Planning Committee Wednesday 12 October 2016 at 7.00 Pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

Planning Committee

Wednesday 12 October 2016 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 14 September 2016.  4. Applications for planning permission, listed building consent, building  regulation approval and appeal information.*  5. Tree Preservation Order – Land adjacent to 30 Burton Road, Finedon.  6. Planning appeal decision letter - Station Road, Irchester. 7. 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 2015. Full transcripts and copies of the disclosable representations can be obtained from the Council’s website: http://www.wellingborough.gov.uk/viewplanningapplications

Site viewing group for 11 October 2016 will be Councillors Ward, Morrall, Aslam and Hallam

John T Campbell Chief Executive

Date issued: 4 October 2016.

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

Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire NN8 1BP Tel: 01933 229777 Fax: 01933 231684 www.wellingborough.gov.uk 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 Morrall (Vice Chairman), Councillors Aslam, Bell, Graves, Griffiths, Hallam, G Lawman, Lloyd, Maguire and Scarborough (11).

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM 2 PLANNING COMMITTEE 12 OCTOBER 2016

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 12 October 2016 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

INDEX Application Location Page No.

WP/16/00315/FUL Tower Caravans 101C Irthlingborough Road Finedon Wellingborough Site Viewing Group 2

WP/16/00356/FUL Land opposite 2A near junction with Earls Barton Road Glebe Road Mears Ashby Site Viewing Group 14

WP/16/00395/FUL Youth Club 50 Harrowick Lane Earls Barton 28

WP/16/00444/REM Land rear of 1 to 27 Thorpe Road off Station Road Earls Barton 33

WP/16/00456/REM Land adjacent 16 South Street Isham 43

WP/16/00536/EXT Land adjacent Skew Bridge Ski Slope Rushden Lakes Rushden County Matter 48

WP/15/00819/EXT Land adjacent Skew Bridge Ski Slope Northampton Road Rushden For Information 52

WP/16/00342/EXT Nene Park Station Road Irthlingborough For Information 60

WP/16/00376/EXT 2 Express Business Park Shipton Way Rushden For Information 62

Planning Committee 1 of 63 12 October 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 12 October 2016

Site Viewing Group (Date of visit Tuesday 11 October 2016 at 10.15 am)

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Matthew Brown WP/16/00315/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry War Parish 26 May 2016 21 July 2016 15 September 2016 Finedon Finedon

Applicant Mr Andrew Scott

Agent Mr Brian Mullin

Location Tower Caravans 101C Irthlingborough Road Finedon Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN9 5EJ

Proposal Change of use of land to extend caravan sales/storage area, the erection of Class B2 caravan services units, conversion of existing workshop and associated landscaping and access improvements

PLANNING HISTORY WP/16/00263/FUL Approved with conditions 29.09.2016 Retention of existing building in use as storage for workshop WP/16/00315/FUL Determination pending. Change of use of land to extend caravan sales/storage area, the erection of Class B2 caravan services units, conversion of existing workshop and associated landscaping and access improvements WP/2011/0090 Approved 28.09.2011 Advertisement Consent for no. 6 flags and flagpoles (retrospective application) WP/2011/0202 Approved with conditions 28.09.2011 A retrospective planning application for the provision of a turning circle and parking area at land to the North East of The Caravan Company, main A6 Irthlingborough Road, Finedon WP/2013/0396 Approved with conditions 20.11.2013 Four separate post signs along the front of the property. WP/2011/0578 Agreed 29.06.2011 Details submitted to discharge condition 1 of planning permission WP/2011/0202/F

Planning Committee 2 of 63 12 October 2016

WP/16/00315/FUL

ICT Services © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. This map is accurate Legend 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/16/00315/FUL - Tower Caravans, 101c Irthlingborough Road, Finedon

WP/2011/0577 Approved 23.05.2012 Provision of a parking area on land to the north east of the Caravan Company to be used for secure parking of caravan transporter and staff members. WP/2009/0463 Application withdrawn/undetermined 23.12.2009 Application for a Lawful Development Certificate of existing use or operation for vehicular turning circle and area for storage and display of stock and other items pursuant to the existing lawful use at the premises WP/2009/0256 Application withdrawn/undetermined 11.08.2009 Retrospective application for change of use of land from allotment to a) vehicular safety turning circle b) sales/storage area WU/1956/0124 Approved 05.12.1956 Petrol sales kiosk and WCs. WU/1951/0024 Approved with conditions 20.06.1951 Transport cafe. WU/1950/0086 Refused 17.01.1951 Transport cafe. WP/1993/0302 Approved with conditions 08.09.1993 Change of use from car sales to caravan sales area BW/1990/0879 Approved with conditions 19.12.1990 Change of use from car sales to caravan sales and erection of workshop unit. BW/1990/0878 Approved with conditions 19.12.1990 Change of use from caravan sales to car sales. BW/1990/0160 Refused 05.04.1990 Site for residential development. BW/1982/0690 Approved with conditions 26.05.1983 Use of land as caravan sales display area WU/1974/0073 Refused Six number 3 bedroom houses. BW/1976/0833 Refused 01.12.1976 Proposed use of land for storage of motor vehicles WU/1970/0132 Refused Erection of light engineering workshop. WU/1967/0061 Refused 24.05.1967 Extension of car sales and parking area. BW/1979/0070 Approved with conditions 18.04.1979 Rebuilding of workshop to rear of site BW/1977/0003 Refused 02.02.1977 Temporary office to replace previous existing brick office BW/1975/0835 Refused 10.12.1975 Extension of underground petrol storage tank

Planning Committee 3 of 63 12 October 2016

WU/1955/0171 Approved with conditions 08.02.1956 Alterations and additions to petrol station.

Reason(s) for committee consideration:

- The application has attracted more than 3 objections; - The proposal is in conflict with the prevailing development plan, but recommended for approval nonetheless, due to material considerations of sufficient weight

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site relates a commercial site that sells and maintains caravans. The existing site is split into two halves by the site access road. The application site is flanked on its south east boundary by detached properties. To the north are allotments and properties on Tower Close and the west is another commercial property. To the south, the site is bound by the A6.

The site accommodates a 241 metres squared single storey building which is used as a sales office and caravan maintenance building.

The site is partially outside of the village boundary and located within the open countryside.

APPLICATION PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND It is proposed to erect 4 new workshops and convert the existing workshop into a sales office. The proposed workshop units would be located to the rear of site in the northern corner close to the boundary with properties on Tower Close, Finedon. The existing bunds would be removed and the land would be laid with tarmac.

Given the combination of uses within the site, storage, maintenance and sales the proposed use is considered to be sui generis.

The proposal would result in a large area of hardstanding being laid on land directly adjoining the allotments that are located north east of the existing commercial activities. This land would be used for additional caravan storage and customer and staff parking.

By way of background the application was initially submitted accompanied with the incorrect ownership certificate, this resulted in the application being invalid. The owner has subsequently served notice in the procedurally correct manner and the case can now proceed to a decision.

The application site has a long planning history. It is should be noted that the owners of the allotments to the rear of the site would retain access to their plots via an easement.

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

Planning Committee 4 of 63 12 October 2016

North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies:

1 (presumption in favour of sustainable development) 2 (historic environment) 3 (landscape character) 4 (biodiversity and geodiversity) 5 (water environment, resources and flood risk management) 6 (development on brownfield land and land affected by contamination) 7 (community services and facilities) 8 (North Northamptonshire place shaping principles) 22 (delivering economic prosperity) 23 (distribution of new jobs) 25 (Rural economic development and diversification.)

Borough of 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 Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire Parking

Additional documents Open Space, Sports and Recreation Audit and Assessment, TEP November 2015 Emerging Draft Plan for the Borough of Wellingborough (Including village boundary and open space designations background papers)

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Northamptonshire Highways - comments to follow.

2. Finedon Parish Council - would like to express their support for the application.

3. Northamptonshire Police - no objection but informatives suggested.

4. Anglian Water Services - no objection subject to condition.

5. Northamptonshire Archaeology - no objection.

6. BCW Landscape officer - It is positive to note that the plan has changed so that the building is further away from the northern boundary. This allows for the two hawthorn trees to be retained with a protective fence rather than the full geogrid (protective webbing). The geogrid would be useful on the western boundary with the conifers as it is unlikely that there can be a fully effective protective fence and a realistic working area.

Planning Committee 5 of 63 12 October 2016

Further details are required as part of a tree protection and landscaping plan.

7. Environmental Health - no objection subject to condition.

8. In total 15 letters have been received including 2 letters of objection, 11 letters of support and 2 letters of general comment. The letters of objection are noted below.

20a Tower Close - proposal would have a negative impact on the living room and the very small garden. - view of the sky would be blocked - proposal could result in a fire or explosion. - unit could be rented out.

20b Tower Close - proposed changes will affect quality of life. - our home will be dwarfed by the close proximity of the structure. - proposal will result in overshadowing of the rear of the property and block all natural daylight. - noise will be created within the new buildings. - transport statement does not take into consideration the A6 being a main route for emergency vehicles travelling to Kettering general hospital.

The majority of support letters are from current employees and those from addresses outside of the borough.

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

- conformity with the development plan, especially in relation to the land outside of the village boundary - design, layout and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, - effect on landscape visual amenity - effect on biodiversity - 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) - contamination - crime and disorder

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 application site is partly located on land outside the village boundary in the open countryside. The application would result in the loss of a small area of land previously used as allotments and development extending beyond the existing built up area. This loss needs to be weighed against the economic benefits of the proposal in bringing new

Planning Committee 6 of 63 12 October 2016

jobs to the area, together with the other dimensions of sustainable development as stated in the NPPF.

Policy 7 of the JCS seeks to retain land in community uses. Policy 25 supports the diversity of the rural economy provided that the proposals respect the character of the area. As such a balanced approach to consideration of the application is required. Given that the area that is the subject to this application has not been in allotment or community use for a considerable amount of time, a practical approach to the future use of the site is required. Given that the proposed use seeks to provide an increase in jobs considerable weight needs to be afforded to this element. Given that the proposed use seeks to provide an increase in jobs considerable weight needs to be afforded to this element.

It is acknowledged that the open space, sport and recreation audit and assessment of November 2015 identifies the land as allotments but documents have been supplied by the applicant that the land in question has not been in allotment use for some time. This is evident from site visits.

Although there are policies within the Wellingborough local plan and the JCS to oppose the proposed loss of open space, policy 25 and paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that local authorities should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development. As a result this is a finely balanced case.

The proposed development would result in the creation of 11 full time jobs which are proposed to be drawn from Finedon itself, although the sourcing of the jobs locally cannot be controlled by the planning system. Given the nature of the jobs, it is unlikely that employees would travel a substantial distance for this kind of employment.

It is unlikely that the land subject to this application would ever be returned to its previous allotment use or be put to any alternative open space use, given the fact that the land is predominantly in the ownership of the Caravan Company. It is also in a poor condition. As such the principle of permitting an employment generating use in the open countryside and on established open land in this instance is considered acceptable, providing other material considerations do not indicate otherwise.

As such the principle of the proposed development is considered to accord with policy 25 of the JCS and the general themes of the NPPF.

Design, Layout and the Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Area JCS policy 8 describes the principles that proposed development must take into account with regards to its effect on the character and appearance of an area.

Policy G4 of the Wellingborough local plan states that development will be granted planning permission if it will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the size, form, character or setting of the village.

The government at paragraph 56 of the NPPF 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.

Planning Committee 7 of 63 12 October 2016

The main consideration here is whether the proposed building is out of keeping with the established area given that it is outside the village boundary and located in the open countryside.

In terms of built form it is proposed to cover the majority of the land in hardstanding within the redline of the site. In addition it is proposed to erect a workshop with an internal floor space of 736 metres squared with a pitched roof height of 5.7m. Although located in the open countryside the proposed new building would not look entirely out of keeping with the area, given the fact that there are other commercial buildings in close proximity to the application site and in view of the fact that it is an extension of the existing commercial land.

The design of the workshops is very basic with pitched roofs including rooflights. The main buildings would consist of a profiled metal clad structure, 5.7m high. This height enables caravans to be worked on. Given the proposed workshops' location within the site it will not be readily visible from the A6 but will be visible from dwellings on Tower Close. The proposed workshops are not considered entirely out of keeping with the established built form, since other commercial buildings exist within the area.

The proposed buildings and hardstanding area is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and largely accords with Wellingborough local plan policy G4 and JCS policy 8.

Effect on Landscape Visual Amenity Policy 3 states that development should be designed sensitively to its landscape setting, enhancing existing distinctive qualities in which it would be situated and viewed.

Although the proposed development is located within the open countryside it does border on an existing commercial use. It is located on hinterland between the established allotments and the village boundary. The current state of the application site is unattractive. As such the proposed use for hardstanding and a large workshop building is not considered to result in the loss of valuable landscape. As such the proposal use does not result in harm in landscape terms. As such the proposal is considered to policy 3 of the JCS.

Effect on Biodiversity Paragraph 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, under the heading of 'duty to conserve biodiversity' states "every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity".

The JCS at policy 4 -seeks a net gain in biodiversity.

The NPPF at chapter 11 'conserving and enhancing the natural environment' sets out government views on minimising impacts on biodiversity, providing net gains and seeking to halt the overall decline in biodiversity.

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development JCS at policy 8 (e) (i) relates to amenity and character.

Planning Committee 8 of 63 12 October 2016

At paragraph 17 of the NPPF, under the title of 'core planning principles' the government requires new development to provide 'a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.'

The comments of the nearby residential occupiers with regards their views on how the proposed development would affect them are noted. In particular attention has been given to the occupiers of the nearest residential properties, numbers 20a and 20b Tower Close, Finedon.

Concern has been raised with regards to the proximity of the proposed workshops to the rear boundaries of the aforementioned properties in terms of loss of light, overshadowing and noise. The workshops are located 5m from the rear fence of properties 20a and 20b Tower Close. The relationship between the proposed building and these properties is exacerbated by the very small nature of the rear gardens of the properties in question.

In response to these concerns the applicant was requested to produce a daylight sunlight report. The diagram demonstrates that the properties in question will be substantially overshadowed by the proposed workshop in the morning hours but the impact overall impact is considered to be in accordance with the BRE document 'Site layout for daylight and sunlight' 2011.

Although the report indicates that some loss of sunlight to these properties would occur this is considered acceptable in this instance.

In terms of noise generated within the proposed workshops this would be controlled by condition as requested by Environmental Health. Given the nature of the business the works are not considered to operate as heavy industrial practices that would create an unreasonable amount of noise to the detriment of neighbouring occupiers.

The mainstay of the caravan storage is at the eastern end of the site and would back on to properties on Irthlingborough Road. Given the length of rear gardens and the nature of the storage the properties in the vicinity are not considered to be materially affected by the proposal.

