 2015

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 11 March 2015

OTHER BOROUGH

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Alan Chapman WP/15/00086/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 12 February 2015 12 February 2015 5 March 2015

Applicant Mr Watkins

Agent Kettering Borough Council

Location Burton Wold Farm Wold Road Burton Latimer Northamptonshire

Proposal Solar photovoltaic farm and ancillary infrastructure

PLANNING HISTORY WP/14/00503/EXT 13.08.2014 Environmental Statement Scoping Opinion: Request for a Scoping Opinion for wind farm extension (Revised scheme KET/2011/0506) WP/14/00525/EXT Determination pending. Proposed revised layout of Burton Wold Wind Farm South WP/14/00537/EXT 04.09.2014 Construction and operation of solar photovoltaic farm including ancillary infrastructure. WP/15/00008/EXT Determination pending. Full application with EIA: Erection of 3 no. 136.5m wind turbines, 1 no. 85m anemometer mast, control building and associated works to access and tracks WP/15/00086/EXT Determination pending. Solar photovoltaic farm and ancillary infrastructure

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

- The application and has been submitted to Kettering Borough Council (KBC Reference: KET/2014/0863) for determination; - The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the application's existence and to provide the Members with the opportunity to minute any concerns they may have that can then be reported back to KBC via the official minutes of the Planning Committee

Planning Committee 81 of 85 11 March 2015

WP/15/00086/EXT

SITE C

REPRODUCED FROM ORDNANCE SURVEY SUPERPLAN DATA WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE CONTROLER OF HER MAJESTY'S STATIONARY OFFICE, CROWN COPYRIGHT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. LICENCE NUMBER: 10001998 DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING

JOB TITLE THIS INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND THE PROPERTY OF STRATUS ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED. IT IS RELEASED ON CONDITION THAT NONE OF THE INFORMATION SHALL BE DISCLOSED TO ANY THIRD PARTY OR REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR PART WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT IN WRITING OF STRATUS ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED. BURTON WOLD SOLAR FARM

DRAWING TITLE REV DESCRIPTION DATE BY STRATUS ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED 4245 PARK APPROACH DRAWN DATE APPROVED DATE THORPE PARK LEEDS S.T 30/6/2014 J.B 30/6/2014 stratus LS15 8GB environmental SITE LOCATION PLAN T: 0113 232 8571 E: [email protected] SCALE SHEET DRAWING NUMBER W: stratus-environmental.co.uk 1:50,000 A4 FR1005// 17 01C

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The development site is located immediately due south of the A14, 300m south of Cranford St John and abuts the western boundary of Cranford landfill site. The Burton Wold Wind Farm (BWWF) lies to the south of the site and the northern extension to the BWWF lies to the east. The proposed solar farm would occupy approximately 15ha of improved grassland and would retain the existing field boundary hedgerows. The application site gently slopes towards the south east with ground levels ranging from 75m to 85m AOD.

The site lies within two National Character Areas: 'NCA 89 Northamptonshire Vales' and 'NCA 92 Rockingham Forest' and is identified at a local level by the Northamptonshire Landscape Character Assessment as being located within 4g 'Irthlingborough Slopes'. The application site does not fall within any National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or area designated for its landscape character.

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL This solar farm site (identified as Site C), is being undertaken in parallel with two other solar farm sites within the Burton Wold area, namely Site A and Site B, which combine to encompass the Burton Wold Solar Farm Project. Separate planning applications have been/will be submitted for Site A and Site B, however cumulative impacts of all three areas have been considered within all application documents. Site A has been previously reported to Planning Committee under the planning application reference numbers: WP/14/00537/EXT and KET/2014/0540.

The proposed development is a solar PV farm consisting of photovoltaic panels running east-west across the site which will have the potential to generate an estimated electrical output of approximately 8.4MWp.

Based on its maximum potential, the proposed solar farm would provide approximately 11,037MWh of electricity per annum; enough to power approximately 2,659 homes per year and offset 4,745 tonnes of CO2 every year, the equivalent of approximately 1,977 cars off the road.

The solar farm will comprise the following: - Panels and associated supporting frames and ground mounting; - Inverters (housed in prefabricated containers) and transformers; - A sub-station housed in a prefabricated container to allow connection to the Local Distribution Network; - Underground cabling connecting the invertors to the sub-station (generally following the service road); - Fencing and CCTV; and - Internal service road.

The solar farm will consist of photovoltaic panels laid out in arrays running east to west across the site. Each array will be mounted on simple metal framework. The detailed design will be determined by planning condition. However, it is envisaged each panel will be approximately 1m wide and 1.6m in length. Panels will be no greater than 3m from the ground.

The layout of the solar farm will be designed to fit within the context of the surrounding area and all existing perimeter trees and hedgerows will be retained. To ensure security of the solar farm, protective perimeter fencing is proposed.

Planning Committee 82 of 85 11 March 2015

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction)

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED Wellingborough Borough Council is a consultee only on this application and, therefore, no consultations have been carried out on this application by the Borough.

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The proposal raises the following main issues:

- Principle of development; - Effect on landscape visual amenity; - Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to construction traffic.

Principle of development On balance it is considered that the proposal appears to help address the UK Government's priorities to meet the challenge of climate change and to support the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy, central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development - the central theme of the UK Government's National Planning Policy Framework. Such a proposal should therefore be welcomed and encouraged. Furthermore, there is support for renewable energy schemes both within the preamble supporting text of and NNCSS Policy 14.

However, KBC should be mindful that this proposed solar farm development may cause a negative cumulative visual impact upon the wider landscape when it is considered alongside the following ground mounted solar farm and solar array developments within the administrative boundary of the Borough Council of Wellingborough:

1. WP/14/00368/FUL - Installation of a 10MW solar farm and associated infrastructure - Mears Ashby - Permission Granted

2. WP/14/00359/FUL - Construction of a ground-mounted solar farm with associated works - Little Harrowden - Refused

3. WP/14/00218/FUL - Installation of 1040 solar panels and associated cabling and mounting systems to provide a 250kW solar pv array - Isham - Permission Granted

4. WP/2014/0100 - Solar panels - Siting of 20kw ground mounted solar system. Change of use from orchard/redundant land to solar panels - Bozeat - Permission Granted

5. WP/2013/0666 - A 92kWp ground mounted solar photo voltaic array. This is for the purpose of renewable electricity generation - Sywell - Permission Granted

Planning Committee 83 of 85 11 March 2015

6. WP/2013/0372/FM - Temporary change of use from farming to solar farm generating renewable electricity and associated infrastructure - Great Doddington - Permission Granted

It is, therefore, concluded that KBC be made aware of the above developments and that no objection be raised.

Effect on landscape visual amenity Policy 13 of the NNCSS makes no specific reference to solar farms but, states that development proposals should not have an adverse impact on the landscape character and enhance the character of its surroundings. The principle of solar farms in this general locale have been established by virtue of the earlier planning decisions for a solar farm (A) due south of this site (C). To this end, it is considered that this proposal should also be considered as being acceptable and would not have a significantly adverse impact upon the landscape.

Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to construction traffic It is thought that the construction traffic (heavy/large goods vehicles) associated with this proposed development could cause unnecessary nuisance to highway users and to local residents within the administrative boundary of Wellingborough Council.

It is proposed that the existing site access to the Burton Wold Wind Farm and Northern Extension will be utilised, which is located off Wold Road. The Northern Extension Wind Farm access tracks will then be utilised from Wold Road to the site entrance. An additional internal service road would be required within Site C and a temporary equipment set down area will be provided towards the southern boundary within the fenced area. The temporary set down area will be secured by temporary fencing. The internal service road will be constructed using compacted crushed stone and will measure approximately 4m in width.