The increased area of A1 (retail) is likely to result in increased numbers visiting the site. The operation currently operates between 9:30am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays, 9:30am to 5pm on Saturdays and on Sundays between 10:00am to 4pm. The applicant has stated that this will not change. Whilst the proposal will result in a greater footfall within the existing hours of operation. The increased footfall is not considered to give way to be detrimental to existing neighbouring occupiers.

As such the proposed development is considered to generally accord with policy 8 (e).

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety in Relation to (the Proposed Access Arrangement and Parking Provision) JCS policy 8 (place shaping principles) gives a number of requirements that new development should achieve with regards to highway, pedestrian and other sustainable transport matters.

Planning Committee 9 of 63 12 October 2016

The revised parking arrangements and repositioning of parking spaces away from the entrance driveway meets the requirements of the local highway authority and no objection is raised on highway safety or capacity grounds.

Contamination The JCS at policy 6 says that local planning authorities will seek to maximise the delivery of development through the re-use of suitable previously developed land within the urban areas. Where development is intended on a site known or suspected of being contaminated a remediation strategy will be required to manage the contamination. The policy goes on to say that planning permission will be granted where it can be established that the site can safely and viably be developed with no significant impact on either future users of the development in terms of ground or surface water.

The NPPF at chapter 11 sets out policies on development involving contaminated land.

Environmental Health have stated the proposal is acceptable subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions.

Crime and Disorder Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 details the need for the council to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area.

The JCS at policy 8 (e) (iv) sets out the policy requirement for new development to seek to design out crime and disorder and reduce the fear of crime

The adopted designing out crime supplementary planning guidance gives detailed advice this issue.

The NPPF at paragraphs 58 and 69 state that decisions should aim to ensure that developments create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.

Northamptonshire Police have made some suggestions on how to increase the safety and security of the site. These will be added as informatives. In general the application is considered to be acceptable on crime and disorder grounds.

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.

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.

Planning Committee 10 of 63 12 October 2016

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

2. The sound insulation scheme to be implemented prior to first occupation in accordance with the details submitted in Noise Assessment Report 21376/05- 15/3856 REV A.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of nearby occupiers.

3. No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or the use commenced until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection, in the course of development. The approved scheme shall be implemented so that planting is carried out no later than the first planting season following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner. All planted materials shall be maintained for five years and any trees or plants removed, dying, being damaged or becoming diseased within that period shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the council gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To protect and enhance the character of the site and the area, and to ensure its appearance is satisfactory.

4. No drainage works shall commence until a surface water management strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No hardstanding areas to be constructed until the works have been carried out in accordance with the surface water strategy so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding.

5. The subject land including any building(s) falls within the sui generis use class of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (use classes) order 1987, or in the provision equivalent of that class in any statutory instrument revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification).

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity to accord with Policy 8 (e) of the Joint Core Strategy.

6. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved 184/FIN/14/23 A and 184/FIN/14/021 G received 26 May 2016 245/FIN/16/001 and 184/FIN/14/022 rev F received 15 June 2016 and 184/FIN/14/020 ref F received 22 August 2016 184/FIN/14/SK008 and 184/FIN/14/SK010 received 20 September 2016.

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

Planning Committee 11 of 63 12 October 2016

INFORMATIVE/S 1. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 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 Construction phase of the development has the potential to cause problems in terms of dust and noise pollution. Therefore, the applicant must ensure that: - Procedures for maintaining good public relations including complaint management, public consultation and liaison. - Arrangements for liaison with the Councils Environmental Protection Team. - All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary shall be carried out only between the following hours: 0800 Hours and 1800 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 13:00 Hours on Saturdays and; at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays. - Deliveries to and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste from the site must only take place within the permitted hours detailed above. - Mitigation measures as defined in BS5528: Parts 1 and 2: 2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites shall be used to minimise noise and disturbance from construction works. - Procedures for emergency deviation of the agreed working hours. - The Borough Council of Wellingborough encourages all contractors to be 'Considerate Contractors' when working in our district by being aware of the needs of neighbours and the environment. - Control measures for dust and other air-borne pollutants. - Measures for controlling the use of site lighting whether required for safe working or for security purposes. This approved Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and the approved measures shall be retained for the duration of the construction works. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of nearby occupiers. 3. 1. External doors (including emergency escape doors) should comply with the Loss Prevention Certification Board (LPCB) security standard LPS1175 SR 2 or 3 and doors manufactured in accordance with the standard must be installed. All Glazing should be provided with security grade glazing of P2A standard as minimum requirement. 2. Roller shutters must be certificated to LPS1175 SR 2 or 3 and have contacts fitted linking them to the burglar alarm system. 3. The rear and sides of building should be made secure where only authorised personnel have access. 4. CCTV would be beneficial. The camera system should be capable of being enhanced during the hours of darkness with infra red lighting or similar. Images should be stored for a minimum of 31 days and be in-line with the Home Office CCTV operational requirements manual. 5. The buildings should have an intruder alarm system installed in compliance with Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Security Alarm Policy. This ensures that the technical aspects of the alarm specification will result in a police response to a confirmed activation on site. I would also suggest an internal alarm that can be

Planning Committee 12 of 63 12 October 2016

zoned. This will allow areas that are not being used to be shut down and protected. While allowing other areas to be used.

Planning Committee 13 of 63 12 October 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 12 October 2016

Site Viewing Group (Date of visit Tuesday 11 October 2016 at 11.00 am)

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Matthew Brown WP/16/00356/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 13 June 2016 11 July 2016 5 September 2016 Harrowden & Sywell Mears Ashby

Applicant EMH Group

Agent Jim Morton

Location Land opposite 2A near junction with Earls Barton Road Glebe Road Mears Ashby Northampton Northamptonshire

Proposal Construction of affordable and market homes including access roads and services

PLANNING HISTORY WP/16/00356/FUL Determination pending. Construction of affordable and market homes including access roads and services WR/1968/0123 Refused 15.11.1968 Farmhouse

Reason(s) for committee consideration:

- Councillor Bone has called this application in. - The application has attracted more than 3 objections

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site relates to a field in the open countryside and the use of the land is currently agricultural. The site is separated from the village by Earls Barton Road.

Directly opposite the application site are properties located on Earls Barton Road within the village boundary of Mears Ashby. The application site is in close proximity to the junction of North Street, Glebe Road and Earls Barton Road.

APPLICATION PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND It is proposed to erect 8 two storey dwellings in a semi detached style. 6 of the proposed dwellings stated as being affordable housing whilst the other two dwellings are open market properties.

Planning Committee 14 of 63 12 October 2016

WP/16/00356/FUL

ICT Services © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: WP/16/00356/FUL - Land Opposite 2a, Near Junction, Earls Barton Road, Glebe Road, Mears Ashby when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999

The proposed mix comprises:-

2 x 3 bedroom open market dwellings 1 x 2 bedroom affordable - shared equity dwelling 2 x 2 bedroom affordable rented dwelling 3 x 3 affordable rented

The scheme would be accessed from two different points on Earls Barton Road, Mears Ashby.

Land to the north of the site is shown as being retained by the land owner and housing association but leased to the parish council as open space.

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

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) 7 (Community Services and Facilities) 8 (North Northamptonshire place shaping principles) 9 (sustainable buildings and allowable solutions) 10 (Provision of infrastructure) 11 (network of urban and rural areas) 13 (Rural Exceptions) 15 (Well Connected Towns) 28 (housing requirements and strategic opportunities) 29 (distribution of new homes) 30 (housing mix and tenure)

Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policies: G4 (Villages)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Sustainable Design Biodiversity Parking Residential Extensions: A Guide to Good Design

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

2. Parish Council - the parish council have not stated whether they object to the scheme but state that 106 funding should be in place to improve safety issues by way of traffic calming measures.

Planning Committee 15 of 63 12 October 2016

3. Northamptonshire Archaeology - the application makes no mention of the considerable archaeological potential of the site and trial trenching has not been carried out. Further information is required in the form of an archaeology field assessment.

4. Environment Agency - no objection subject to condition.

5. Borough Council of Wellingborough Policy - objection to the proposed scheme on adopted policy grounds. Further explanation in the conformity with development plan section.

6. Wildlife Trust - no objection subject to suitable conditions being attached.

7. Northamptonshire Surface Water Drainage Assessment Team - no objection to the proposed scheme subject to condition requesting further information.

8. Northamptonshire Police - no formal objection.

9. Borough Council of Wellingborough Housing - having taken into account the result of the Housing Needs Survey and the analysis of the Council's Housing Register, it is considered that the proposed affordable housing mix for the 8 dwelling scheme is acceptable and would help address local housing need.

10. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Health - no objection subject to pre commencement condition.

11. Ramblers Association - no response received.

12. Campaign for the Protection of Rural England - There appeared to be no justification with the application supporting the use of the site as a rural exceptions site, this being the case CPRE would oppose the use of this site for development which would result in a clear extension into the open countryside. It would also set a precedent for development other sites on that side of the road.

The lack of for making such an incursion into the open countryside.

13. Borough Council of Wellingborough Trees and Landscape officer - the proposal would result in the character of the area being altered.

14. Neighbours - 9 letters have been received 7 of which object to the scheme. The other two letters are general comments.

The objection comments received are as follows:

- The two entrances proposed to the site are dangerous - The proposal would result in danger to pedestrians, cyclists and cars - The development is unsuitable - The proposal will result in the loss of light to existing dwellings - Increase in traffic - Loss of view - There is no need for market housing - Site notices are not visible

Planning Committee 16 of 63 12 October 2016

- The design and access statement says that there is an hourly bus service but in-fact there is not.

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

- conformity with the development plan and material considerations - housing need, affordable housing and rural exception. - design and appearance - effect/impact on highway safety in relation to (the proposed access arrangement and parking provision) - effect on archaeology - effect on flood risk and drainage - effect on biodiversity - effect on highway safety - contamination - crime and disorder - landscape - planning obligations and considerations - contamination - crime and disorder

The proposal for 8 dwellings would be set in an area of open countryside and would result in housing outside of the village boundary having a marked impact on the overall structure of the village as it stands. The Earls Barton Road acts as a buffer between the village settlement and the open countryside. The proposed development would breach this barrier to development that acts as a natural buffer.

Although the development would be in close proximity to the existing village it is not considered appropriate in this location, even though the scheme provides affordable housing in line with quantifiable demand as highlighted in the latest housing needs survey, the demand for affordable housing is not considered to outweigh the detrimental impact this proposal would have on the open countryside. The applicant has not provided any written information or justification as to why development sites earmarked by the council for housing within Mears Ashby have not been pursued. The applicant has not provided any justification as to why open countryside should be compromised in this instance.

The proposal would effectively result in an incongruous expansion of the village boundary concluding in the loss of open countryside detriment to the established character of the area. The proposal is contrary to policies 3, 8, 11, and 13 of the Joint Core Strategy.

Planning Committee 17 of 63 12 October 2016

Housing need, affordable housing and rural exception Although the development of this land is considered to have an unacceptable impact on the character of the site it is important to address the issue of housing need, affordable housing and whether it meets the rural exception criteria.

It is important to establish whether there is a need for housing in this location, particularly as the proposed development would be located within the open countryside.

The latest annual monitoring report showed that rural housing completions were in excess of those envisaged by the JCS which requires 540 homes in Wellingborough between 2011 and 2031, this is to the tune of 27 new dwellings per year. Between 2014 and 2015 52 houses were completed. This demonstrates that the demand for housing is being addressed in accordance with the requirements of the JCS and demonstrates that the demand placed upon the local authority is being adequately addressed and ad hoc residential developments can be appropriately determined without the added pressure of having to achieve a prescribed figure.

Policy 11 of the JCS states that development in rural areas should be small scale and located within villages and meet locally identified needs. The proposed development is not located within the settlement area and there is currently no need for the allocation of further rural sites to meet housing requirements as set out by the JCS. As such the proposal is contrary to policy 11 of the JCS.

Although there is no requirement, as prescribed by planning policy, for additional housing sites within rural areas there is an identified need for affordable houses within Mears Ashby itself. A housing needs survey undertaken by the borough in 2015 states that Mears Ashby has need for 7 additional dwellings broken down into 4 affordable dwellings, 2 market homes and 1 shared ownership dwelling. In addition to this the report also suggests that 59% of residents in Mears Ashby would support a small affordable housing scheme. The applicants have therefore prepared a housing mix that generally accords with this and references policy 13 of the JCS as a justification for submitting a housing scheme on undeveloped open countryside.

Policy 13 states that the exception requirements of policy 11 of the JCS can be made on the grounds that the site adjoins the settlement boundary and that the proposal will meet the existing identified housing need. This argument can be countered by the fact the proposed development of 8 dwellings exceeds the identified 7 units required. Although this could be addressed, the proposal, as submitted fails to adhere to policy 13. In addition to this criterion d) of policy 13 requires rural exception sites to be purely affordable, the proposed scheme is contrary to this as it provides two open market dwellings.

The applicants have not provided enough information to satisfactorily justify why there is the requirement for two open market dwellings and why two dwellings are essential to the viability of the scheme. It is however considered that additional information could be provided to clarify the current viability concerns.

The local need for additional housing has been addressed in the previous paragraphs. The council acknowledge there is a requirement to provide housing in line with paragraph 49 of the NPPF where it is stated that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that local authorities are required to have a 5

Planning Committee 18 of 63 12 October 2016

year land supply of sites suitable for housing. The borough council has a 5 year supply of housing and is therefore in line with paragraph 49 of the NPPF and cannot be used as an argument to permit housing development in the open countryside.

It is acknowledge that the proposal provides a generally acceptable mix of dwellings and there is local demand for affordable housing but the site in question fails to adhere entirely with policy 11 of the JCS and due to its scale and the overprovision of housing it is not considered to fully satisfy the provisions of policy 13 of the JCS.

Impact of scale and appearance on the open countryside Policy 8 (d) (i) the JCS states that development should only be permitted where it "responds to local topography and the overall form, character and landscape of the settlement". The proposed scheme fails to adhere to this and would permit an incongruous form of development that is contrary to the open countryside expanding the village boundary in an undesirable direction to the harm of the established character.

The site is currently agricultural in appearance but by introducing 8 two storey dwellings on undeveloped land is considered inappropriate in this location.

The village boundary edge is clearly defined by properties opposite the application site and permitting housing on this site would erode the established boundary which is defined by the existing local plan. In addition to this it is important to note that the emerging local plan for Wellingborough does not earmark this site for future development nor does it show this site as being subjected to village boundary adjustments. As such the proposal by virtue of its location within the open countryside is contrary to policy 8 (d) (i) of the JCS.

Policy 11 of the JCS states "small scale infill development will be permitted on suitable sites within villages where this would not materially harm the character of the settlement and residential amenity or exceed the capacity of local infrastructure and services". The proposed scheme is not considered to be small scale compared to Mears Ashby and nor is it considered infill development as it is located on open land.

The proposed development by virtue of its location within the open countryside on undeveloped land is not considered appropriate development and is considered to materially harm the character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to policy 8 and 11 of the JCS.