Details of the traffic and transport implications have been set out in the form of a Construction Method Statement (CMS), and it is considered that the routing of large/heavy construction vehicles can be controlled by planning condition with reference to the CMS, to ensure that local residents within the borough of Wellingborough are not unduly effected by the construction traffic.

KBC should be advised that, through consultation with the local highway authority and the Highways Agency, appropriate measures and or planning conditions should be imposed to protect the amenities of local residents and the safety of highway users within the borough of Wellingborough from construction related traffic.

CONCLUSION It is concluded that no objection be raised upon the principle of development and Kettering Borough Council are advised of the aforementioned solar farm and solar array developments and that they take these into consideration with regards to any cumulative landscape and visual amenity impacts:

Furthermore, KBC should consider imposing appropriate measures and or planning conditions to protect the amenities of local residents and the safety of highway users within the borough of Wellingborough from construction related traffic.

Planning Committee 84 of 85 11 March 2015

RECOMMENDATION No objection is raised to the proposed development, subject to Kettering Borough Council satisfying themselves that the following matters have been satisfactorily assessed and mitigated:

1. Cumulative landscape visual amenity impacts, with reference to:-

1.1. WP/14/00368/FUL; Installation of a 10MW solar farm and associated infrastructure; Mears Ashby.

1.2. WP/14/00359/FUL; Construction of a ground-mounted solar farm with associated works; Little Harrowden.

1.3. WP/14/00218/FUL; Installation of 1040 solar panels and associated cabling and mounting systems to provide a 250kW solar pv array; Isham.

1.4. WP/2014/0100; Solar panels - Siting of 20kw ground mounted solar system; Bozeat.

1.5. WP/2013/0666; A 92kWp ground mounted solar photo voltaic array; Sywell.

1.6. WP/2013/0372/FM; Temporary change of use from farming to solar farm generating renewable electricity and associated infrastructure; Great Doddington.

2. Construction traffic routing and management.

Planning Committee 85 of 85 11 March 2015

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 11 March 2015

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

WP/14/00773/FUL Applicant S Bush

Location 3 Aggate Way, Earls Barton Proposal Erection of a two storey rear extension. Replacement of windows and conservatory Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00774/VAR Applicant Miss Lisa Clements BDW Trading Limited

Location Phase 2B, Eastfield Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire Proposal Removal of condition 13 of Application Reference Number: WP/2013/0545(OEIA) - After liaising with the Environment Agency regarding the requirements of condition 13, the EA confirmed that the condition was re-used from the previous application on the site. Condition 13 relates to a previous proposal on the site where the lake was used as a storage pond for the drainage scheme. As part of our approved application (WP/2014/00243/REM) are now pumping our foul and storm back up to the mains so no longer need to use the lake. There are no underground storage tanks shown on the existing survey or ground investigation report and therefore no further sampling of these is required Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00789/FUL Applicant Key Property Solutions Limited

Location 106 Gold Street, Wellingborough Proposal Move location of entrance doors, install refrigeration condenser and air conditioning units - amended plans and information (including NO Installation of ATM cash machine) - amended description/amended drawing Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00798/FUL Applicant Mr Shay Budhdeo

Location 76 Albert Road, Wellingborough Proposal Installation of external wall insulation with a cream-painted rendered finish to the external walls Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00799/FUL Applicant Mr Paul Cox

Location 41 Orlingbury Road, Little Harrowden Proposal Removal of timber summer room to rear elevation, replacement with new extension and new side extension together with new porch Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00801/TX Applicant Mr Paul Boatman Bovis Homes Limited

Location Nene Valley, east of Wellingborough, Finedon Road, Wellingborough Proposal Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation for planning permission ref: WP/2005/0720 Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00812/FUL Applicant Mr Paul Murphy Cumberland Platforms

Location 21 Stonelea Road, Sywell Proposal Retrospective application for planning permission for flat roof in fill rear extension Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00813/FUL Applicant Mr Paul Murphy Cumberland Platforms

Location 21 Stonelea Road, Sywell Proposal Proposed timber framed garage Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00814/LDP Applicant Mr Steve Perrin

Location 5 Hillside Road, Wellingborough Proposal Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a proposed rear extension Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00815/LDP Applicant Mr Line

Location 16 Eastfield Crescent, Finedon Proposal Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a proposed single storey front porch Decision Application Refused

WP/14/00817/FUL Applicant Mr Karl Worley

Location 2 Queen Street, Earls Barton Proposal Erection of first floor extension and conversion to 2 no. 1-bed self contained flats Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00818/FUL Applicant Mr and Mrs Gokani

Location Parkgate, 38 The Promenade, Wellingborough Proposal Erection of a single storey rear extension and double storey front extension to create porch. Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00822/FUL Applicant Mr Adrian Jarvis

Location 2 Glebe Road, Mears Ashby Proposal Proposed garage Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00827/VAR Applicant Miss Lisa Clements BDW Trading Limited

Location Phase 2B, land east off Eastfield Road, Wellingborough. Proposal Retention of planning permission ref: WP/2013/0545/OEIA with removal of condition number: 5 c) cycle parking comprising secure covered storage facilities - we wish to remove part c of condition 5 which requires secure covered cycle parking. This was listed on the original outline permission subsequently renewed in 2014. We have been informed by Local Authority officers that 5c was included as a response to the proposed masterplan associated with the first outline consent. The masterplan included undercroft parking solutions which restricted easy access to cycle storage. The secure 'above ground' cycle parking would have addressed this issue. Our approved consents for the site follows an updated masterplan which does not propose undercroft parking. Therefore there is less emphasis on the requirement for secure cycle parking. Properties on the site have access to secure gardens, garages and or an external store to each unit. As a result there are numerous opportunities for cycle parking across the site. By removing this part of the condition we will no longer be providing individual sheds on every plot to serve as a cycle parking. Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00828/FUL Applicant Mr and Mrs Paul Groom

Location 67 Overstone Road, Sywell Proposal Two storey side extension to existing bungalow, new car port and new triple garage Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00834/FUL Applicant Mr Ian Gallacher

Location Wellingborough School, Irthlingborough Road, Wellingborough Proposal Proposed two storey extension and roof alteration to Parker-Steynes House to provide new common rooms Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00836/FUL Applicant The Co-operative Group

Location Co-operative Retail Services Ltd, 6 - 10 High Street, Earls Barton Proposal Installation of new bollards remove existing 4 no. and replace with 9 no. new bollards to cover the existing shopfront Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00838/LBC Applicant Mr D Millwood

Location Barn NE of Manor House, 1 The Manor House, 1 Orlingbury Road, Great Harrowden Proposal Proposed extension, alterations and associated demolition Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00839/FUL Applicant Mr Darren Parnell

Location 9 Pie Corner, Sywell Proposal Demolition of existing garage and erection of a new two storey extension. AMENDED PLAN. Decision Application Permitted

WP/14/00844/AMD Applicant Mr Ian Lapsley Lifespace Developments Limited

Location 2- 2H High Street, Earls Barton, Northampton, Northamptonshire Proposal Non material amendment to planning permission ref: WP/2013/0504/F for additional gable end windows to ground floor wc, obscure glass, on plots 6 and 8 and amended elevations to plots 1, 2 and 3. Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00006/TCA Applicant Mr Nick Morgan R N Property Partnership LLP

Location Land Adjacent 60, 60 Oxford Street, Wellingborough Proposal Removal of Robinia, small Ash and Sycamore trees Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00010/FUL Applicant Trustees of HM Stockdale 1957 Settlement

Location Land At Hill Farm, 6 Wilby Road, Mears Ashby, Northampton Proposal Erection of agricultural building and new vehicular access Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00011/FUL Applicant Miss Amy Lister

Location 33 Buckingham Close, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 2NP Proposal Erection of a single storey rear extension Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00013/TPO Applicant Mr Ronald Riley

Location 179 Main Road, Wilby Proposal Pruning of long, relatively thin, secondary growths to re-establish crown clearance and tree shape of row of 8 Lime trees within group reference G1 Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00022/FUL Applicant Seagrave Developments Limited