Design and appearance The layout, appearance and general design of the proposed development is considered to accord with supplementary guidance and policy 8 of the JCS.

The properties proposed are two storey in nature and are of similar simple design each property is afforded a private rear garden and the general layout is not considered to be acceptable.

Although there is a mixture of housing stock on Earls Baton Road and Tinkers Crescent the proposed design of the dwellings is not dissimilar from the surrounding residential dwellings.

Planning Committee 19 of 63 12 October 2016

The properties are proposed to be set back from the Earls Barton Road, this is to achieve highway requirements and parking standards. Although the design is not exceptional it is not considered to warrant a refusal on those grounds alone. If the proposal was not submitted as a rural exception site there is potential for refusing the development for failing to provide a scheme of exceptional quality or innovative design.

The proposal is largely in accordance with technical housing standards - nationally described space standard March 2015.

Given the context of the surrounding development the proposed design, layout and garden sizes are considered acceptable but this does not override the fact that the dwellings are set within the open countryside and as such are considered unacceptable.

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development The joint core strategy at policy 8 (e) (i) details policy relating to the protection of amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The proposed scheme would not result in the residential amenity of nearby neighbours, most notably those on Tinkers Crescent or Mears Ashby Road, being affected by either overlooking or overshadowing. The front windows of the proposed properties are located 35m from the properties on Tinkers Crescent as such the proposed development is not considered to result in an unneighbourly form of development.

The proposed dwellings have been appointed to ensure that a good standard of amenity is provided for future incumbents of the dwellings. As such the proposal is considered to accord with adopted policy and design guidance.

Effect on Archaeology NNJCS policy 2 (d) requires that where proposals would result in the unavoidable and justifiable loss of archaeological remains, provision should be made for recording and the production of a suitable archive and report.

With regards the NPPF, section 12 sets out the government's advice on conserving and enhancing the historic environment and in particular paragraph 128 advises that, where appropriate, when determining an application which could affect a heritage asset with archaeological interest the council should, where appropriate, require developers to submit a field evaluation.

The application site lies on the west side of Glebe Road and Earls Barton Road, opposite North Road and Tinkers Crescent. Extensive cropmarks are recorded immediately to the south and have been interpreted as prehistoric/Romano-British settlement. Finds including flint and Romano-British pottery have been picked up from the field in the area of the cropmarks; scattered limestone building material and Roman pottery was found concentrated in the north corner of the field close to a rectilinear cropmark. The presence of a substantial Romano-British building is therefore indicated

Planning Committee 20 of 63 12 October 2016

here, and the activity could be expected to extend into the application site, as suggested by the presence of further cropmarks visible on modern aerial photographs.

Evaluation in the form of trial trenching would need to be undertaken in advance of determination, as recommended by the NPPF paragraph 128.

Effect on Flood Risk and Drainage The JCS at policy 5 sets out a raft of sub policies aimed at preventing or reducing flood risk.

The NPPF at chapter 10 sets out the government's views on how the planning system should take into account the risks caused by flooding. The planning practice guidance under the chapter titled 'flood risk and climate change' gives detailed advice on how planning can take account of the risks associated with flooding in the application process.

Saved local plan policy G2 lists criteria to ensure that development is not at an unacceptable risk from flooding and would not result in an increase in the risk of flooding elsewhere.

The lead local flood authority hold no objection to the scheme.

The Joint Core Strategy at policy 4 - biodiversity and geodiversity, sets out policy requirements for the protection and where possible, a net gain in biodiversity.

The NPPF at chapter 11 'conserving and enhancing the natural environment' the government sets out it views on minimising impacts on biodiversity, providing net gains where possible and contributing to halt the overall decline in biodiversity.

The Wildlife Trust hold no objection to the proposed scheme and as such the proposal is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the biodiversity of the area. As such it accords with policy 4 of the JCS.

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety in Relation to (the Proposed Access Arrangement and Parking Provision) Joint Core Strategy policy 8 (place shaping principles) gives a number of requirements that new development should achieve with regards to highway, pedestrian and other sustainable transport matters.

The NPPF at chapter four sets out the Government's views and how transport policies and decisions should play a part in promoting sustainable development and health objectives.

With regards to the NPPF and sustainable transport, the document intimates that local parking standards for residential development should take into account the:

Planning Committee 21 of 63 12 October 2016

- accessibility of the development - type, mix and use - availability of and opportunities for public transport - local car ownership levels - overall need to reduce the use of high-emission vehicles

The proposed scheme has been assessed by the highways engineer and no objections have been offered. Although some of the objectors have raised concern with the site having two access points the county highway engineer holds no concern with the access points provided that restrictive conditions are attached if the council are minded to approve the application.

Contamination The Joint Core Strategy at policy 6 says that local planning authorities will seek to maximise the delivery of development through the re-use of suitable previously developed land within the urban areas. Where development is intended on a site known or suspected of being contaminated a remediation strategy will be required to manage the contamination. The policy goes on to inform that planning permission will be granted where it can be established that the site can safely and viably be developed with no significant impact on either future users of the development or on ground surface and waters.

The national planning policy framework at chapter 11 sets out policies on development involving contaminated land. The planning practice guidance also offers detailed government advice on this topic.

No objections have been raised to the proposed scheme provided that pre commencement conditions are attached if the council were minded to approve.

Crime and Disorder Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 details the need for the council to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area.

The JCS at policy 8 (e) (iv) sets out the policy requirement for new development to seek to design out crime and disorder and reduce the fear of crime. The adopted designing out crime supplementary planning guidance gives detailed advice this issue.

Northamptonshire police have raised no objection to the scheme proposed.

Landscape The character of the land would be altered by the proposed development by virtue of the two storey dwellings and the uninterrupted view of the countryside for nearby residents would be lost. Policy 3 states that "Development should be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, retaining and where possible the distinctive qualities of the landscape character area in which it would be situated or viewed from".

Planning Committee 22 of 63 12 October 2016

The proposal fails to adhere to this policy. The introduction of 8 two storey dwellings is considered to have a negative impact on the character of this site and surrounding areas. It is noted that some landscaping has been provided but this fails to mitigate the impact on the character of the area. The landscape officer agrees that the impact of the proposal is detrimental to the character of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to policy 3 of the JCS.

Planning Obligations and Conditions If the Council was minded to approve the scheme a 106 agreement would be entered to secure the housing mix, but as the application is recommended for refusal it is not considered pertinent to draft a 106 agreement at the unnecessary expense of the council and the applicants alike.

CONCLUSION The proposed development fails to comply with the relevant development plan policies and is inconsistent with the provisions in the NPPF specifically in relation to promoting sustainable development, the proposal would have a negative impact on the landscape and open countryside

RECOMMENDATION Refuse for the following reasons.

REASONS

1. The proposed scheme would result in development that breaches the settlement boundary resulting in unacceptable loss of open countryside resulting in a detrimental impact on the established landscape character of this edge of village settlement site. The detrimental impact of the proposal on the open countryside outweighs the identified housing need in this instance. As such the proposal is contrary to policies 3, 8, 11 and 29 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 and The National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

2. The applicant has failed to undertake the required archaeological evaluation on a site with archaeological potential. As such the proposal is contrary to policy 2 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

Policy 3 - Landscape and Character Development should be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, retaining and, where possible, enhancing the distinctive qualities of the landscape character area which it would affect.

Development should: a) Conserve and, where possible, enhance the character and qualities of the local landscape through appropriate design and management; b) Make provision for the retention and, where possible, enhancement of features of landscape importance; c) Safeguard and, where possible, enhance important views and vistas including sky lines within the development layout;

Planning Committee 23 of 63 12 October 2016

d) Protect the landscape setting and contribute to maintaining the individual and distinct character, and separate identities of settlements by preventing coalescence; e) Provide appropriate landscape mitigation and/or suitable off-site enhancements; and f) Preserve tranquillity within the King's Cliffe Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area (as shown on the Policy Map) and other areas identified in Part 2 Local Plans by minimising light and noise pollution and minimising the visual and traffic impacts of development.

Policy 8 North Northamptonshire Place Shaping Principles Development should:

a) Create connected places by ensuring that it: i. Connects to the maximum number of local streets, avoiding dead ends, to allow it to integrate into the wider settlement and to connect to existing services and facilities; ii. Integrates well with existing cycle, pedestrian, public transport and vehicular movement networks and links to these routes in the most direct and legible way possible, to achieve logical routes; iii. Improves or creates open green spaces which tie into the wider network of public green spaces and routes to allow for movement across the settlement through its green infrastructure; iv. Provides direct routes to local facilities within or outside the site to create more walkable neighbourhoods; and

b) Make safe and pleasant streets and spaces by: i. Prioritising the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and resisting developments that would prejudice highway safety; ii. Ensuring a satisfactory means of access and provision for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards; iii. Ensuring that streets and spaces are continuously enclosed by buildings, or by strong landscaping with well-defined public and private space; iv. Ensuring that streets and spaces, are overlooked, active, feel safe and promote inclusive access; v. Creating legible places which make it easy for people to find their way around; and vi. Contributing, towards enhancements to the existing public realm such as tree planting to add to the character and quality of the main streets and to encourage walking and cycling.

c) Ensure adaptable, diverse and flexible places by: i. Creating varied and distinctive neighbourhoods which provide for local needs through a mix of uses, unit sizes and tenures; and ii. Mixing land use and densities within settlements and ensuring that people can move easily between and through them by non-car modes;

d) Create a distinctive local character by: i. Responding to the site's immediate and wider context and local character to create new streets, spaces and buildings which draw on the best of that local character without stifling innovation; ii. Responding to the local topography and the overall form, character and landscape setting of the settlement; and

Planning Committee 24 of 63 12 October 2016

iii. The creative use of the public realm through the use of measures such as incidental play spaces, bespoke street furniture and memorable features.

e) Ensure quality of life and safer and healthier communities by: i. Protecting amenity by not resulting in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of future occupiers, neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking; ii. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, light, water or noise pollution or land instability; iii. Incorporate ecologically sensitive design and features for biodiversity to deliver 'Biodiversity by Design'; iv. Seeking to design out antisocial behaviour and crime and reduce the fear of crime through the creation of safe environments that benefit from natural surveillance, defensible spaces and other security measures having regard to the principles of the 'Secured by Design'; v. Proportionate and appropriate community and fire safety measures; and vi. Incorporating flexible and resilient designs for buildings and their settings, including access to amenity space.

Policy The network of urban and rural areas

Development will be distributed to strengthen the network of settlements in accordance with the roles in Table 1 and to support delivery of the place-shaping principles set out in Table 2. The special mixed urban/rural character of North Northamptonshire with its distinctive and separate settlements will be maintained through the avoidance of coalescence.

1. THE URBAN AREAS a) The Growth Towns will be the focus for infrastructure investment and higher order facilities to support major employment, housing, retail and leisure development; b) The Market Towns will provide a strong service role for their local communities and surrounding rural areas with growth in homes and jobs to support regeneration and local services, at a scale appropriate to the character and infrastructure of the town; c) Provision will be made for new housing as set out in Policy 28. Any proposals for significant additional growth should be tested and supported through Part 2 Local Plans or Neighbourhood Plans; d) The Sustainable Urban Extensions shown on the Key Diagram provide strategic locations for housing and employment development within and beyond the plan period. If it is necessary to identify additional sites to maintain a 5 year deliverable supply of housing land in a district in accordance with Policy 28, these should be identified at the Growth Town followed, if necessary and relevant, by the Market Towns within that district.

2. THE RURAL AREAS a) Development in the rural areas will be limited to that required to support a prosperous rural economy or to meet a locally arising need, which cannot be met more sustainably at a nearby larger settlement; b) Small scale infill development will be permitted on suitable sites within Villages where this would not materially harm the character of the settlement and residential

Planning Committee 25 of 63 12 October 2016

amenity or exceed the capacity of local infrastructure and services. Part 2 Local Plans and/ or Neighbourhood Plans may identify sites within or adjoining Villages to help meet locally identified needs or may designate sensitive areas where infill development will be resisted or subject to special control; c) Local and Neighbourhood Plans will identify sites within or adjoining the villages to meet the rural housing requirements identified in Table 5. Other than small scale infilling or 'rural exceptions' schemes, development above these requirements will be resisted unless agreed through the Part 2 Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plans to meet a particular local need or opportunity; d) Rural diversification and the appropriate re-use of rural buildings will be supported in accordance with Policy 25. Renewable energy developments will be considered under Policy 26. Other forms of development will be resisted in the open countryside unless there are special circumstances as set out in Policy 13 or national policy; e) The strategic opportunity for an exemplar sustainable new village community at Deenethorpe Airfield will be explored in accordance with Policy 14.

Policy 29 Distribution of New Homes

New housing will be accommodated in line with the Spatial Strategy with a strong focus at the Growth Towns as the most sustainable locations for development, followed by the Market Towns. Provision will be made for new housing as set out in Table 5.

The re-use of suitable previously developed land and buildings in the Growth Towns and the Market Towns will be encouraged. Further development requirements will be focused on the delivery of the Sustainable Urban Extensions and other strategic housing sites identified on the Key Diagram.

The local planning authorities will work proactively with landowners, developers and other partners to ensure the timely delivery of the Sustainable Urban Extensions and other strategic housing sites shown on the Key Diagram. Progress will be monitored in the North Northamptonshire Authorities' Monitoring Report. Where necessary to maintain a deliverable 5 year supply of housing sites for a district/borough, the relevant local planning authority will identify additional sources of housing at the Growth Town, followed if necessary and relevant by the Market Towns within that district/borough.

The Strategic Opportunity identified in Policy 28 for an additional 5,000 dwellings at Corby will only be delivered through the successful implementation of the Sustainable Urban Extensions at that town. It is not transferable to other settlements.

Other than small scale infilling (Policy 11) or rural exceptions schemes (Policy 13), levels of housing development in excess of the identified requirements for the named Villages and Rural Areas will only be permitted where tested and supported through Part 2 Local Plans or Neighbourhood Plans. These plans should also identify the phasing of individual housing sites in the rural areas to ensure that development opportunities are not exhausted early in the plan period.

Planning Committee 26 of 63 12 October 2016

Policy 2 Historic Environment

The distinctive North Northamptonshire historic environment will be protected, preserved and, where appropriate, enhanced. Where a development would impact upon a heritage asset and/or its setting:

a) Proposals should conserve and, where possible, enhance the heritage significance and setting of an asset or group of heritage assets in a manner commensurate to its significance; b) Proposals should complement their surrounding historic environment through the form, scale, design and materials; c) Proposals should protect and, where possible, enhance key views and vistas of heritage assets, including of the church spires along the Nene Valley and across North Northamptonshire; d) Proposals should demonstrate an appreciation and understanding of the impact of development on heritage assets and their setting in order to minimise harm to these assets and their setting. Where loss of historic features or archaeological remains is unavoidable and justified, provision should be made for recording and the production of a suitable archive and report; e) Where appropriate, flexible solutions to the re-use of buildings and conservation of other types of heritage assets at risk will be encouraged, especially, where this will result in their removal from the 'at risk' register.

Planning Committee 27 of 63 12 October 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 12 October 2016

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Bob Mason WP/16/00395/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 27 June 2016 28 July 2016 22 September 2016 Earls Barton Earls Barton

Applicant Earls Barton Youth Club

Agent Mr John Simons

Location Youth Club 50 Harrowick Lane Earls Barton Northampton Northamptonshire NN6 0HD

Proposal Proposed single storey extension

PLANNING HISTORY WP/16/00395/FUL Determination pending. Proposed single storey extension WR/1952/0089 Approved 27.10.1952 Conveniences WR/1949/0018 Approved with conditions 03.02.1949 Conveniences WP/1998/0573 Approved with conditions 24.02.1999 Single storey extension to form storeroom BW/1978/0097 Approved with conditions 15.03.1978 Use of youth club building as elderly persons day centre BW/1977/0603 Approved with conditions 07.09.1977 Youth club building BW/1976/0960 Approved with conditions 04.05.1977 Erection of Youth Club including formation of new vehicular access to Harrowick Lane with parking area for 12 no. cars WR/1971/0114 Approved with conditions 01.03.1972 Youth centre comprising hall with ancillary services WP/2001/0719 Refused 30.01.2002 Construction of skateboard/BMX facility at side of existing hard play area and 'teen shelter'

Reason for committee consideration:

- The application premises are owned by Earls Barton Parish Council.

Planning Committee 28 of 63 12 October 2016

WP/16/00395/FUL 27 26

13 11

1 13 2 WEST WAY 32 34

23 19

18 14

HARROWICK LANE 6 Recreation GroundL L L L L L

6 L 3 L L L

Playground L L

13 12

11 8 L

3 L

2 EarlsBarton Youth

1b Club Berry Mount 1

1a Motte

8 1

LEYS ROAD Orchard House

7 Campbell All Saint's Square 2 Church 8 4 19

16 10 86.6m 21 A

Campbell Sq

9 18 E

1 5 20 9 WEST STREET

28 24 E

36 32 15 21 87.2m 90.5m

E B 573 25

31a 33

WEST STREET33a E 35 Church

82.6m

29 12

15 32 29 War Meml

18 THE SQUARE El Sub Sta 31 13 Works

El Sub Sta

PARK (PH) 4

The

2 1

9 24 Old Swan 3

2 13 1

PARK STREET

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. 2 Ordnance Survey 100018694. Scale:21 Legend

4 This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 WP/16/00395/FUL Youth Club 50 Harrowick Lane Earls Barton

3 GetMapping PLC 1999 6 ± Factory 8

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application property consists of a hall constructed adjacent to the recreation ground and at the rear of houses within the built up area of Earls Barton village.

To the south east of the application property there is a pair of semi-detached houses which are listed buildings, further east there is All Saint's Church, also listed with a Saxon tower. In between are the ditches of the Norman Motte with some remains of a Saxon ditch all of which are classified as an Ancient Monument. The most northerly ditch is approximately 60m from the edge of the application site.

The application site is within the Earls Barton Conservation Area.

APPLICATION PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND The application is for a flat roof extension to the youth club measuring 9.5m wide by 4m deep by 2.7m high to be used as a store room and constructed in facing brick to match the existing building to be constructed at the rear of the premises and attached to the east elevation.

The premises are owned by Earls Barton Parish Council.

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

North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (presumption in favour of sustainable development) 2 (historic environment) 8 (place shaping principles)

Neighbourhood Plans: Earls Barton Neighbourhood Plan: Policies: EB.D1 (design, layout, building techniques)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Sustainable Design

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Conservation Officer - no objection.

2. Parish Council - support the application.

3. Neighbours - no objections received.

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,

Planning Committee 29 of 63 12 October 2016

- effect/impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and the future occupiers of the development

The North Northampton Joint Core Strategy (JCS) was adopted in July 2016.

Policy 1 of the JCS is clear that when considering development proposals, the local planning authority will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out within the NPPF.

The proposed development is located within the built up area of the village, and therefore the principle of the development is acceptable subject to the material considerations considered below.

Design, Layout and the Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Area The JCS policy 2 requires that development proposals should conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets and their setting.

The JCS policy 8 states that development must take into account the effect on the character and appearance of an area.

The proposed development comprises a small extension to a modern community building. Works of this kind are generally supported by policy 8 of the JCS subject to the works being of a high standard of design, not having an adverse impact upon the surrounding area.

The proposed extension is sited at the rear of the existing building but visible from the recreation ground. It is considered that the proposed design is satisfactory and with a flat roof and matching brickwork the relationship with the parent building would be acceptable.

Regarding views from the recreation area, which is within the conservation area, it is considered that the visual impact would be minimal when compared to the existing east elevation of the application building.

Regarding the impact on nearby heritage assets, it is considered that, following further advice from the conservation officer, there is no significant visual link with any of the assets listed above due to the small size of proposed development and distance between it and the assets.

Overall therefore it is considered that the proposed design and its impact on the surrounding area are satisfactory and that the application complies with North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy JCS policies 2 and 8.

Planning Committee 30 of 63 12 October 2016

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development The JCS at policy 8 (e) (i) details policy relating to the protection of amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

It is considered that the proposed extension would not cause any adverse effects on the amenity of neighbours by way of a loss of privacy/amenity or daylighting since it would be only 2.7m high, would have no external doors, and is some distance ie over 30m from the nearest house.

Crime and Disorder Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 details the need for the council to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area.

The JCS at policy 8 (e) (iv) sets out the policy requirement for new development to seek to design out crime and disorder and reduce the fear of crime.

The adopted designing out crime supplementary planning guidance gives detailed advice on this issue.

There are considered to be no pertinent crime or disorder issues associated with this application.

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

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.

Planning Committee 31 of 63 12 October 2016

2. This consent is based on Drawing Nos. EBYC/01 and EBYC/02 received on the 28 July 2016.

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

3. The external walls of the extension shall be constructed with materials of the same type, texture and colour as the external walls and roof of the existing building.

Reason: To ensure that the extension matches the external appearance of the existing building and thereby maintains the visual quality of the area in accordance with policy 8 (d) (i) of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

Planning Committee 32 of 63 12 October 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 12 October 2016

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Paul Bateman WP/16/00444/REM

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 15 July 2016 15 July 2016 14 October 2016 Earls Barton Earls Barton

Applicant Mr Shaun Aran

Location Land rear of 1 to 27 Thorpe Road off Station Road Earls Barton Northampton Northamptonshire

Proposal Reserved matters application pursuant to conditions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of appeal decision APP/H2835/A/14/2221102 for 39 dwellings - Amended Plan

PLANNING HISTORY WP/16/00444/REM Determination pending. Reserved matters application pursuant to conditions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of appeal decision APP/H2835/A/14/2221102 for 39 dwellings - Amended Plan WP/2013/0398 Refused 04.02.2014 Outline proposal for 39 dwellings and associated works (access and scale to be determined at this stage) - Revised Traffic Assessment received 27/11/2013.

Reasons for committee consideration:

- The parish council has raised an objection to the proposal which has also attracted more than three objections from local residents.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site comprises some 1.26 hectares of land which lies in open countryside. It is situated off Station Road immediately to the south of housing on Thorpe Road.

The site is rectangular in shape and bounded to the north by the rear gardens to properties on Thorpe Road. To the east, the site is bounded by Station Road beyond which lie allotment gardens. To the south and west is open countryside. There is some hedgerow and small trees on the site boundaries and wide views of the open countryside beyond the site.

Planning Committee 33 of 63 12 October 2016

16 WP/16/00444/REM

173 6

27 175 190

179

183 36 El Sub Sta 6

187

1 196 17

34 7 8

28 13

4 200

2 A 2

4 14 2

2020

1 1

THORPE ROAD 18 13

Track 27

E 56.1m

STATION ROAD

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. This map is accurate Legend 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/16/00444/REM Land rear of 1 to 27 Thorpe Rd off Station Rd Earls Barton

APPLICATION BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL The secretary of state granted outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the development at appeal - WP/13/0398/OM refers. The secretary of state also imposed a number of conditions to make the development acceptable. During the course of the appeal the appellant submitted a section 106 unilateral undertaking to mitigate for the effects of the development which was considered to be acceptable.

The application has been submitted for the approval of the reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) together with other details submitted to discharge conditions relating to -

4 - scheme of archaeological investigation 5 - environmental risk assessment 6 - flood risk 7 - landscape management plan 8 - sustainable transport measure 10 - noise mitigation measures 11 - affordable housing

It is suggested that only the reserved matters be determined at this stage and the conditions be discharged by officers in writing under powers delegated to the head of planning and local development in the usual manner if the submitted information is acceptable.

The proposed scheme involves the erection of 39 two storey dwellings which comprise of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. Car parking is achieved by way of garages and off-street parking spaces.

The affordable housing is illustrated as being provided for by three terraces and a pair of semi-detached dwellinghouses located towards the centre of the site.

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

Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policies: G2 (flood protection)

North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (presumption in favour of sustainable development) 2 (historic environment) 3 (landscape character) 4 (biodiversity and geodiversity) 5 (water environment, resources and flood risk management) 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)

Planning Committee 34 of 63 12 October 2016

10 (provision of infrastructure) 11 (network of urban and rural areas) 15 (well connected towns, villages and neighbourhoods) 16 (connecting the network of settlements) 19 (The delivery of green Infrastructure special policy areas) 28 (housing requirements and strategic opportunities) 29 (distribution of new homes) 30 (housing mix and tenure)

Neighbourhood Plans: Earls Barton Neighbourhood Plan: Policies: EB.G1 (allocation of land within Earls Barton) EB.GD1 (residential infill sites) EB.GD2 (residential exception sites) EB.D1 (design, layout, building techniques) DB.DC1 (infrastructure delivery and S106)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework: development and implementation principles

Sustainable Design Biodiversity Upper Nene Valley Special Protection Area Trees on Development Sites Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Earls Barton Parish Council - objects to the application and raises a number of detailed issues. Requests that the developer joins and adheres to the Considerate Construction Scheme. Goes on to suggest a number of conditions relating to:

- hours of work - traffic movements on the highway - control of contactor parking and access across the highway - repair of damage to the highway - contractor toilet facilities - construction method statement

2. Northamptonshire Highways - confirms that the access and aisle widths are satisfactory and makes comments regarding visibility splays, planting and bin stores. Also refers to works in Station Road and parking area for allotment holders. In addition the company thinks the developer working arrangements should be made the subject of a comprehensive construction management plan.

3. Northamptonshire County Council Archaeology - is content with the written scheme for trial trenching and further advises that it should be carried out as soon as possible so that appropriate mitigation can be put into place ahead of the development commencing. The consultee continues by saying that if no mitigation is required, the evaluation report should be submitted to discharge the condition.

Planning Committee 35 of 63 12 October 2016

4. Northamptonshire County Council Surface Water Drainage Assessment Team - originally considered that the impacts of surface water drainage had been adequately assessed. However, in a subsequent response dated 21 September 2016 it stated that there is insufficient information available to comment on the acceptability of the proposed surface water drainage scheme.

5. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Protection - makes detailed comments on the information supplied to discharge the conditions relating to the environmental risk assessment and noise mitigation.

6. Borough Council of Wellingborough Landscape Officer - has supplied a detailed assessment of the submitted landscape plan.

7. Northamptonshire Police - suggests crime prevention measures.

8. Natural England - no comments

9. Neighbours - objections have been received from a number of local residents and the reasons cited for opposing the application generally refer to the detrimental effects relating to:

- residential amenity of existing and future occupiers - increased traffic and highway safety - local services and infrastructure - appearance - landscaping - biodiversity and wildlife - contrary to the neighbourhood plan

10. Chris Heaton-Harris MP - supports the objection of one of his constituents.

11. The applicant has supplied a detailed response to the issues raised by the parish council, police and landscape officer.

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

- conformity with the development plan and material considerations - effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and landscaped visual amenity - effect on archaeology - effect on flood risk - effect on the Upper Nene Valley Special Protections Area - effect on biodiversity - 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 - contamination - crime and disorder

Planning Committee 36 of 63 12 October 2016

- affordable housing.

The submission is an application for the approval of reserved matters. The principle of this form of residential development and the number of dwellings to be built on the site has been established by the earlier grant of outline planning permission by the secretary of state. Therefore, there can be no argument as to the scheme's general acceptability.

This reserved matters proposal does however fall to be determined in the light of all the more specific areas of development plan policy and government guidance which are examined below.

Effect on Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Area and Landscape Visual Amenity Policy 8 of the joint core strategy sets out the detailed requirements for how development should be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, retaining and, where possible, enhancing the distinctive qualities of the landscape character area which it would affect.

It is acknowledged that the proposed development will locally have an effect on the character and appearance of the area and on the landscape. However, given that permission for the development has already been granted it is considered that the reserved matters scheme which has been presented for determination is acceptable in terms of its anticipated effect on the surrounding area and on the landscape in general.

The comments of the council's landscape officer are acknowledged. However, given that permission for the development has already been granted by the secretary of state, it is considered that the details and information supplied by the applicant is adequate to demonstrate that the effect of the appearance of the development with regards to the adjoining neighbours will be satisfactorily mitigated. This opinion takes into account the need to accommodate within the site: the number of dwellings which have received consent, a satisfactory number of off road car parking spaces, open space and an adequate standard of private amenity space for the future residents of the development.

The applicant has supplied samples of the exterior facing material's it intends to use, namely: Ibstock Marlborough Stick and Betley Cottage Blend bricks, Redland red and grey Duoplain roof tiles and Weber Ivory facing. Adverse comments have been received regarding the appropriateness of the materials in the local context. However, it is suggested that the proposed exterior facing materials are acceptable because they would not appear to be visually discordant or out of place when compared to both the

Planning Committee 37 of 63 12 October 2016

new houses nearby and the other development along Station Road.

The condition relating to archaeology can be addressed by way of officers agreeing the details in writing.

Effect on Flood Risk and Drainage The Joint Core Strategy at policy 5 sets out a raft of sub policies aimed at preventing or reducing flood risk.

Saved local plan policy G2 lists criteria to ensure that development is not at an unacceptable risk from flooding and would not result in an increase in the risk of flooding elsewhere.

The condition relating to surface water drainage can be adequately addressed by way of officers agreeing the details in writing.

Noise To ensure quality of life and safer and healthier communities the emerging joint core strategy at policy 8 (e) (ii) states that new development should be prevented from contributing to or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise.

Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework gives advice on how local planning authorities should prevent new development from being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise pollution. The NPPF further advises that decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.

The planning practice guidance offers detailed advice on Noise which was updated on 24 December 2014.