Location 17 and 18 The Courtyard, Church Way, Ecton Proposal Minor amendment to application number WP/2013/0406 for the removal of parking spaces surplus to requirements Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00025/FUL Applicant Brenda Ames

Location 16 Vicarage Close, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 5ES Proposal Erection of a single storey rear and side extension Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00026/LBC Applicant Mr Kevin Allen

Location 3 Laws Lane, Finedon, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire Proposal Retention of 2 no. replacement windows to first floor level of North East facing wall Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00029/FUL Applicant Mr Paul Winrow

Location 122 Northampton Road, Earls Barton, Northampton, Northamptonshire Proposal Proposed rear garage extension - amended scheme following approval of WP/14/00355/FUL Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00030/ADV Applicant Key Property Solutions Limited

Location 106 Gold Street, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 4ES Proposal Proposed building and site signage (Illuminated and non-illuminated) including window vinyls Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00036/FUL Applicant Mr Terry Clarke

Location 6 Marlborough Avenue, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 5YN Proposal Proposed conversion of existing integral garage to dining room, first floor front extension to form en-suite, window to gable end and single storey store to side Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00041/AMD Applicant Mrs Maeve Fisher

Location 6 Warwick Road, Wellingborough Proposal Non material amendment to planning approval ref: WP/14/00718/FUL to allow for the revised position of steplift Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00050/TPO Applicant Mr Colin Clayson Clayson Country Homes

Location Land to the right and rear of Park Close, Sywell Proposal T1 - Oak - damaged - to be felled. T2 - Spruce - to fell. T3 - Oak - leaning stem of twin stemmed tree (shed side) to be felled. T4 - Oak - crown cleaned. T5 - Oak - crown cleaned. T6 - Oak - crown cleaned. Area of Rhododendrons - to have a track cleared through it. All dead or dangerous trees within the plot are to be felled. Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00064/TCA Applicant Mr Steve Rose

Location 41A High Street, Ecton, Northampton, Northamptonshire Proposal Removal of dead Holly tree (damaged by extensive Ivy) Decision Application Permitted

BACKGROUND PAPERS

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

Borough Council of Wellingborough, Planning and Local Development, Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough.

PLANNING COMMITTEE – BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED 2 Feb – 26 Feb 2015

Application No. FP/2014/5069 Proposal: Construction of two blocks of four garages Location: Car Parking and Garages to rear of 22 - 28 Grasmere Green Wellingborough Northamptonshire Decision: Approve conditions BCW Decision issued: 6 February 2015

Application No. FP/2014/5075 Proposal: Change of use from commercial (B2) to residential (C3), to create 1 no. Bungalow. Location: Rear of 32 North Street Wellingborough Northamptonshire Decision: Plans Rejected Decision issued: 11 February 2015

Application No. FP/2014/5274 Proposal: Construction of 26 dwellings with associated landscaping and parking provision Location: 121 Nest Farm Crescent Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 4TU Decision: Plans Rejected Decision issued: 20 February 2015

Application No. FP/2014/3599/B Proposal: Unit 1 and ancillary hardstandings Location: Site K2 Land rear of 14 to 38 and fronting Sywell Road Davy Close Wellingborough Northamptonshire Decision: Withdrawn Decision issued: 12 February 2015

Application No. FP/2015/0001 Proposal: Change of use of part of garage to wetroom Location: 80 Orlingbury Road Isham Kettering Northamptonshire NN14 1HW Decision: Approve conditions BCW Decision issued: 17 February 2015

Application No. FP/2015/0633 Proposal: Single storey extension to the rear of the property Location: 47 Haddon Close Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 5ZB Decision: Approve conditions BCW Decision issued: 3 February 2015

Application No. FP/2015/0640 Proposal: 2 no. 1 bedroom flats Location: 9 Albert Road Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 1EL Decision: Approve conditions BCW Decision issued: 24 February 2015

1 Council Offices, Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, NN8 1BP Tel: 01933 229777 www.wellingborough.gov.uk Application No. FP/2015/0914 Proposal: Installation of a double classroom mobile (131m squared) Location: Irchester Community Primary School School Lane Irchester Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN29 7AZ Decision: Approve conditions BCW Decision issued: 13 February 2015

Application No. FP/2015/0916 Proposal: Single storey rear extension Location: 42 Clarke Court Earls Barton Northampton Northamptonshire NN6 0LX Decision: Approve conditions BCW Decision issued: 20 February 2015

Application No. FP/2015/0917 Proposal: Extension Location: 11B Church Way Grendon Northampton Northamptonshire NN7 1JE Decision: Approve conditions BCW Decision issued: 17 February 2015

Application No. FP/2015/1148 Proposal: Two storey side extension to existing dwelling Location: 12 Edinburgh Road Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 2HW Decision: Approved Decision issued: 24 February 2015

Application No. FP/2015/1151 Proposal: Removal of internal walls, to be replaced by steels Location: 26B Market Street Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 1AX Decision: Approve conditions BCW Decision issued: 24 February 2015

Application No. FP/2015/1153 Proposal: Extension Location: 18 Church Way Grendon Northampton Northamptonshire NN7 1JE Decision: Approve conditions BCW Decision issued: 26 February 2015

Application No. FP/2015/1154 Proposal: Alterations and plant room extension Location: Barn NE of The Manor House 1 Orlingbury Road Great Harrowden Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN9 5AF Decision: Approved Decision issued: 24 February 2015

Application No. BN/2015/1157 Proposal: Garage conversion Location: 43 Coniston Close Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 3XS Decision: Accepted Decision issued: 3 February 2015

2 Council Offices, Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, NN8 1BP Tel: 01933 229777 www.wellingborough.gov.uk Application No. BN/2015/1195 Proposal: Window change into a door Location: 37 Irthlingborough Road Finedon Northamptonshire NN9 5EH Decision: Accepted Decision issued: 5 February 2015

Application No. DI/2015/1196 Proposal: Conversion of bathroom into a shower room Location: 27 Queensway Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 3RB Decision: Accepted Decision issued: 5 February 2015

Application No. FP/2015/1197 Proposal: Installation of doors in former window opening Location: 14 Fosse Close Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 2LQ Decision: Approved Decision issued: 12 February 2015

Application No. BN/2015/1199 Proposal: Erect a new side extension at the rear of the property. Demolish external wall to kitchen and second reception Location: 89 Stanley Road Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 1EA Decision: Accepted Decision issued: 9 February 2015

Application No. FP/2015/1201 Proposal: Conversion of disused electricity substation into a two bedroom house Location: Sub Station Eastfield Road Wellingborough Northamptonshire Decision: Approve conditions BCW Decision issued: 26 February 2015

Application No. DI/2015/1204 Proposal: Conversion of bathroom into a shower room Location: 11 Buttermere Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 3ZA Decision: Accepted Decision issued: 10 February 2015

Application No. BN/2015/1237 Proposal: Loft conversion Location: 1 Castle Road Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 1LL Decision: Accepted Decision issued: 11 February 2015

Application No. FP/2014/5060/A Proposal: Erect timber framed/clad garage Location: 21 Stonelea Road Sywell Northampton Northamptonshire NN6 0AZ Decision: Plans Rejected Decision issued: 17 February 2015

3 Council Offices, Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, NN8 1BP Tel: 01933 229777 www.wellingborough.gov.uk Application No. BN/2015/1247 Proposal: Make an opening in the wall between the lounge and dining room Location: 1 Princess Way Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 2HG Decision: Accepted Decision issued: 18 February 2015

Application No. BN/2015/1249 Proposal: Removal of load bearing wall and installation of RSJ Location: 14 Hogarth Close Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 4UG Decision: Accepted Decision issued: 18 February 2015

Application No. FP/2014/0761/E Proposal: New dwelling Location: 40 Mears Ashby Road Wilby Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 2UQ Decision: Plans Rejected Decision issued: 23 February 2015