The comments of the council's environmental protection service are noted and the conditions relating to noise can be addressed by way of officers agreeing the details in writing.

Planning Committee 38 of 63 12 October 2016

Effect on the Upper Nene Valley Special Protections Area The application site lies within Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area.

Outline planning permission has been granted by the secretary of state for the development; therefore, no contributions towards mitigating works in the special protection area can be sought.

The joint core strategy at policy 4 - biodiversity and geodiversity, sets out policy requirements for the protection and where possible, a net gain in biodiversity.

It is anticipated that the development will not have any significant effect on matters of biodiversity importance. It is the case that the landscaping scheme will include a proportion of native species which could provide food and habitat for wildlife.

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development The joint core strategy at policy 8 (e) (i). details policy relating to the protection of amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The comments of the local MP and nearby residential occupiers with regards to their views on how the proposed development would affect them are noted. However, the scheme already has planning permission granted by the secretary of state and it is thought that the proposed development would not have such a significant effect on the standard of amenity which is currently enjoyed by the adjacent residential occupiers to recommend it for refusal. This is because there is considered to be an adequate separation distance from the proposed two storey houses and the existing dwellings of 21m minimum back to back which is sufficient to allow for an adequate standard of privacy and light reception for the existing occupiers.

It is thought that the normal occupation of the proposed dwellings should not result in the existing residents being affected to any significant degree.

The garden areas associated with the new dwellings are thought to be acceptable with regards to their sizes which would allow for the new residents to have an acceptable standard of amenity.

Planning Committee 39 of 63 12 October 2016

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety in Relation to the Proposed Access Arrangement and Parking Provision Joint Core Strategy policy 8 (place shaping principles) gives a number of requirements that new development should achieve with regards to highway, pedestrian and other sustainable transport matters.

The NPPF at chapter four sets out the Government's views and how transport policies and decisions should play a part in promoting sustainable development and health objectives.

The plan which accompanies the application depicts 111 garage and off-road car parking spaces together with other highway works.

The comments from residents regarding their opinions on how the development will impact on the local highway network are recognized; however, these matters were taken into account when the outline planning permission was granted by the secretary of state who also had the opportunity to impose appropriate highway conditions as he saw necessary.

Crucially, Northamptonshire Highways has not objected to the proposal, and therefore in the absence of opposition from the highway consultee it is considered that there is insufficient evidence on which to base a robust defensible reason for refusal on the grounds of danger to highway safety or inadequate highway capacity.

The condition relating to the submission of sustainable transport measures can be discharged as necessary by officers.

The national planning policy framework at chapter 11 sets out policies on development involving contaminated land. The planning practice guidance also offers detailed government advice on this topic

The comments of the council's environmental protection service are noted and the condition relating to an environmental risk assessment can be addressed by way of officers agreeing the details in writing.

Crime and Disorder Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 details the need for the council to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area.

The JCS at policy 8 (e) (iv) sets out the policy requirement for new development to seek to design out crime and disorder and reduce the fear of crime.

Planning Committee 40 of 63 12 October 2016

The adopted designing out crime supplementary planning guidance gives detailed advice on this issue.

The police have no objection to the proposal and the comments that they have made have been conveyed to the applicant who has supplied additional information in turn.

Affordable Housing The council is in ongoing discussion with the applicant regarding a suitable model for the delivery of affordable housing. The condition imposed by the secretary of state can be discharged by officers when an acceptable method of delivering the necessary affordable housing on the site has been identified.

CONCLUSION The principle of the development has been established by the grant of outline planning permission by the secretary of state which cannot be challenged. It is considered that the proposed reserved matters scheme adequately responds to development plan policy and government guidance in respect of the reserved matters discussed above. In the absence of any material considerations of sufficient weight, it is recommended that the reserved matters be approved subject to a condition and that the conditions be discharged by officers as is appropriate and necessary.

RECOMMENDATION Approve subject to the following condition.

CONDITION/REASON

1. The development shall be carried out in accord with the following plan numbers: 100 L, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 363A03 101 REV A, 363A03 102, 5561 001 C 0010 REV P1, 5561 001 C 0100 REV P3 Sheets 1 and 2, 5561 001 C 0500 REV P5 Sheets 1 and 2, 5561 001 C 0800 REV P4 Sheets 1 and 2, 5561 001 C 2601 REV P3, 5561 001 C 2650 REV P2, 5561 001 C 2700 REV P2 Sheets 1, 2 and 3, 5561 001 C 4000 REV P1, 5561 001 C 4002 REV P1, MPD 60 18, S1681/01, 126 and 127. 3 JULY 2016 - REV A Landscaping plans?

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

Planning Committee 41 of 63 12 October 2016

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 or conversion - residential and commercial, 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 42 of 63 12 October 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 12 October 2016

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Paul Bateman WP/16/00456/REM

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 22 July 2016 22 July 2016 16 September 2016 Harrowden & Sywell Isham

Applicant Mr David Collings

Agent Mr Jon Sidey

Location Land adjacent 16 South Street Isham Kettering Northamptonshire

Proposal Reserved matters application pursuant to part of condition 2 (access only) of outline planning permission ref: WP/2013/0299/O - Amended/additional plans and information

PLANNING HISTORY WP/15/00381/FUL Refused 19.10.2015 Erection of 3 bedroom chalet style bungalow (outline planning permission ref. WP/2013/0299) and temporary siting of mobile home for six months - amended plans WP/15/00674/FUL and Appeal dismissed 14.07.2016 Erection of chalet bungalow (outline planning permission ref. WP/2013/0299 and WP/15/00381/FUL - refused) and temporary siting of mobile home for twelve months from June 2015 - re- submission WP/16/00456/REM Determination pending. Reserved matters application pursuant to part of condition 2 (access only) of outline planning permission ref: WP/2013/0299/O - Amended/additional plans and information WP/2013/0299 Approved with conditions 24.07.2013 Outline application with all matters reserved for one dwelling. WP/1992/0192 Approved with conditions 01.07.1992 Site for one detached bungalow

Reason(s) for committee consideration:

- The parish council has raised an objection to the proposal.

Planning Committee 43 of 63 12 October 2016

WP/16/00456/REM

32 54

10 18a 43

50 8a 39

46 8

All Saints Pear Tree Cott 25 House

1 Jubilee Terrace

19 PARK CLOSE 38 17

1 R 36a STREET8

2 15 LB

11 3

MIDDLE6 7

36 9 36b

4 6 5 9

7 2 2a

3a 1 28 3 SOUTH STREET 1a

Tithe Barn Manor 18

House 10

2 14

MANOR CLOSE

1 16

6 The Brambles

3 6

GREEN LANE Allerton House

Track

R Issues

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed Track to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/16/00456/REM Land adjacent 16 South Street Isham

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site is an area of land to the side of no. 16 South Street which has two existing accesses from the highway into the driveway at the front of the dwellinghouse.

APPLICATION BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL WP/2013/0299/O was granted outline planning permission under delegated powers on 24 July 2013 with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, although the indicative plan depicted access would be via the existing access onto the highway. Since the grant of the above outline permission the applicant has sought consent for other schemes which have been refused by the committee and a subsequent appeal dismissed.

This is the first reserved matter application subsequent to the grant of outline permission was received on 22 July 2016, which is within the three year time period specified by the outline permission.

In response to comments received the applicant has submitted revised site location and layout plans.

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

Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policy: G4 (development within the limited development and restricted infill villages)

North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (presumption in favour of sustainable development) 4 (biodiversity and geodiversity) 5 (water environment, resources and flood risk management) 6 (development on brownfield land and land affected by contamination) 8 (North Northamptonshire place shaping principles) 9 (sustainable buildings and allowable solutions) 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 Trees on Development Sites Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire Parking

Planning Committee 44 of 63 12 October 2016

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Isham Parish Council - objects to the application and raises matters concerning visibility splays, speed limits, road terminology and local traffic types.

2. Northamptonshire Highways - has not objected to the application and sets out a number of its standard highway specifications.

3. Northamptonshire County Council Archaeology - gives an update on the archaeological situation.

4. Neighbours - no comment received.

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 biodiversity - 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 - crime and disorder - planning conditions.

The principle of the development has been established by the earlier grant of outline planning permission and this application for approval of a reserved matter can only be judged on its merits against the specific policies.

Design, Layout and the Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Area The joint core strategy at policy 8 describes the place shaping principles that must take into account with regards to its effect on the character and appearance of an area and specifically at (d) (i). It requires new development to create a distinctive local character by responding to the site's immediate and wider context and local character to create new streets, spaces and buildings which draw on the best of that local character without stifling innovation.

Policy G4 of the local plan states that development will be granted planning permission if it will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the size, form, character or setting of the village.

The government at paragraph 56 of the NPPF says it attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. It goes on to advise: that good design is a key aspect

Planning Committee 45 of 63 12 October 2016

of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

There is an existing access onto the site from the public highway which the plans depict as being used for access into the application site and it is considered that the scheme will not have any material effect on the character or appearance of the area.

The joint core strategy at policy 4 - biodiversity and geodiversity, sets out policy requirements for the protection and where possible, a net gain in biodiversity.

No matters of biodiversity significance have been identified within the scope of this application.

It is anticipated that the access will not have any significant or material effect on the standard of amenity which is currently enjoyed by the nearby residential occupiers.

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety in Relation to the Proposed Access Arrangement Joint Core Strategy policy 8 (place shaping principles) gives a number of requirements that new development should achieve with regards to highway, pedestrian and other sustainable transport matters.

The NPPF at chapter four sets out the Government's views and how transport policies and decisions should play a part in promoting sustainable development and health objectives.

The comments of the Parish Council are noted. Crucially however, Northamptonshire Highways has not objected to the proposal but has only listed a number of its technical specifications and it is perhaps unfortunate that it did not go on to say whether the submitted plans meet them or not. However, in response to the comment from the company the applicant has supplied a revised layout plan on 19 September. Therefore, in the absence of an objection from the highway consultee it is considered there is

Planning Committee 46 of 63 12 October 2016

insufficient evidence on which to base a robust and defensible reason for refusal on the grounds of danger to highway safety.

Crime and Disorder Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 details the need for the council to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area.

The JCS at policy 8 (e) (iv) sets out the policy requirement for new development to seek to design out crime and disorder and reduce the fear of crime.

The adopted designing out crime supplementary planning guidance gives detailed advice on this issue.

It is considered that there are no crime and disorder issues to take into account.

Planning Conditions Paragraph 206 of the NPPF states that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are: necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. The PPG re- iterates the advice on the use of planning conditions.

CONCLUSION The proposed development complies with the relevant development plan policies and is consistent with the provisions in the NPPF specifically in relation to highway safety. In the absence of any material considerations of sufficient weight, it is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to a condition.

RECOMMENDATION Approve subject to the following condition.

CONDITIONS/REASONS

1. The development shall be carried out in accord with the following plan numbers: 16- 103-01 B, 16-103-02A

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

Planning Committee 47 of 63 12 October 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 12 October 2016

County Matter

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Bob Mason WP/16/00536/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry 5 September 2016 5 September 2016 26 September 2016

Applicant LXB RP (Rushden) Limited and Shoemaker Gp

Agent Graham Wyatt

Location Land adjacent Skew Bridge Ski Slope Rushden Lakes Rushden Northamptonshire

Proposal Erection of a leisure building to include a cinema, other leisure uses and restaurant units and erection of retail units, cycle hire facilities together with proposals for access, parking and servicing space, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works

PLANNING HISTORY WP/16/00536/EXT Determination pending. Erection of a leisure building to include a cinema, other leisure uses and restaurant units and erection of retail units, cycle hire facilities together with proposals for access, parking and servicing space, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works

Reason(s) for committee consideration:

- This application is referred to committee for comment because it is an East Northamptonshire Council application (ENC Reference: 16/01662/FUL). - The purpose of this report is to inform members of the application's existence and to provide members with the opportunity to minute any concerns they may have that can then be reported to ENC via the official committee minutes.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site consists of land adjacent to former Skew Bridge Ski Slope, Northampton Road, Rushden.

The first phase of the development - the three retail terraces, lakeside restaurants, boat house and visitor centre and access and parking areas are currently under construction.

Planning Committee 48 of 63 12 October 2016

WP/16/00536/EXT

APPLICATION PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND The proposed development comprises three main elements:

A Leisure Terrace comprising a cinema, other leisure uses as well as restaurant units on the western part of the site. This encompasses the reconfiguration and repositioning of the previously approved Leisure Terrace granted planning permission August 2016 (LPA ref. 15/02249/FUL).

An 'extension' to the previously approved retail Terrace A (approved pursuant to planning permission 15/01127/VAR) - two further retail units are proposed adjacent to Terrace A, in the space vacated by the repositioned Leisure Terrace.

Retail Terrace D is proposed with 3 no. additional retail units to replace the previously approved Hotel, Leisure Club and Restaurant R8 (approved pursuant to planning permission 15/01127/VAR) on the eastern part of the Site. This will also lead to the repositioning of the Cycle Hire Facility which formed part of planning application 15/02249/FUL. This element includes ancillary café and retail uses.

It is envisaged that the leisure development would form a second phase of the Rushden Lakes scheme following on from the first phase of development involving the construction of the three approved retail terraces A, B and C and the associated car parking and access works.

The proposed Leisure Terrace consists of a multiplex cinema and a range of other indoor family entertainment/leisure uses such as a trampoline facility and indoor climbing structure as well as eleven restaurants with external seating areas. Each restaurant has its own access from the front elevation of the building. A large foyer provides ground floor access to the leisure uses which are then accessed from the foyer at ground, first or second floor. There is no longer a retail element proposed within the Leisure Terrace, as there had been in the Leisure Terrace approved under application 15/02249/FUL.

Additional car parking areas are proposed between the Leisure Terrace and Terrace A extension as well as to the south of Terrace D and a new internal access road is proposed from the servicing road to the rear of Terraces A and B to the new Leisure Terrace. The proposed Leisure and Retail Scheme alongside planning permission 15/01127/VAR will lead to an increase in overall car parking spaces from 1,428 to 1,946 when compared with Leisure application 15/02249/FUL planning permission 15/01127/VAR.

Taking account of the replacement of the approved garden centre and external planting area (8,350sqm), the proposals would result in the Rushden Lakes scheme consisting of a total of 66,366sqm gross internal floorspace. This is an increase of 13,162 sqm gross floorspace on the total 53,204 sqm gross area approved under planning permission 15/01127/VAR.

PLANNING BACKGROUND By way of background, following a public local inquiry the Rushden Lakes scheme was originally granted planning permission by the Secretary of State (SoS) in June 2014 comprising a mixed retail, recreation and leisure scheme.

Planning Committee 49 of 63 12 October 2016

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED No consultations have been undertaken by Wellingborough Council as the duty to undertake such consultation and publicity exercises rests with East Northamptonshire Council.

If, however, Wellingborough Council receive any representations to the application, then these will be forwarded to ENC for their attention.

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION As this application is being determined by ENC, then it is not for Wellingborough Council to provide professional opinions as to whether the proposal accords with development plan policies or to advise on all material considerations that need to be given due weight in the determination process. As both ENC and Wellingborough have representatives at the North Northants Joint Planning Unit, then the strategic assessment of how this proposal accords with the NN Core Spatial Strategy and Adopted Joint Core Strategy (July 2016) can and should be provided by the JPU.

However members are reminded of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Policy 12 of the JCS relates to town centres and town centre uses, supporting the vitality and viability of town centres in North Northamptonshire through adapting and diversifying Rushden town centre to operate successfully alongside the permitted out of centre retail and leisure development at Rushden Lakes. It will also require the sequential and impact tests to be applied as set out in the NPPF to the assessment of retail and other town centre uses which cannot be accommodated within the defined town centres.

Supporting paragraph 5.30 of the JCS relates to Rushden Lakes directly and states:

"North Northamptonshire will soon have an additional focus of retail and leisure uses in the form of the out of centre Rushden Lakes development. This was permitted by the Secretary of State in June 2014 and is expected to open in Spring 2017. This development will enhance the retail and leisure facilities available to local residents in the southern area, helping to retain a higher proportion of spending and contributing to the goal of greater self-reliance. It will also provide opportunities for tourism based businesses, including those in town centres, to benefit from increased visitors to North Northamptonshire"

This paragraph also states: 'Rushden Lakes is a mixed retail, recreation and leisure scheme, including garden centre and retail units totalling no more than 32,511 square metres net sales area….'

To clarify therefore, since the original approval, the total net sales area for Rushden Lakes has increased from 26,747 to 32,511 square metres which is an increase of 5764 square metres.

It is noted that this latest application is not taken account of within the revised figures set out above, as the proposal is yet to be determined, but this would no doubt alter the

Planning Committee 50 of 63 12 October 2016

figures even further. The JPU has informed Wellingborough that it is likely the proposal would increase the amount of comparison floorspace at Rushden Lakes. (Comparison goods are defined as 'other goods' not classified as convenience. Examples of Convenience goods include: food, drink tobacco, newspapers etc).

CONCLUSION This application should therefore seek to comply with the policies and advice contained within the adopted JCS in addition to the North Northamptonshire Core Strategy and East Northamptonshire Local Plan.

It is considered that the proposal would not give rise to any material planning considerations relevant to this council's administrative area.

RECOMMENDATION No objections be raised against the planning application.

Planning Committee 51 of 63 12 October 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 12 October 2016

For Information

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mrs Louise Jelley WP/15/00819/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry 22 December 2015 22 December 2015 12 January 2016

Applicant -

Agent Graham Wyatt

Location Land adjacent Skew Bridge Ski Slope Northampton Road Rushden Northamptonshire

Proposal Rushden Lakes: Erection of a leisure building to include a cinema, restaurant and retail units and other leisure uses and erection of a cycle hire facility together with proposals for access, parking and servicing space, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works

PLANNING HISTORY WP/15/00819/EXT No objection WBC response 12.02.2016 Rushden Lakes: Erection of a leisure building to include a cinema, restaurant and retail units and other leisure uses and erection of a cycle hire facility together with proposals for access, parking and servicing space, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works

NOTE Approved by East Northamptonshire Council on 9 August 2016 subject to the following condition/s:-

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

Reason: To comply with the provisions 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. Prior to installation, a schedule of materials and finishes for the external walls and roof(s) of the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

Planning Committee 52 of 63 12 October 2016

WP/15/00819/EXT

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the building.

3. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in accordance with the following approved drawings and plans: 2852-10-1107 (00) Leisure Application Site Plan 2852-10-101 (00) Leisure Building Ground Floor Plan 2852-10-102 (01) Leisure Building First Floor Plan 2852-10-103 (00) Leisure Building Second Floor Plan 2852-10-104 (00) Leisure Building Roof Plan 2852-10-114 (00) Leisure Building Projection Floor Plan 2852-10-128 (00) Cycle Hire Plans 2852-20-204 (01) Leisure Building Elevations East and West 2852-20-214 (01) Leisure Building Elevations North and South 2852-20-215 (00) Cycle Hire Elevations and Sections 11951 C210 D1 Levels Strategy Plan GIS064-A Site Location Plan VD13156 D100 Rev S (or as amended by a Road Safety Audit or Detailed Design) - Highways

Reason: To clarify the terms of the planning permission.

4. The floorspace shall not exceed the following GIA: - Leisure (D2) - 14, 201 sq. m - Cycle Hire Facility (A1/A3) - 169 sq. m - Food and Beverage/Restaurants (A3) - 3, 241 sq. m - Retail (A1) - 1, 703 sq. m - Landlord Area - 2, 199 sq. m

Reason : To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain planning control over the provision of additional floorspace in order to maintain a satisfactory layout and sustain an adequate overall level of parking provision and servicing on the site

5. Improvement works at A45/Skew Bridge roundabout as shown on Vectos Drawing No. VD13156 D100 Rev T (or as amended by a Road Safety Audit or Detailed Design) must be constructed and open to traffic prior to first occupation of the development.

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

6. No development hereby permitted shall take place until details of the following schemes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Northamptonshire County Council (acting as Local Highway Authority) and the Highways Agency: (a) details of the form of the junctions/links at: (i) the eastern end of the link road (which links Crown Way and Northampton Road) at its junction with Northampton Road; (ii) the Northampton Road/Brindley Close junction; and (iii) the Northampton Road exit from the A45 Skewbridge roundabout (b) details of a publicly adoptable pedestrian/cycle bridge over the A45 dual

Planning Committee 53 of 63 12 October 2016

carriageway connecting the A5001 Northampton Road, Rushden with the new adoptable site access road as shown on drawing VD13156/D100 Rev T - S4/S278 Highway Works - A45/Northampton Road Improvements and Proposed Development Access General Arrangement (c) details of the improvements to the A45/Northampton Road/Crown Way junction (Skew bridge) as shown on drawing VD13156/D100 Rev T - S4/S278 Highway Works - A45/Northampton Road Improvements and Proposed Development Access General Arrangement (d) details of improvements to the footways of the A5001 Northampton Road and the U35247 Crown Way, Rushden to form a shared use footway/cycle track with appropriate dropped crossings between the proposed Toucan crossing on Northampton Road and the East Northamptonshire Greenway access off Crown Way, Rushden. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the works listed at (b), (c) and (d) have been substantially completed in accordance with the approved plans. The works listed in (a) shall be competed within four months of the development being brought into use. The works shall be retained as approved thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

7. No development shall commence until a foul water strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the foul water strategy so approved unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding.

8. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 100 year critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site.

9. No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the ownership and maintenance for every element of the surface water drainage system proposed on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the maintenance plan shall be carried out in full thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the future maintenance of drainage systems associated with the development.

10. The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (dated December 2015) undertaken by Campbell Reith, especially the following mitigation measures detailed

Planning Committee 54 of 63 12 October 2016

within the FRA: - Provision of compensatory flood storage as set out on Drawing 11951 C102 (Rev D1) and Drawing11951 C103 (Rev D1) - Finished floor levels are set no lower than 39.65 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk and impact of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants, surrounding area and third parties in accordance with the NPPF and Policy 13 (q) of the Core Strategy for North Northamptonshire.

11. No development shall commence until the floodplain compensation scheme as shown in Drawing 11951 C102 (Rev D1) and Drawing 11951 C103 (Rev D1) has been constructed. No variation to the completed floodplain compensation works will be permitted without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided.

12. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure that, if any previously unidentified contamination is encountered during development, it is dealt with appropriately.

13. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.

Reason: To ensure that any soakaways or infiltration drainage do not pose additional risk to groundwater. There should be no direct discharge to groundwater. All infiltration structures (permeable pavements, infiltration trenches, soakaways etc) should be as shallow a depth as possible to simulate natural attenuation. The base of the infiltration structures should be at least 1m above the highest seasonal water-table

14. The retail units within the development shall achieve a 'Very Good' rating under BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) for the 'Shell' stage.

Reason: To ensure sustainable construction and reduce carbon emissions in accordance with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning Committee 55 of 63 12 October 2016

15. Prior to commencement of works to the leisure building, a BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) 'Shell' pre- assessment report should be submitted, by the developer, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate how the retail units on site will achieve a 'Very Good' rating.

Reason: To ensure sustainable construction and reduce carbon emissions in accordance with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework

16. Within 6 months of commencement of works to the leisure building, a BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) 'Shell' Interim (Design Stage) Certificate, issued by the Building Research Establishment (BRE), must be submitted, by the developer to the Local Planning Authority to show that a minimum 'Very Good' rating will be achieved by the retail units on site.

Reason: To ensure sustainable construction and reduce carbon emissions in accordance with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework

17. No more than three months following trading a BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) Shell Final (Post-Construction) Certificate, issued by the BRE, must be submitted, by the developer to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that a 'Very Good' rating has been achieved by the retail units on site. All the measures integrated shall be retained for as long as the development is in existence.

Reason: To ensure sustainable construction and reduce carbon emissions in accordance with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework

18. All units within the development dedicated to Leisure uses shall achieve a 'Very Good' rating under BREEAM UK New construction 2014.

Reason: To ensure sustainable construction and reduce carbon emissions in accordance with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework

19. Within 6 months of work starting on site a BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) Interim (Design Stage) Certificate, issued by the Building Research Establishment (BRE), must be submitted, by the developer to the Local Planning Authority to show that a minimum 'Very Good' rating will be achieved by the leisure units.

Reason: To ensure sustainable construction and reduce carbon emissions in accordance with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework

20. No more than three months following trading, a BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) Final (Post-Construction) Certificate, issued by the BRE, must be submitted, by the developer to the Local

Planning Committee 56 of 63 12 October 2016

Planning Authority to demonstrate that a 'Very Good' rating has been achieved by the leisure units. All the measures integrated shall be retained for as long as the development is in existence.

Reason: To ensure sustainable construction and reduce carbon emissions in accordance with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework

21. No development shall take place until a landscaping scheme for the site (including boundary treatment) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This landscaping scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season following the occupation of the development. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the area and to ensure that a pleasant environment is created.

22. Details of mechanical and electrical plant to be installed at the development should be submitted in writing and approved by the Local Authority prior to commencement of the relevant part of the development. The rating level of noise emitted from mechanical and electrical plant to be installed on the development (determined using the guidance of BS 4142:2014, rating for industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas) shall be at least 5dB below the existing measured background level LA90,T at the nearest noise sensitive receptor during the day and night time period. For the purpose of the assessment the authority will accept 07:00 - 23:00 for the day time and 23:00 - 07:00 hours as covering the night time period.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality.

Your attention is drawn to the following notes:

1. Reason for Decision

In reaching this decision this Council has implemented the requirement in the NPPF to deliver sustainable development in a proactive and positive way in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187. Regard has been had to the 12 core planning principles in the NPPF and the more specific policies. In addition, the Development Plan and other material considerations have been taken into account as required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Highways England

The highway mitigation works associated with this consent involves works within the public highway, which is land over which you have no control. Highways England therefore requires you to enter into a suitable legal Section 278 agreement to cover the design check, construction and supervision of the works. Contact should be made with the Highways England Section 278 Business Manager David Steventon to discuss these matters on [email protected].

Planning Committee 57 of 63 12 October 2016

The applicant should be made aware that any works undertaken to Highways England network are carried out under the Network Occupancy Management policy, in accordance with Highways England procedures, which currently requires notification/booking 3 months prior to the proposed start date. Exemptions to these bookings can be made, but only if valid reasons can be given to prove they will not affect journey time reliability and safety. The Area 7 MAC's contact details for these matters are [email protected].

The Environment Agency

Surface Water Drainage

Please note that we have not reviewed the surface water drainage information contained within the submitted FRA. The lead local flood authority (LLFA) should be consulted on this application so that they can formally review and respond to the surface water drainage proposals.

Flood Defence Consent

Notwithstanding the planning permission(s) that may be granted or extant on the site, any proposed works affecting statutory main rivers, within the indicative floodplain or within the byelaw distance requires the prior written consent of the Environment Agency under the relevant statutory legislation and current land drainage byelaws.

The applicant should consult us at the earliest opportunity in order to determine and secure formal flood defence consent for the proposed works as appropriate. It should not be assumed that securing such consent will automatic.

Land Contamination We recommend that the developer should:

1. Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, when dealing with land affected by contamination.

2. Refer to the Environment Agency Guiding principles for land contamination for the type of information that is required in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, such as human health.

3. Refer to the contaminated land pages on GOV.UK for more information.

Foul Water

The application indicates that foul flows from the development would be connected to the existing mains sewer. The local sewage treatment works (STW) is Broadholme, which in 2014 had enough permitted headroom to accommodate the proposed development. The developer should contact Anglian Water Services (AWS) to discuss whether any upgrades to the collection or treatment facilities would be required to serve this site. Existing headroom may be taken by other developments with granted permission, so should the development be delayed and happen at a later date, close liaison with AWS is needed to ensure that headroom is still available.

Planning Committee 58 of 63 12 October 2016

Should you require any additional information, or wish to discuss these matters further, please do not hesitate to contact me on the number below.

National Grid

Due to the presence of National Grid apparatus in proximity to the specified area, the contractor should contact National Grid before any works are carried out to ensure our apparatus is not affected by any of the proposed works.

Your Responsibilities and Obligations

The "Assessment" Section below outlines the detailed requirements that must be followed when planning or undertaking your scheduled activities at this location.

It is your responsibility to ensure that the information you have submitted is accurate and that all relevant documents including links are provided to all persons (either direct labour or contractors) working for you near National Grid's apparatus, e.g. as contained within the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations.

This assessment solely relates to National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (NGET) and National Grid Gas plc (NGG) apparatus. This assessment does NOT include:

- National Grid's legal interest (easements or wayleaves) in the land which restricts activity in proximity to National Grid's assets in private land. You must obtain details of any such restrictions from the landowner in the first instance and if in doubt contact National Grid. - Gas service pipes and related apparatus - Recently installed apparatus - Apparatus owned by other organisations, e.g. other gas distribution operators, local electricity - companies, other utilities, etc.

It is YOUR responsibility to take into account whether the items listed above may be present and if they could be affected by your proposed activities. Further "Essential Guidance" in respect of these items can be found on the National Grid Website (http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/6D6525F9-59EB-4825-BA89- DBD7E68882C7/51319/EssentialGuidance.pdf).

This communication does not constitute any formal agreement or consent for any proposed development work; either generally or with regard to National Grid's easements or wayleaves nor any planning or building regulations applications.

NGG and NGET or their agents, servants or contractors do not accept any liability for any losses arising under or in connection with this information. This limit on liability applies to all and any claims in contract, tort (including negligence), misrepresentation (excluding fraudulent misrepresentation), breach of statutory duty or otherwise. This limit on liability does not exclude or restrict liability where prohibited by the law nor does it supersede the express terms of any related agreements.