Application No. DI/2015/1336 Proposal: Conversion of bathroom into a shower room Location: 27 Owen Close Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 3LW Decision: Accepted Decision issued: 26 February 2015

BC INDEX

4 Council Offices, Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, NN8 1BP Tel: 01933 229777 www.wellingborough.gov.uk Received Appeals

Appeal Site Ref. No. Date Received Status

52 Ecton Lane WP/14/00270/FUL 3rd February 2015 Written Reps Sywell Northampton Northamptonshire

Land to rear of WP/14/00550/FUL 12th February 2015 Written Reps 130-132 Finedon Road Wellingborough Northamptonshire

Land at the rear of WP/14/00209/OUT 20th February 2015 Written Reps 7B Kettering Road Isham Kettering Northamptonshire

Appeal Decision Inquiry opened on 25 November 2014 Site visit made on 17 December 2014 by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 23 February 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/H2835/A/14/2220599 Minton Distribution Centre, Wellingborough Road, Sywell NN6 0BN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Nottinghamshire County Council Pension Fund against the decision of the Borough Council of Wellingborough. • The application Ref.WP/2013/0447/OM, dated 15 August 2013, was refused by notice dated 18 December 2013. • The development proposed is described as ‘outline planning application for residential development (Use Class C3) with all matters reserved’.

Preliminary Matters

1. The Inquiry opened on 25 November 2014 and proceedings continued on 26, 27 and 28 November, when I adjourned. Thereafter, further evidence from the appellant on noise, and closing statements from the Council, and from the appellant, were submitted in accordance with an agreed timetable. I then closed the Inquiry in writing.

2. I carried out an accompanied site visit on 17 December 2014 that took in Sywell Aerodrome, the appeal site and the buildings upon it, and the route from the appeal site into Sywell, taking particular account of the highway layout and conditions. After that, I took in the village of Sywell, and explored Beckwith Emporium, on an unaccompanied basis.

3. Notwithstanding the description on the application form, set out above, what is proposed is a residential development in Use Class C3. The originating application was made in outline with all matters reserved. I have proceeded on that overall basis.

Decision

4. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for a residential development in Use Class C3 at Minton Distribution Centre, Wellingborough Road, Sywell NN6 0BN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref.WP/2013/0447/OM, dated 15 August 2013, subject to the conditions set out in Annex A to this decision.

Main Issues

5. The main issue is whether the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and the implications, in terms of the application of local and national policy, that flow from a conclusion on that matter. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

Reasons

The Policy Background

6. Notwithstanding the importance that attaches to the question of whether the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites as a consequence of the Framework1, the starting point for analysis of the proposal remains the development plan. This includes the North Northamptonshire Core Strategy 20082 and the saved elements of the Wellingborough Local Plan 1999 plus Alteration 20043.

7. CS Policy 1 sets up a settlement hierarchy across the area with development directed, principally, towards the urban core with a focus on the three Growth Towns of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough and secondary focal points in Smaller Towns and Rural Service Centres. In other rural areas, any development is to take place on sites within village boundaries, with a focus on those that perform a local centre role.

8. CS Policy 9 deals with the distribution and location of development and reiterates the hierarchy in CS Policy 1. CS Policy 10 covers the distribution of housing with a focus, predictably, on the three Growth Towns, with modest growth in Smaller Towns and Rural Service Centres, limited development in villages and restricted development in the open countryside.

9. CS Policy 11 safeguards existing employment uses unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative use would not be detrimental to the overall supply and quality of employment land within the district.

10. General sustainable development principles are addressed in CS Policy 13. Development should, we are told, meet the needs of residents and businesses without compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the same quality of life that the present generation aspires to. Amongst other things, development should maintain and improve the provision of accessible local services; and have a satisfactory means of access.

11. LP Policy G6 restricts development, generally, in the open countryside. More specifically, LP Policy H4 sets out that planning permission will not be granted for residential development in the open countryside or Restraint Villages unless it is intended to serve the essential needs of workers in agriculture or forestry; a replacement dwelling; the conversion of a suitable building in a Restraint Village; or affordable housing in the open countryside on the edge of other villages where in accordance with LP Policy H9.

12. LP Policy SY1 says that within the limits of development at Sywell Aerodrome, planning permission will only be granted for new buildings, changes of use or extensions to existing buildings for uses directly associated with flying activities or proposal for the improvement of facilities for passenger and freight air traffic; extensions to existing buildings other than those referred to above where they are to meet specific ancillary and associated uses; and new buildings, changes of use, or redevelopment for light industry or warehouse use provided that there is no established requirement for the use of the land or buildings proposed to be developed or redeveloped for flying activities.

1 The National Planning Policy Framework 2 Referred to hereafter as CS 3 Referred to hereafter as LP www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

13. The appeal site is located to the east of Old Sywell, adjacent to Sywell Aerodrome, extends to 6.2 hectares, and houses two multi-bay distribution warehouses with ancillary office accommodation, surrounded by hard-standing, which are currently in use. It lies within the limits of development at Sywell Aerodrome.

14. As the appellant accepts, to a large extent, the replacement of the existing buildings on the site with housing, as proposed, would clearly be contrary to CS Policies 1, 9 and 10 and LP Policies G6, H4, and SY1.

15. That is not the end of the matter, however. Section 38(6) of the Act4 explains that if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. One such material consideration could be the Framework.

16. There are a number of strands to the arguments put forward by the appellant and I can deal with the first briefly. It is suggested that LP Policies G6 and H4 are not in accord with the Framework because they lack an integral means to balance cost against benefit5.

17. LP Policies G6 and H4 clearly lack an integral means to balance cost against benefit. However, Colman was concerned with a renewable energy project where the Framework specifically espouses a need to balance benefit against harm6. A similar example is the approach of the Framework to designated heritage assets7. There is nothing in the Framework that requires policies relating to the distribution of housing to take such a cost/benefit approach. LP Policies G6 and H4 are not inconsistent with the Framework for this reason, therefore.

18. In terms of LP Policy SY1, the Colman argument has some merit in my view. I reach that conclusion because paragraph 22 of the Framework is very clear that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities. To be consistent with this approach, LP Policy SY1 would need an integral means to balance the merits of alternative uses of the site, against the existing use, in certain circumstances, in the way CS Policy 11 does.

19. It is plain that the restrictive approach of LP Policies G6 and H4 was framed in the context of a housing requirement of 304 dwellings per annum up to 2006. The policies were ‘saved’ by Direction of the Secretary of State in 2007 and could be argued to be out of date when considered against the housing requirement now accepted, and operated, by the Council.

20. However, a conclusion on that, and whether CS Policies 1, 9 and 10 can be considered up to date, rests squarely on whether the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

4 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 5 As set out in Colman v SoS for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin) 6 Paragraph 98 of the Framework refers 7 Paragraphs 133 and 134 of the Framework refer www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

21. Paragraph 49 of the Framework tells us that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Bearing in mind the conclusions drawn by the Court in Barwood, LP Policies G6 and H4, and CS Policies 1, 9 and 10, must be treated as relevant policies for the supply of housing8.

Housing Supply

22. There is agreement between the parties that the housing requirement for the Borough is that set out in the Interim Statement on Housing Requirements in the North Northamptonshire Housing Market Area9. This equates to the provision of 4,500 dwellings in the period 2011 to 2021 or 450 dwellings per annum. The Council’s evidence is that 122 dwellings were completed in 2011/12, 116 in 2012/13, 258 in 2013/14 and 423 are projected in 2014/15. In the light of that persistent under-delivery, the Council accepts that a 20% buffer is required in line with paragraph 47 of the Framework. In the light of the trajectory for the delivery of housing sites envisaged, the Council argues that it can demonstrate 5.36 years supply. That conclusion relies on projecting forward from a start date of April 2015, however.

23. I note that a colleague did not endorse this approach because his Inquiry took place close to the start of the 2014/15 period10. However, subsequently, another colleague has agreed with the Council’s stance on the basis of a similarity in approach between paragraph 47 of the Framework, and paragraph 54 of PPS3: Housing which had, at the time, been withdrawn11. I recognise that my Inquiry took place over 7 months beyond the April 2014 start date. However, I cannot agree with my colleague and accept the Council’s preference for an April 2015 start date. One of the bullet points in paragraph 47 of the Framework sets out that Councils must illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target (my emphasis).

24. I find it very difficult to see how delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target can be maintained over the plan period if the Council is given, in effect, a four month holiday from any need to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, between November 2014 (the date of my Inquiry), and April 2015. That is especially so when one considers the concession by the Council that on the basis of an April 2014 start date, it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

25. However, even if an April 2015 start is taken, there are difficulties with the Council’s position. My colleague who dealt with the Irchester appeal12 used such a start date and found, very clearly, that the Council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The central question for me, therefore, is what has changed between October 2014 and the date of my Inquiry?

8 South Northamptonshire Council v SoS for Communities and Local Government and Barwood Land and Estates Ltd [2014] EWHC 573 (Admin) 9 Referred to hereafter as IHS 10 APP/H2835/A/14/2212956 11 APP/H2835/A/14/2215925 12 APP/H2835/A/14/2215925 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

26. The main difference between the parties revolves around the two Sustainable Urban Extensions13 proposed for Wellingborough. My colleague who dealt with the Irchester appeal was sceptical about the anticipated rate of delivery at the eastern SUE. Different information was provided to me and it is fair to note a representative of Bovis Homes, the prime mover behind the eastern SUE, gave evidence to the Inquiry, and was cross-examined on it.

27. In relation to the eastern SUE, an issue remains with the bridge required over the Midland Mainline to provide the new distributor road. It appears that provisions are in place to allow a start on site in April 2015 with completion projected in the second quarter of 2016. Housing completions from 2016/17 onwards will depend on the completion of the distributor road in the timescale outlined. While the expertise of Network Rail Infrastructure Projects gives some comfort, the undertaking will be complex and like all complex construction projects, prone to delay. Completion of such a project in a year or so seems optimistic, in my experience, and a delay of any consequence will play havoc with the Council’s assumed trajectory for housing delivery in the eastern SUE.

28. My colleague also commented on the number of house-builders who would need to be present on site at the eastern SUE to deliver the number of houses projected by the Council and weight was attached to the lack of any identified, other than Bovis Homes, at that time. That situation remains and given the hurdles incoming house-builders would have to overcome before making a start on site, the continued lack of identified house-builders, other than Bovis Homes, makes it very unlikely, in my view, that any significant delivery of dwellings on the eastern SUE will be seen before 2017/18.

29. A similar difficulty arises with the northern SUE. The Council forecasts significant numbers of housing completions from 2015/16 onwards but on the basis of the Council’s evidence, there are, as yet, no identified house-builders. In that context, the significant levels of delivery on the northern SUE, foreseen in the Council’s trajectory, seems rather optimistic.

30. The Council’s trajectory assumes dwellings will be delivered on each of the SUEs, along with other urban sites, at the same time. The Council’s witness was very clear that in his view, Wellingborough could deliver somewhere in the order of 500 dwellings per annum. However, the Council’s trajectory assumes delivery well in excess of that. It may be that there is pent up demand in the area as a result of previous under-supply, and that electrification of the Midland Mainline will provide a stimulus. These factors may allow for more dwellings to come forward than might otherwise be expected but nevertheless, it seems to me unrealistic to expect delivery at the rates assumed by the Council. That is especially so when, as the representative of Bovis Homes confirmed, even the 500 per annum forecast depends heavily on the continuing availability of mortgage finance, something easily influenced by outside events.

31. Taking all those points together, there are far too many imponderables to allow a conclusion that the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites to be justified.

32. As such, CS Policies 1, 9 and 10, and LP Policies G6 and H4 cannot be considered up to date. In those circumstances, the decision-maker is directed to paragraph 14 of the Framework.

13 Referred to hereafter as SUEs www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

The Implications of the Conclusion on Housing Supply

33. Paragraph 14 tells us that at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision- making, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, this means that where the development plan is absent, silent, or as is the case here, relevant policies are out-of-date, the decision-maker is directed to grant permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole14.

34. I have been invited by the Council down the path of Davis and the suggestion therein that a preliminary assessment of whether a proposal is sustainable development, or not, is necessary before paragraph 14 can properly be applied15. In my view, that is simply wrong. Paragraph 14 is set up to direct those dealing with plan-making or decision-taking in how to decide whether a plan, or a proposal, benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Nowhere does it suggest that there is any need for a preliminary assessment of whether a proposal represents a sustainable form of development, and in the absence of any clear definition of ‘sustainable development’ in the Framework, it is difficult to see how that assessment could properly be approached.

35. The Council suggests that following the line taken by my colleagues16, I should analyse the proposal against the three dimensions outlined in paragraph 7 of the Framework, the economic role, the social role, and the environmental role, and perform a balance between all three in order to reach the necessary, preliminary conclusion on whether the proposal represents sustainable development. However, save for a balancing provision more favourable towards development, that is more or less the same process one carries out in asking the question whether any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

36. Further, if a simple preliminary balancing exercise led to a finding that a proposal would represent a sustainable form of development, what would be the point of the decision-maker posing the question of whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole? That question would already have been answered.

37. In that context, following the line of Patterson J in Dartford, I reject the elevation of Davis to a formulaic sequential approach to paragraph 14. This line has been endorsed by the Secretary of State17. I accept that Patterson J says in Dartford that ‘I agree with Lang J in her conclusion that it would be contrary to the fundamental principles of the Framework if the presumption in favour of development in paragraph 14 applied equally to sustainable and non-

14 On the basis that the site is not one where specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. 15 William Davis Limited, Jelson Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, North West Leicestershire District Council [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin) 16 In APP/H2835/A/14/2212956 and APP/H2835/A/14/2215925 17 APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 and APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

sustainable development’ but do not believe that the application of paragraph 14, in the way I have set out, would lead to such an outcome.

38. Put very simply, in a case like that at issue, if, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the benefits of a proposal are not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by adverse impacts, then the proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

39. I recognise that consistency in decision-making is important and it is unfortunate that I must disagree with some of my colleagues on this question18. While my approach set out above does not strictly accord with Davis, it is endorsed in the Colman, Stratford, and Tewkesbury judgements19. It might be argued that the Davis judgement post-dates them but nowhere does Davis seek to distinguish itself from these decisions.

40. Bringing that all together, in order to decide whether the proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is necessary for me to address the question of whether any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Loss of Employment Facility

41. The replacement of the existing commercial uses on the site with a residential development would not accord with LP Policy SY1. However, as I have set out above, LP Policy SY1 does not accord with the approach set out in paragraph 22 of the Framework. CS Policy 11 better follows that line in safeguarding existing employment uses unless the alternative use would not be detrimental to the quantity and quality of employment land within the district.

42. There are a number of factors that bear on the consideration of this matter. In the first instance, the evidence of the appellant is that £2.5 million would need to be spent on the existing buildings by 2018 to comply with Health and Safety Legislation and EPC Guidelines. Those works would not increase the level of rent the buildings could command. The upshot is that occupation of the buildings will no longer be viable after 2018 and the owner has confirmed that the site will close, and the commercial use cease, at that time. The existing, employment based use of the site is time-limited, therefore.

43. A comprehensive refurbishment of the buildings, to bring them up to modern standards, would cost in the region of £7 million. The location of the site and the rents that could be generated by it, make that profoundly uneconomic and very unlikely, as a result, to take place.