Planning Committee 59 of 63 12 October 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 12 October 2016

For Information

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Omar Sharif WP/16/00342/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry 6 June 2016 6 June 2016 27 June 2016

Applicant Conalgen Estates 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), cinema (D2), hotel (C1), restaurants (A3/A5) and new community football facility along with access and parking (All matters reserved except access) (Re-submission of 14/02310/OUT) (see also 15/02199/OUT) (application accompanied by amended Environmental Statement - EIA)

PLANNING HISTORY WP/16/00342/EXT Objection by WBC 13.07.2016 Outline: Demolition of existing football stadium and associated infrastructure and erection of new retail and leisure development including retail (A1), cinema (D2), hotel (C1), restaurants (A3/A5) and new community football facility along with access and parking (All matters reserved except access) (Re-submission of 14/02310/OUT) (see also 15/02199/OUT) (application accompanied by amended Environmental Statement - EIA)

NOTE Refused by East Northamptonshire Council on 14 July 2016 for the following reason/s:-

1. The proposal involves the loss of a 5-a-side football pitch, which is not justified as the wider development considered under 15/02198/OUT is refused. The proposal is therefore contrary to NNCSS Policy 13 (g), JCS Policy 7(d) and NPPF paragraph 74.

2. The application fails to demonstrate the development would be safe with respect to flood risk and the exception test has not been satisfactorily applied/passed contrary to NNCSS Policy 13 (q), JCS Policy 5 (b) and NPPF para 102 and 103.

Planning Committee 60 of 63 12 October 2016

DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING A3

KEY

Site Boundary

272000mN WP/16/00342/EXT

271000mN

A First Issue 28/11/14 MAB JK JK

CLIENT Conalgen Enterprises SA

PROJECT Nene Park, Irthlingborough, Northants

DRAWING TITLE

270000mN Site Location Plan 495000mE 496000mE 497000mE 498000mE

DRG No. SCALE DATE ST13010-005 1:12500 @ A3 28/11/14 DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED BY MAB JK JK

STOKE-ON-TRENT TEL 0845 111 7777 CARDIFF TEL 029 2072 9191

(HEAD OFFICE) LEIGH TEL 01942 260101

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TEL 0191 232 0943 SHEFFIELD TEL 0114 245 6244

SCALE BAR WEST BROMWICH TEL 0121 580 0909 EDINBURGH TEL 0131 555 3311 0m 100 200 300 400 500 LONDON TEL 020 7287 2872 LIVERPOOL TEL 0151 494 5431 Metres

Your attention is drawn to the following notes: 1. This application has been determined in accordance with 186 and 187 of the NPPF. The Local Planning Authority has accepted additional information during the course of the application.

Planning Committee 61 of 63 12 October 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 12 October 2016

For Information

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Omar Sharif WP/16/00376/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry 15 June 2016 15 June 2016 6 July 2016

Applicant Mr Stuart Wall

Agent Graham Wyatt

Location 2 Express Business Park Shipton Way Rushden Northamptonshire NN10 6GL

Proposal Installation of mezzanine floor; erection of security fence and gate; air conditioning plant; and smoking shelter

PLANNING HISTORY WP/16/00376/EXT No objection WBC response 13.07.2016 Installation of mezzanine floor; erection of security fence and gate; air conditioning plant; and smoking shelter

NOTE Approved by East Northamptonshire Council on 4 August 2016 subject to the following conditions/reasons:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Statutory requirement under provision of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following plans: Site Location Plan, drawing 4847-102 Rev E (Proposed Site Layout), 4847-103 Rev C (Existing and Proposed Elevations), A3 drawing of proposed smoking shelter, A3 plan of wire mesh fencing and sliding security gate and Design and Access Statement 1-6-16 by APSS.

Reason: In order to clarify the terms of the planning permission and to ensure that the development is carried out as permitted.

Planning Committee 62 of 63 12 October 2016

WP/16/00376/EXT

3. The scheme for the control of operational noise as approved, and contained in section 5.3.5 of the Sandy Brown report dated 17.06.16, shall be implemented in full prior to the use of the site commencing and retained thereafter. Any variation to the approved scheme shall have received the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To limit the detrimental effect of demolition and construction works on adjoining residential occupiers by reason of nuisance.

4. No part of the development as approved shall be brought into use until details of an updated Workplace Travel Plan has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan, once agreed, shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, and thereafter, the implementation of the proposals and the achievement of targets of the Plan shall be subject to regular monitoring and review reports to the LPA and, if invoked, to the implementation of the specified additional measures.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability.

5. No part of the development as approved shall be brought into use until details of an agreement to provide an additional 50 car parking spaces in the location shown in Appendix B of the Transport Statement dated July 2016 shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA. The approved spaces shall then be provided and made available for use before the development is brought into use and shall thereafter be permanently so maintained subject to review by the LPA.

Reason: To ensure sufficient parking is provided at the site.

Your attention is drawn to the following notes: 1. In reaching this decision this Council has implemented the requirement in the NPPF to deliver sustainable development in a positive and proactive way in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF.

Planning Committee 63 of 63 12 October 2016

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 12 October 2016

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

WP/16/00192/FUL Applicant Mr Patel

Location 115 Northampton Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 3PL Proposal 2 storey side extension, and single storey front and rear extension Decision Application Refused

WP/16/00263/FUL Applicant The Caravan Company

Location Tower Caravans, 101C Irthlingborough Road, Finedon, Wellingborough Proposal Retention of existing building in use as storage for workshop Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00273/LBC Applicant Mr Neal Patterson

Location 54 Main Road, Grendon, Northampton, Northamptonshire Proposal New room in roof void, alterations to accommodate new staircase, alteration to window opening and installation of new window Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00288/VAR Applicant Mr A Nutt

Location Bungalow adjacent 47 Easton Way, Grendon, Northampton Proposal Removal of condition numbers 4 and 5 of application reference number WP/1998/0259 to allow the occupation of the building as a separate dwelling. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00289/FUL Applicant Mr A Nutt

Location Land adjacent to 47 Easton Way, Grendon, Northampton Proposal New dwelling Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00308/VAR Applicant Mr Mahesh Patel Jenga Plc

Location 2 - 4 Arthur Street, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 3HH Proposal Application to vary condition 12 of planning permission ref: WP/14/00809/FUL to allow the re-positioning of the main entrance to the building Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00369/AMD Applicant Mr Alex Angus iExpand Developments Limited

Location Dunkleys Rest, 362 Grendon Road, Earls Barton, Northampton Proposal Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission ref: WP/15/00108/FUL to allow infilling of existing opening and changes to the size and position of windows, doors and rooflights. Addition of photovoltaics panels to the south facing roof Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00378/FUL Applicant Mr and Mrs A Mitchell

Location 28 Harrowick Lane, Earls Barton, Northampton, Northamptonshire Proposal Alterations and extensions including a new roof Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00379/ADV Applicant Mrs Vicky Perkins

Location West End House, 60 Oxford Street, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire Proposal Directory sign 500 W x 900 H (mm) powder coated in green to match the existing doors with white text Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00400/FUL Applicant Miss T Whittemore

Location 44 Chippenham Close, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 2PX Proposal Retrospective application for a permanent gazebo with a tiled roof in rear garden Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00411/FUL Applicant Mr T Dawson

Location Garages, Ivy Lane, Finedon, Wellingborough Proposal Proposed 4 new 2 bed bungalows. AMENDED PLANS Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00415/FUL Applicant Mr and Mrs C Chater

Location 33 Church Street, Isham, Kettering, Northamptonshire Proposal Two storey side extension and loft conversion Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00419/FUL Applicant Miss Priti Patel

Location 44 Cambridge Street, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1DW Proposal Change of use of empty upper floors of building (use class A1) to residential (C3 use class) Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00423/FUL Applicant Mr Wayne Seymour

Location 96 Arkwright Road, Irchester, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. Proposal Single storey side extension Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00424/FUL Applicant Mr Stuart Edmead

Location 20 Barnwell Gardens, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 5FJ Proposal Proposed single story rear extension to kitchen and utility room and first floor extension over garage to form new master bedroom Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00435/OUT Applicant Ms Dawn McIntosh

Location 1 The Meadows, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN9 5YT Proposal Change of use of land and outline application with all matters reserved for a 3 bedroom, one and a half storey house - re-submission. CHANGE OF DESCRIPTION Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00442/FUL Applicant Mr Mike Dewdney

Location 24 Woodlands Road, Irchester, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire Proposal Partial demolition of existing garage, single storey rear extension Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00445/FUL Applicant Mr Petitt

Location 15 Kings Lane, Little Harrowden, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire Proposal Rear and side extension, complete with associated internal and external alterations Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00446/LBC Applicant Mr Petitt

Location 15 Kings Lane, Little Harrowden, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire Proposal Rear and side extension, complete with associated internal and external alterations Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00457/FUL Applicant Mrs Victoria Sheppard

Location 94 - 100 Elsden Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1QE Proposal Change of use of part of car showroom to become booking centre for taxis using computer and internet to dispatch jobs Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00459/FUL Applicant Mr Ivo Austin

Location 23 Gold Street, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 4QY Proposal Proposed ancillary accommodation to provide games room/home gym facilities Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00460/FUL Applicant Mr Thang Vu

Location 1A Chester Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1NS Proposal Proposed first floor extension to form two storey dwelling and conversion of garage (permitted development). Revision to approved application WP/16/00213/FUL Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00463/PNX Applicant Mr Reemesh Patel

Location 101 Senwick Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1NJ Proposal Notification for prior approval for a proposed larger home extension for a single storey rear extension with flat roof and flat roof windows Decision Prior Approval/Notification Not Required

WP/16/00466/FUL Applicant Mr and Mrs R Harrison

Location 4 Wye Close, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 5WS Proposal Two storey rear extension and single storey side extension to the rear Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00468/FUL Applicant Mr Mark Chapman

Location 88 Irthlingborough Road, Finedon, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire Proposal Proposed single storey rear extension, incorporating outbuilding (and conversion of detached garage to games room - permitted development) Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00471/FUL Applicant Mr and Mrs Turvey

Location 27 Station Road, Earls Barton, Northampton, Northamptonshire Proposal Insertion of rooflights, changes to fenestration and entrance door area, and creation of lightwell. Removal of chimney Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00474/LDP Applicant Mr Simon Watts

Location 182 Brickhill Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 3JH Proposal Application for a lawful development certificate for a proposed development of a single storey extension to rear of property Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00475/PNX Applicant Mrs Helen Tite

Location 39 Ivy Lane, Finedon, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire Proposal Notification for prior approval for a proposed larger home extension for the demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single storey rear extension Decision Prior Approval/Notification Not Required

WP/16/00476/FUL Applicant Mr John Skinner Pastures Farm

Location Pastures Farm, 600 Station Road, Grendon, Wellingborough Proposal Erection of grain store Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00507/TPO Applicant Mr John Billing

Location 42 Hatton Park Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 5AH Proposal T156 Lawsons cypress - reduce in height by approximately 5.0 metres to previous points. Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00530/TPO Applicant Mr Darren Williams

Location 15 Thrift Street, Irchester, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire Proposal Proposed work to five trees within the group referenced G1 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.

BUILDING REGULATIONS FULL PLANS DECISIONS ISSUED 5 Sep - 2 Oct 2016

App No Location Description Decision Rec'd Date 2 Month Decision Date Within 2 Date months

FP/2016/3169 15 Prospect Avenue Single storey Approve 09/08/2016 Yes 07/09/2016 Yes Irchester rear/side conditions Wellingborough extension BCW Northamptonshire NN29 7DZ

FP/2016/2893 Friars School Installation of a Plans 13/07/2016 Yes 12/09/2016 Yes Friars Close single classroom Rejected Wellingborough mobile and Northamptonshire additional NN8 2LA parking spaces

FP/2016/3116 Wollaston School Alterations to Approve 08/08/2016 12/09/2016 100 Irchester Road existing library conditions Wollaston BCW Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN29 7PH

FP/2016/1797/A 54 Main Road New room in Approve 19/08/2016 Yes 21/09/2016 Yes Grendon roof space conditions Northampton BCW Northamptonshire NN7 1JW

FP/2016/3278 19 Victoria Road Extension and re- Approve 30/08/2016 Yes 23/09/2016 Yes Finedon roofing of conditions Wellingborough existing single BCW Northamptonshire storey rear NN9 5JD projection

FP/2016/3333 109 Stanley Road Converting a Approve 30/08/2016 Yes 28/09/2016 Yes Wellingborough house into a 5 conditions Northamptonshire bedroom HMO, BCW NN8 1EA creating 5 en- suites

FP/2015/5468/C 61 Overstone Road Two storey Approve 05/08/2016 Yes 29/09/2016 Yes Sywell extension plus conditions Northampton new double BCW Northamptonshire garage with NN6 0AW cellar and internal alterations

Page 1 of 1 Received appeals

Appeal Site Ref. No. Date Status Type of Received procedure

7 Fairfield Road WP/16/00114/FUL 15 Appeal in Householder Isham September progress Appeals Service Kettering 2016 Northamptonshire NN14 1HF

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 12 October 2016

Report of The Head of Planning and Local Development

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH (LAND ADJACENT TO 30 BURTON ROAD FINEDON) TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

1 Purpose of report

The purpose of the report is to consider the objections which have been made to the Borough Council of Wellingborough (Land adjacent to 30 Burton Road Finedon) Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and to decide whether or not the TPO should be confirmed.

2 Executive summary

A TPO was made on two horse chestnut trees on land adjacent to 30 Burton Road Finedon on 3 May 2016 due to their visual amenity value when plans to build on the adjacent site which would have an impact on the trees were being considered.

3 Appendices

Appendix 1 - Site plan Appendix 2 - Photograph

4 Proposed action:

4.1 The Committee is invited to RESOLVE that the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for two horse chestnut trees on land adjacent to 30 Burton Road Finedon should be confirmed.

5 Background

5.1 Attention was drawn to the potential threat to the two horse chestnut trees when a planning application to provide a building related to a car wash facility which extends right up to the boundary was being considered.

5.2 The applicant had not provided any evidence that the impact on the roots and the crown of these trees had been considered and a tree preservation order was made because they are of outstanding visual amenity value.

5.3 When the applicant was served with a copy of the TPO the response was slightly ambiguous. He said that the TPO was unfair and inconsiderate of his planning application because of the restrictions it imposed, but then said that if planning permission was granted he would not object to any supervision of the tree work. A letter of reply was sent asking him to clarify if he was maintaining an objection to the tree preservation order.

5.4 In the absence of a direct reply the landscape officer contacted the applicant’s architect to ask if he could provide some details to demonstrate that the foundations would be designed to minimise damage to the trees, but these have not been received. Minimal dig and raft foundations were discussed briefly.

6 Discussion

6.1 Because there is an element of uncertainty as to whether the applicant is maintaining an objection to the TPO it was considered to be prudent to put the case before the planning committee.