44. The operator of Sywell Aerodrome sought to argue that there remains a market for warehousing at the lower end of the market and that attempts have been made to purchase the site, at a realistic price, on a number of occasions. There may be a market for such warehousing but the evidence shows that there is no shortage. While the aerodrome operator might question whether works are actually required to maintain the buildings in their current use, there is no cogent evidence to suggest that the works said to be required to comply with

18 APP/H2835/A/14/2212956 and APP/H2835/A/14/2215925 19 Stratford on Avon DC v SoS for Communities and Local Government, J S Bloor (Tewkesbury) Ltd, Hallam Land Management Ltd, RASE [2013] EWHC 2074 (Admin) and Tewkesbury BC v SoS for Communities and Local Government, Comparo Ltd, Welbeck Strategic Land LLP [2013] EWHC 286 (Admin) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

Health and Safety Legislation and EPC Guidelines are not. Moreover, while offers might have been made to purchase the buildings in the past, these have never been formalised.

45. The second important point is that there are currently 44 buildings providing nearly 350,000 square metres of floor space in the Northamptonshire area (excluding Daventry), much of it built to a higher specification, and many better located in relation to the strategic road and rail networks.

46. I well appreciate what the Council says about the social impact of any loss of jobs that would result from the proposal. The site is very likely to close in 2018 in any event but it seems to me that rather than being lost, the jobs currently provided on the appeal site will be displaced elsewhere. Current users of the site will still have a need to store and distribute goods and it is likely to take place on other premises, not too far away. There is plenty of scope for that – Sywell Aerodrome, for example, has space available.

47. Bringing those points together, the loss of the existing commercial use of the site will have no harmful quantitative or qualitative impact on the availability of employment land in the District. I see no departure from CS Policy 11, therefore.

Highway Safety

48. It is important, first of all, to set out the approach of paragraph 32 of the Framework. Decisions must take account of whether, of relevance under this particular issue, safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost-effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

49. As a precursor to an analysis of the Council’s concerns about highway safety, it is necessary to address the question of whether that analysis should take place in the light of DMRB20, or MfS and MfS221.

50. Paragraph 1.3.2 of MfS2 recommends that as a starting point for any scheme affecting non-trunk roads, designers should start with MfS. Paragraph 1.3.3 recommends that where DMRB is referred to for detailed technical guidance on specific aspects, the key principles of MfS must be borne in mind and DMRB applied in a way that respects local context.

51. Paragraph 1.3.4 recommends the application of MfS to all 30 mph speed limits and paragraph 1.3.5 notes that DMRB parameters for standard stopping distance should only be used where actual speeds are above 40 mph for significant periods of the day. Otherwise, MfS parameters are recommended.

52. There is a 40 mph speed limit on Wellingborough Road where it passes the site and the 30 mph speed limit area begins for westbound traffic, and ends for eastbound traffic, to the west of the site outside Sywell Hall.

53. The Statement of Common Ground agreed between the appellant and the Council on highway matters records speed data sourced from two points on Wellingborough Road, one within the 30 mph limit (Site 1), and one within the

20 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 21 Manual for Streets and Manual for Streets 2 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

40 mph limit (Site 2). In the westbound direction at Site 1, the average speed was recorded as 30.4 mph, and the 85%ile speed at 36 mph. In the eastbound direction, the corresponding figures were 32.1 mph and 39 mph. In the westbound direction at Site 2, the average speed was recorded as 32.9 mph and the 85%ile speed was 39 mph. In the eastbound direction, the corresponding figures were 32.5 mph and 40 mph.

54. It is clear from that data that speed limits are commonly breached in the 30 mph zone but at neither location can it be concluded that actual speeds are above 40 mph for significant periods of the day. On that basis, bearing in mind the fact that Wellingborough Road is not a trunk road and neither is there a trunk road nearby, and what MfS2 says in paragraph 1.3.5 about actual traffic speeds, I see no justification for the application of DMRB standards here.

55. There are several aspects to the Council’s case on this issue. In terms of forward visibility, the Council is concerned about two bends one within the 30 mph limit, the other within the 40 mph limit. At both, forward visibility falls well below DMRB standards and in the former, forward visibility is below the MfS standard for a 36 mph 85%ile speed22. This, it is said, coupled with the restricted footway widths, a matter I address below, makes for unsafe highway conditions which the development, generating vehicular and pedestrian traffic, will exacerbate.

56. However, as MfS points out, it is important to view those conditions in the local context. Since the Wellingborough Road was realigned in 2007, there has been one accident, recorded as slight. There have been no incidents involving pedestrians or cyclists on the Wellingborough Road between the appeal site and Sywell. That does not suggest to me that existing conditions are unsafe. I take the point, however, that the proposal will change the characteristics of the appeal site. In particular, more pedestrian and cycling trips will be generated by a residential use. There would be more car-borne trips and trips by heavy goods vehicles will all but disappear.

57. Concerns have been raised about the footways. Having walked from the appeal site into Sywell, and back, I noted that, typical of rural roads, they cannot be described as generous in width. However, they are wide enough to allow them to be used safely even if passing heavy goods vehicles, especially, make them less than comfortable to use. The junction of Wellingborough Road and Sywell Road is the most challenging part of the pedestrian route to and from Sywell because visibility at the crossing point is restricted. The appellant has proposed improvements to the footway that would deal with the issue, to a large extent. Other improvements have been put forward too.

58. The relatively restricted width of Wellingborough Road is, I am sure, challenging for cyclists because cars wishing to overtake have to wait for a safe opportunity to do so. However, that is not atypical of rural roads.

59. There is also driver behaviour to consider. It cannot be assumed that if the development proposed took place, prevailing traffic speeds would remain constant. As outlined in MfS2, the Highway Code clearly expects users of the highway to behave reasonably, taking into account other people and road conditions. In that context, increasing the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists on the highway, as a consequence of the development, is likely to heighten the

22 According to the Council’s figures, 49 metres is available against a MfS requirement of 51 metres www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

level of care drivers take. The accident record suggests that the level of care is already high, give the number of accesses on to Wellingborough Road in the vicinity of the appeal site, and the prevailing volume of traffic, heightened at times by events at Sywell Aerodrome.

60. All in all, it is my conclusion that the proposal would have no significant effect on highway safety and certainly no impact that could be described as severe. There would be no divergence from CS Policy CS13, subject to the provision of an acceptable access that could be dealt with at reserved matters stage, or the Framework. It is relevant to note that in considering the proposal, the Highway Authority reached a similar conclusion.

Accessibility

61. There is a bus stop in the village of Sywell that serves a number of routes. Route 39 offers a reasonable opportunity for anyone wishing to access Kettering or Northampton for work, or shopping. Having said that, the appeal site is about 750 metres from the bus stop and is linked to it by footpaths that are relatively narrow. While not unsafe, the footpaths are not altogether comfortable to use given the nature, and volume, of passing traffic. The improvements proposed for pedestrians would assist, to an extent, but overall, the walk would not be a particularly attractive prospect.

62. The agreed Travel Plan might secure some beneficial modal shift, through car sharing, rail travel, and cycling, and I acknowledge that residents’ need to travel might be reduced, to a degree, by the growing propensity for home- working, and online grocery shopping. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the proposal would lead to the overwhelming majority of trips to and from the site, for work, shopping, or other purposes, being undertaken by private car.

63. Paragraph 37 of the Framework says that planning policies should aim for a balance of land uses within their area so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education, and other activities. The approach of the development plan to the location of new housing set out in detail above, follows a similar path. Building houses in a relatively isolated location, like the appeal site, would not, viewed on its own, accord with that overall approach to new housing development.

64. The analysis is not so simple here, however. In the first instance, the appellant argues that the new trips generated by the proposal, for work, shopping, leisure and so forth will be less than the national average. I attach little weight to that argument because the national average will take account of housing development carried out in the recent, and not so recent, past, where the need to minimise journey lengths was not so pressing. If the radical reductions in greenhouse gases referred to in paragraph 93 of the Framework are to be secured, journey lengths would need to be reduced far below the prevailing national average.

65. It is fair to acknowledge that the trips generated by the proposal would displace trips that currently take place, to and from the appeal site, by heavy goods vehicles, associated with its existing use. On the appellants’ analysis, residential use of the site would lead to a reduction in the amount of Carbon Dioxide generated by vehicle trips, to and from the site, of almost 500,000 tonnes a year. Paragraph 30 of the Framework encourages solutions which

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and the proposal could draw some support from that.

66. I have my doubts about whether the comparison is fair given that the evidence of the appellant, outlined above, is that the existing use of the site will cease in the not-too-distant future because of the construction and layout of the existing buildings, and the uneconomic nature of the works required to bring them up to current standards. The correct comparison, it seems to me, is between a housing development likely to persist for a significant time into the future, and a commercial operation likely to persist, at best, for another two years. Seen in that light, the housing development proposed would not lead to the reduction in Carbon Dioxide generated by vehicle trips claimed. Indeed, over time, the opposite would be the case.

67. Taking all those points together, the site is not particularly accessible by modes of transport other than the private car. The use of the private car that would be fostered by the relatively inaccessible nature of the appeal site would cause environmental harm in a way that would not accord with the focus in the Framework on securing radical reductions in greenhouse gases. The locational characteristics of the site would have harmful social implications too, particularly for those who do not run a car.

68. These adverse impacts need to be brought forward into the balancing exercise that I carry out below.

The Aerodrome

69. The operator and others have raised concern about the impact of the proposal on the operation of Sywell Aerodrome. Largely this revolves around concerns that noise from the operation of the aerodrome, and the facilities it houses, notably Hangar 1 and the Aviator Hotel, and occasional public events, would harmfully impact on the living conditions of residents of the dwellings proposed to the extent that complaints to the Council would ensue. These might, it is said, lead to the operation of the aerodrome being curtailed.

70. I appreciate that Sywell Aerodrome is an important facility providing employment and local services to the local area. However, the planning permission it operates under23 includes a series of conditions that dictate the number of air traffic movements that can take place, when they can take place, and the sort of aircraft that can use it (except in an emergency). There is nothing before me to suggest that the overall operation of the aerodrome causes any significant difficulties with existing residents living locally.

71. Based on the noise analysis submitted by the appellant, the Council is content that subject to a condition governing internal noise levels inside the dwellings proposed, there would be no undue impact through noise, on the living conditions of residents of the proposed development.

72. That noise analysis has been questioned by the operator of the aerodrome, and others, but no alternative readings have been submitted, and I have no good reason to doubt the veracity, or the effectiveness, of the appellant’s work in this area.

23 Granted by the Secretary of State on 21 November 2007 under appeal ref.APP/H2835/A/05/1175766, following a Public Inquiry held in July and August 2006 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

73. Such a condition would only cover internal living areas and would not protect private gardens and other open spaces on the site. However, it does not appear to me that noise from the overall operation of the aerodrome is so great, over a sustained period, even accounting for the public events that take place, that the use of gardens and other open space on the site by residents of the proposed development would be so unsatisfactory that complaints to the Council would be upheld, affecting, thereby, the operation of the aerodrome.

74. Existing dwellings in Sywell and Old Sywell are already in relatively close proximity to the aerodrome. Dwellings on the appeal site might end up closer (though this might depend on the layout, a reserved matter) but it seems to me that if the operation of the aerodrome was likely to have the effect on residents of the proposed development feared, it would already be having a similar effect on existing residents. There is no evidence before me to suggest that it is having such an effect.

75. In that overall context, it is my conclusion that the proposal would have no harmful impact on the operation of Sywell Aerodrome.

Benefits

76. Paragraph 47 of the Framework talks of boosting significantly the supply of housing. The provision of housing, and especially affordable housing, is a social benefit that carries weight in favour of the proposal. Given that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, that weight is magnified to the extent that it is considerable.

77. Moreover, I attach significant weight to the fact that the site is previously- developed land. One of the core principles of the Framework encourages the effective use of land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) provided that it is not of high environmental value. The appeal site is not.

78. It appears to me that in a situation where the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, it needs to bring forward sites to make up the under-supply. While there are obviously other considerations in play, notably accessibility, it seems to me that as a general principle, it is better to bring forward development on acceptable brownfield land, than build on undeveloped green fields. That constitutes a significant environmental benefit.

79. The proposal also has economic benefits. These are magnified because on the evidence, the site will become redundant and contribute nothing to the local economy beyond 2018. There will be construction activity, and jobs as a result of any grant of planning permission. The Council has suggested a condition that would make sure that some of these benefits are felt by local people and that, in my view, heightens the weight to be attached. Residents of the new dwellings on the site will generate economic activity locally, and sustain local services, as envisaged by CS Policy 13.

80. With impending redundancy, the environmental impact of the buildings on the site, which currently offer little positive to the character or appearance of the area, is likely to worsen. A well-designed housing and landscaping scheme for the site, sensitive to its context, could offer significant environmental enhancement, in the longer term.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

81. All told, these economic, social and environmental benefits carry significant weight in favour of the proposal.

The Balancing Exercise

82. As set out, the loss of the employment use of the site would cause no harm qualitatively, or quantitatively. There would be no significant impact on highway safety, or on the overall operation of Sywell Aerodrome. While there would be a failure to accord with LP Policy SY1 (that I have found to be out-of- date on account of its failure to accord with the approach of the Framework), there would be compliance with CS Policies 11 and 13.

83. The location of the site does not accord with CS Policies 1, 9 and 10, and LP Policies G6 and H4. However, given that the Council cannot demonstrate a five- year supply of deliverable housing sites, these policies cannot be considered up-to-date. As set out, in such a circumstance, the decision-maker is directed to paragraph 14 of the Framework.

84. The relative inaccessibility of the site will foster the use of the private car and this will cause some environmental harm. However, it is important to acknowledge that the proposal would bring forward environmental benefits too, in terms of the use of previously-developed land, and in terms of the character and appearance of the area, which would go a long way towards offsetting that impact. I do not seek to underestimate the importance that must attach to supporting the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate but the environmental harm identified, along with the social implications for those who do not run a car, come nowhere near significantly and demonstrably outweighing the significant social, economic, and environmental benefits that would flow from the proposal.

85. On that basis the scheme benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development and planning permission should be granted for it.

Conditions and the Obligations

86. I have considered the suggested conditions in the light of advice in paragraph 206 of the Framework and what remains of Circular 11/9524. The standard conditions relating to implementation and the submission of reserved matters are clearly necessary, as is another to set out the approved plan. I see no reason to include the clarifications suggested by the Council; if further details are required at reserved matters stage, then the Council can request, or require, them.

87. A condition is required to deal with the management of landscaped areas (other than private gardens), but I have reconfigured that suggested in the interests of precision. Given the existing and previous uses of the site, decontamination conditions are justified in the manner promulgated.

88. The conditions suggested to deal with foul and surface water drainage can be condensed into one simplified condition. It is difficult to envisage what remains might have survived the construction of the existing buildings, a view shared by the County Council’s Assistant Archaeological Advisor. The suggested archaeology condition is not required, therefore.

24 Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

89. Given the likely complexity of the operation, it is necessary to apply a condition requiring a Construction Method Statement. Conditions are required to secure the junction and footway improvements put forward by the appellant and to ensure implementation of the Travel Plan. Both suggested conditions can be simplified. As set out above, a condition is required to ensure the interior of the dwellings is protected form undue noise from traffic and aircraft. Finally, I have attached some weight to the economic benefits of the proposal and in particular those that might accrue for the local labour market. A means of bringing those benefits forward is necessary and it seems to me that a condition is an appropriate vehicle for that.

90. Reflective of the tests in the CIL regulations25, paragraph 204 of the Framework says that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The appellant has submitted two planning obligations, one a Unilateral Undertaking, and the second a Bilateral Agreement with Northamptonshire County Council.

91. In terms of the latter, it is apparent that the nearby Sywell Church of England Primary School is running very close to full capacity and would not have room to accommodate the 38 pupils likely to be generated by the development. Much the same is true of Moulton School and Science College where the 16 secondary and sixth form pupils likely to be generated by the proposal would probably go. The financial contributions designed to address the need to accommodate these additional pupils have been calculated using DfE cost multipliers. As a consequence, I am content that the Primary and Secondary Education Contributions are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

92. The Highway Contribution is calculated as a proportionate contribution towards improvements to the Round Spinney roundabout junction to accommodate traffic generated by the development. The reasons behind the need for the contribution are set out in the Statement of Common Ground agreed between the appellant and the County Council. I accept, on the basis of that information, that the contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

93. The proposal would lead to increased demands on the nearby library in Moulton which I am sure provides a valuable service to the local community. However, there is nothing to suggest that existing facilities at the library are inadequate and unable to cope with that increased demand. On that basis, I am not satisfied that the Library Contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. It does not, therefore, meet the tests of the Framework and CIL Regulation 122.

94. Building new houses on the site might well place demands on the Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service. However, I see no good reason why a separate financial contribution is necessary to mitigate those demands when additional Council Tax receipts will be forthcoming from the dwellings. This contribution fails the tests of the Framework and CIL Regulation 122.

25 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

95. The provisions in the Unilateral Undertaking for securing affordable housing accord with local and national policy and are clearly necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms. The same is true of the approach of the undertaking to the provision of open space and potential allotments.

96. The Car Parking, Community Centre, Leisure, and Pitch Contributions referred to in the undertaking are based on the Wellingborough Planning Contributions Guide for Local Infrastructure26. In terms of the Car Parking Contribution, it is set out in the Guide that existing car parking facilities in Wellingborough town centre are at capacity. The suggestion is that the proposal will place additional pressure on those facilities that will need to be mitigated. This is not disputed by the appellant. The contribution has been calculated on the basis of the cost of providing additional spaces at £250 per new dwelling. In that overall context, I am satisfied that the contribution proffered meets the tests of the Framework and the CIL Regulations.

97. As far as the Community Centre Contribution is concerned, the Guide sets out that in most cases, new residential developments will not generate the need for a new community facility. However, they are likely to be located in areas where additional pressure will be placed on existing community centre facilities. On that basis, contributions are sought on a pro-rata basis. However, in this particular case, there is no good evidence to suggest that the community facilities the proposal is likely to place demands on are inadequate, or otherwise unable to meet those demands. On that basis, I conclude that the contribution sought in this regard does not meet the tests of the Framework, or the CIL Regulations because it has not been shown to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Given the lack of evidence to suggest that existing facilities are inadequate or otherwise unable to meet the demands of the development, I reach the same conclusion in relation to the Leisure and Pitch Contributions.

98. The Waste Contribution is sought to cover some of the costs of providing waste and recycling facilities, in the form of bins and boxes, for each new dwelling. I do not regard this as necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms given that the collection of waste and items for recycling is a normal function of the Council that would be covered by the collection of Council Tax from occupants of the new dwellings.

Final Conclusion

99. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Paul Griffiths

INSPECTOR

26 Referred to hereafter as ‘the Guide’ www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Anthony Crean QC Instructed by the Borough Solicitor He called Ian Brazier Senior Director, Abington Consulting Engineers BEng(Hons) CEng MICE Ltd John Lougher Bovis Homes Nigel Ozier Managing Director, Brian Barber Associates BA(Hons) MRTPI

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Jeremy Cahill QC Instructed by M Williams of Savills (UK) Ltd He called Andrew Baines Associate, JMP Consultants Ltd BSc(Hons) CivEng CIHT MICE John D Turner Turner Morum, Chartered Surveyors BSc(Hons) MRICS Richard Baker Director, Prop-Search Ltd BSc(Hons) MRICS Matthew Williams Associate Director, Savills (UK) Ltd BA(Hons) DipTP MIEMA MRTPI

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Jim Bass Local resident and Mayor of Wellingborough (appeared in a personal capacity) John Amos Chair of Sywell Parish Council M H Bletsoe-Brown Managing Director, Sywell Aerodrome

INQUIRY DOCUMENTS

1 Representation from Mr Bletsoe-Brown 2 Statement of Common Ground between appellant and Northamptonshire CC on highway matters 3 Statement of Common Ground between appellant and the BC of Wellingborough on planning matters 4 Statement of Common Ground between appellant and BC of Wellingborough on highway matters 5 Statement of John Lougher (with attached plans) 6 Statement of John Best 7 Appeal Decision: APP/H1840/A/13/2203524 8 Supplementary PoE dealing with changes to bus services in Sywell put in by Mr Baines on behalf of the appellant 9 Supplementary PoE in relation to appeal decisions at Bozeat (APP/H2835/A/14/2212956) and Irchester (APP/H2835/A/14/2215925) 10 Report to North Northamptonshire Joint Committee 2 October 2014 Item 4 Appendix C dealing with emerging policy

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

11 Opening Statement on behalf of the appellant 12 Completed Obligations under s.106 dated 28 November 2014 13 Appeal Decision: APP/G1630/A/13/2209001 14 Secretary of State’s Decision Letter: APP/H2835/A/05/1175766 (Sywell Aerodrome) 15 Further representations from Mr Bletsoe-Brown 16 Representations from Mr Bass 17 CD containing extracts from YouTube of Sywell Air Expo 18 Response to comments on noise from AcousticAir Ltd on behalf of appellant 19 Closing Submissions on behalf of the Council 20 Closing Submissions on behalf of the appellant

PLAN

A Un-numbered: Site Plan

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 17 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

Annex A: Schedule of Conditions 1) Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called the reserved matters) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission. 3) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Un-numbered: Site Plan. 5) No development shall take place until an Ecological Management Plan for all landscaped areas other than private gardens, including long-term design objectives, protection of existing species, management responsibilities, and maintenance schedules, 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) No development shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and include: i) A preliminary risk assessment which had identified all previous uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site including sources, pathways and receptors, and potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site; ii) A site investigation scheme based on i) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off-site; iii) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in ii) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they will be undertaken; and iv) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in iii) are complete and identifying the requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance, and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority 7) If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, then no further development shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how the unsuspected contamination will be dealt with has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 18 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

8) None of the dwellings shall be occupied until a verification report demonstrating the completion of the works in the approved remediation strategy and their effectiveness has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include a plan (the long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 9) No development shall take place until details of foul and surface water drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 10) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate v) wheel washing facilities vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. 11) No development shall take place until full details of the footway and junction improvements shown on Plan Nos: MID3783-004, MID3783-005, and MID3783-006 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The improvements shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before any of the dwellings approved herein are occupied. 12) The Travel Plan shall be implemented in the form, and in accordance with the timetable, approved by the County Council. 13) No development shall take place until a scheme to protect the internal environment of the dwellings approved herein from traffic and aircraft noise, including worst-case noise exposures during an air-show, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All noise mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the dwellings are occupied and retained as such thereafter. The internal noise levels to be achieved in bedrooms and living rooms post-construction should be 30 dB LAeq 2300-0700 hours and 35 dB LAeq 0700-2300 hours. Noise from individual external events in the area should not exceed 45dB LAmax when measured in bedrooms and living rooms between 2300 and 0700 hours.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 19 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/A/14/2220599

14) No development shall take place until details of a Training and Employment Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan should aim to promote training and employment opportunities at all stages of the development for local people and include measures to ensure the owner and contractors work directly with local employment and training agencies; targets for employing local labour and work experience opportunities; and requirements to submit monitoring information on the plan at regular intervals to the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 20