6.2 The two trees are very close to the boundary of the existing car wash facility the hardstanding of which covers the roots on that side with somewhat unsightly containers. The site on which they are growing contains five properties which are served by the access adjacent to the trees. The tree nearest to Burton Road is in the corner and therefore a little further from the car wash. There is a slight drop in level between the two sites. The trees are growing on a narrow bank with hardstanding on two sides. They do not have a good growing situation on the side away from the car wash to help compensate for any root loss which might occur on the application site.

6.3 If there was no TPO the owner of the car wash would have the common law right to cut back all the branches which overhang his boundary and the encroaching roots. This would unbalance and possibly destabilise the trees.

7 Legal powers

Section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

8 Financial and value for money implications

None.

9 Risk analysis

Nature of risk Consequences Likelihood of Control if realised occurrence measures That the trees There will be a High The TPO can be will be damaged loss of amenity confirmed. without any value means of control

10 Implications for resources

If the TPO is confirmed any applications for work to the tree in the future will have to be dealt with.

11 Implications for stronger and safer communities

None.

12 Implications for equalities

This has been considered and there do not appear to be any implications.

13 Author and contact officer

Felicity Webber, Landscape Officer.

14 Consultees

None.

15 Background papers

Borough Council of Wellingborough (Land adjacent to 30 Burton Road Finedon) Tree Preservation Order 2016.

WP/16/00115/FUL

Appeal Decision Inquiry opened on 7 June 2016 Site visit made on 2 August 2016 by David Prentis BA BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 12 September 2016

Appeal Ref: APP/H2835/W/15/3136236 Land North of Station Road, Irchester, Wellingborough  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 Acreage Strategic Land Limited against the decision of the Borough Council of Wellingborough.  The application Ref WP/14/00298/OUT, dated 30 April 2014, was refused by notice dated 5 August 2015.  The development proposed is up to 150 houses (including the option of a retail unit), with accesses off Station Road (including a roundabout at the eastern end of the site), public open space, play area, footpaths, new footbridges across stream, drainage attenuation and landscaping.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary matters

2. The Inquiry sat for 4 days on 7 – 9 June and 3 August 2016. I carried out unaccompanied visits to the site and surroundings before the Inquiry and on 2 August 2016. The site is readily visible from roads and public footpaths and none of the parties requested an accompanied site visit.

3. The application was submitted in outline with only access from the public highway to be determined at this stage. Although the definition of access includes access within the site, in this case the Council and the appellant agreed that access within the site would be determined at reserved matters and/or conditions stage. Appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would be reserved matters.

4. The appellant company’s name appears on the application form as ‘Acreage Strategic Limited’. At the Inquiry it was confirmed that this was an error on the application form and that the applicant was, and the appellant still is, ‘Acreage Strategic Land Limited’.

5. A unilateral undertaking (UU) under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act has been submitted. Due to printing problems the final version was not submitted until shortly after the Inquiry. However, the content of the UU had been finalised during the Inquiry and was discussed on day 4. The UU would provide for financial contributions to: (1) environmental improvements; (2) health facilities; (3) libraries; (4) pitch sports; (5) primary education;

Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

(6) secondary education; (7) public transport and (8) mitigation in relation to the Nene Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA). In addition, it makes provision for bus passes to be given to new residential occupiers. Northamptonshire County Council provided written evidence of the need for the contributions relating to libraries and education. The need for these contributions, and their compliance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL Regulations) was not a controversial matter. I see no reason to take a different view and accordingly have taken them into account in reaching my decision. I comment further below on the SPA contribution.

6. I have decided to dismiss the appeal for reasons which, on the evidence before me, would not be affected one way or the other by the obligations relating to environmental improvements, health facilities, pitch sports and public transport1. Consequently it is not necessary for me to comment further on the need for these contributions or their compliance with the CIL Regulations.

7. The development plan position moved on during the course of the Inquiry. At the time the application was determined, and at the opening of the Inquiry, the development plan included the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008 (CSS08) and the saved policies of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan (1999) and Alteration (2004) (BWLP). The Inspector’s report on the examination of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) was published during the adjournment and the JCS was adopted on 14 July 2016.

8. At the start of the Inquiry the appellant argued that the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, in the light of the Inspector’s report on the JCS, the appellant did not maintain this position. The agreed position at the close of the Inquiry was that the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply2.

9. After the close of the Inquiry a representation was received on behalf of the promoter of another site in Irchester. The existence of this proposal was a matter which was before the Inquiry. I did not consider that the representation raised any matters which required comments from other parties, nor did it alter any of the conclusions drawn from the evidence which was before the Inquiry.

Main issues

10. The main issues are:

 whether or not the proposal would contribute to a sustainable pattern of development,

 the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area,

 the effect of the proposal on heritage assets.

Reasons

Background and policy context

11. At the time of the Council’s decision the development plan included the CSS08 and the saved policies of the BWLP. Following the adoption of the JCS all

1 Including the provision of bus passes 2 SoCG3

2 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

policies of the CSS08 have been superseded, as have several of the saved BWLP policies. Of the policies cited in the reasons for refusal, only BWLP Policy G4 remains as part of the development plan. The corresponding policies of the recently adopted JCS are Policies 2 (historic environment); 3 (landscape character); 4 (biodiversity); 11 (network of urban and rural areas); 13 (rural exceptions)3; 29 (distribution of new homes) and 30 (housing mix and tenure).

12. The Council and the appellant disagreed as to whether BWLP Policy G4 should be regarded as out of date and/or otherwise inconsistent with the Framework. Policy G4 defines Irchester as a ‘restricted infill village’. It sets out some policy requirements for proposals which are within the village policy lines (VPL) which are defined on the proposals map. However, the appeal site is outside the VPL for Irchester. It seems to me that the relevance of Policy G4, at the time of the Council’s decision, was that it defined the VPL which differentiated the open countryside from the villages. The development management criteria applicable in the open countryside were set out in Policy G6. Policy G6 has been superseded by the JCS and no longer forms part of the development plan. In the absence of Policy G6, it appears to me that Policy G4 has no relevance to the appeal. Consequently, it is not necessary for me to comment further on whether it is out of date and/or inconsistent with the Framework.

13. Turning to the matter of housing land supply, the Council and the appellant disagreed as to the supply of housing sites. However, there was agreement that a credible assessment would be in the range 2,896 to 3,326. Neither party argued that the difference between these two figures is a significant factor in the context of this appeal. I agree, because on either figure the Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year supply as required by the Framework4. Moreover, the matter has very recently been considered in the context of the examination of the JCS. The Inspector’s report makes clear his finding that the Council has a 5 year supply5.

Whether or not the proposal would contribute to a sustainable pattern of development

14. In this section of my decision I consider the principle of the development proposed in the appeal scheme. Impacts on the character and appearance of the area and heritage assets are considered in subsequent sections.

15. JCS Policy 11 seeks to strengthen the network of settlements in the Borough. The Growth Towns are to be the focus for infrastructure investment and higher order facilities to support major housing and employment development. Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE) will provide strategic locations for housing and employment growth. The Market Towns are seen as providing a strong service role with growth in homes and jobs to support regeneration and local services. In the rural areas development is to be limited to that required to support a prosperous rural economy or to meet a locally arising need.

16. Policy 28 sets out the minimum housing requirement for each of the constituent local planning authority areas in order to meet the objectively assessed need for new housing in the North Northamptonshire Housing Market Area. Policy 29 addresses the distribution of new homes. It states that the

3 The appeal scheme is not promoted on the basis that it is a rural exceptions scheme so this policy is not relevant to the appeal 4 Based on a net annual requirement of 350 in accordance with the JCS – see table on page 6 of SoCG1 5 CD19, paragraph 149

3 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

provision will be made for new housing as set out in Table 5. Table 5 sets out the housing requirements for each of the local authority areas covered by the JCS for the period 2011 to 2031. In the Borough of Wellingborough, over 80% of the requirement is to be met at the Growth Town of Wellingborough with the balance to be met at four named villages and in the rest of the rural area. Irchester, which is one of the four villages, has a requirement of 150 dwellings.

17. Policy 11 also states that Local and Neighbourhood Plans will identify sites to meet the rural housing requirements. Other than small scale infilling or rural exceptions schemes, development above the Table 5 requirements will be resisted unless agreed through a Part 2 Local Plan or a Neighbourhood Plan6.

18. The JCS notes that the four named villages are significantly bigger than any other villages. It goes on to say that this scale is likely to give rise to a strategically significant level of locally arising housing need. Irchester has a population of 4,745 and is the second largest rural settlement in the Borough. Local services found within the village include a primary school, a library, a doctor’s surgery, a convenience store, a post office, leisure facilities and some local employment. Most of these facilities would be within a reasonable walking distance of the greater part of the appeal site.

19. I note that some local residents have concerns about the capacity of the primary school. However, the UU includes proportionate contributions to increase the capacity of the local primary school and a nearby secondary school. The UU would also provide a contribution to Irchester Library. There are bus services linking the village to employment opportunities and other facilities in nearby centres.

20. The appeal scheme proposes up to 150 houses, a number which matches the Table 5 requirement for Irchester. It is therefore consistent with the pattern of growth envisaged in the spatial strategy. About 22 dwellings have been delivered in Irchester since the start of the plan period7. The Inquiry was not informed whether these were small scale infilling and/or rural exceptions sites. In any event, no party suggested that the potential delivery of 172 dwellings, rather than 150, would be a matter of any consequence.

21. The Council argued that the Table 5 requirement should be delivered through Local or Neighbourhood Plans and that it would be harmful if all of the 150 were provided early in the plan period. This argument draws some support from the terms of Policy 29 which states that such plans should identify the phasing of individual housing sites in the rural areas to ensure that development opportunities are not exhausted early in the plan period. On the other hand, the JCS does not say that the delivery of the Table 5 requirements for the Rural Areas should wait until such time as either a Part 2 Local Plan or a Neighbourhood Plan is in place. On the contrary, it says that housing development above these requirements will be resisted unless agreed through such plans8.

22. Although the Council stated that it was not advancing a prematurity point, in essence it was doing just that by suggesting that the delivery of 150 houses at Irchester should await the production of either a Part 2 Local Plan or a

6 Similar wording is found within Policy 29 7 The figure was given by Mr Bradshaw in evidence in chief – it was not disputed 8 Similar words are found in Policies 11 and 29

4 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

Neighbourhood Plan. Planning Practice Guidance advises that prematurity is unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission unless (amongst other matters) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage. That is not the case here because the emerging Plan for the Borough of Wellingborough has yet to be submitted for examination. A Neighbourhood Plan is also in preparation but has yet to reach the local planning authority publicity period.

23. The JCS covers the period 2011 – 2031. If the appeal were allowed there would no doubt be a lead in time before the delivery of completed dwellings. Delivery might reasonably be expected to take place from around 2018 to around 2021. It is therefore unlikely that the development would be completed until well into the plan period. The Council also argued that allowing the appeal would have a harmful effect on the delivery of a nearby SUE at Wellingborough. However, this suggestion finds no support in the JCS which specifically promotes growth at Irchester.

24. I acknowledge that the focus of the JCS is the provision of new housing and employment opportunities at the Growth Towns and the SUEs. Growth within the rural areas is planned to be a small proportion of the housing requirement but is nevertheless one component of meeting the total requirement for new homes. The scale of growth proposed by the appeal scheme is consistent with the spatial strategy of the JCS. I conclude that the proposal would contribute to a sustainable pattern of development and would accord with JCS Policies 11 and 29.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area

25. The appeal site comprises three agricultural fields on the edge of the settlement of Irchester, described at the Inquiry as the west, middle and east fields, extending to around 8.0ha. All three are bounded by Station Road to the south, beyond which there is residential development. High Street, which represents the historic core of the village, runs a little to the west of the site. On this side the site is adjoined by detached buildings in large plots, to the rear of the High Street frontage. The west field slopes down to a stream which runs approximately south to north through the site, dividing the west field from the middle field. The middle field is bounded to the east by new housing at Biscay Close, by the east field and by further agricultural land. The east field wraps around the northern side of Biscay Close. It forms part of a much larger field parcel and the northern boundary of the appeal site is undefined at this point.

26. A public footpath (TL14) passes through all three fields on an approximately east/west alignment from Station Road (at the eastern end of the site) to Townwell Lane. Another footpath (TL18) runs from the same point on Station Road in a north westerly direction, linking to High Street towards the northern end of the settlement.

27. The site is within the Northamptonshire Vales National Character Area. Key characteristics of this area include distinctive river valleys such as that of the Nene, frequent small towns and large villages, imposing church spires and attractive stone buildings in older village centres. Local landscape character has been assessed in Northamptonshire County Council’s Current Landscape Character Assessment. The site is within Area 12 – Limestone Valley Slopes. The key characteristics of this area include gently undulating farmed slopes bordering the river Nene and its tributaries, expansive long distance views and

5 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

wide panoramas across the valley and villages which show a close relationship to landform in their morphology and orientation.

28. To my mind the appeal site is representative of these characteristics. A key feature of the site is its sense of openness and there are extensive panoramic views to the north across the Nene Valley. These views may be seen from Station Road and TL14. The relationship between landform and the morphology of the settlement is clear, with High Street running north/south on higher ground above the stream valley. The prominent Church of St Katherine, with its tall spire, is a characteristic landmark. The lower slopes are undeveloped allowing the fairly subtle variations in landform to be appreciated.

29. The site is not subject to any landscape designations. The Council and the appellant disagreed as to whether it should be regarded as a ‘valued landscape’ in the terms of the Framework9. I have not been referred to any definition of this term but the parties agreed that the criteria contained in Box 5.1 of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd edition (GLVIA3) are pertinent.

30. Looked at in that way, I consider that the site and its surroundings have a relatively high level of scenic value. This is due to the expansive views northwards and the pleasing prospect to the west of the historic village core set amongst trees on higher ground above the undeveloped valley slopes. Moreover, the landscape is in good condition. It is representative of the Limestone Valley Slopes character area of which it forms a part and is a good example of this landscape type. The public footpaths within and close to the site appear to be well used and representations from residents indicate that the site has recreational value to local people. The landscape also has value as part of the setting of the Church of St Katherine. This is a matter which I shall return to below, in relation to heritage assets, but is also relevant to the question of landscape and visual assessment.

31. The appellant draws attention to the proximity of built development and factors such as road traffic and railway noise which, it is suggested, means that the site cannot be regarded as wild or tranquil. I note that the site is on the edge of Irchester, with existing housing areas in view. The new houses at Biscay Close are quite prominent and, to some extent, detract from the rural feel of the site. Nevertheless, the overall experience of passing through the site on footpath TL14 is an experience of being in the countryside.

32. Similarly, the panoramic views northwards from Station Road are predominantly rural in character. Whilst moving trains are visible in such views, the railway line itself is not a prominent feature and its importance has, in my view, been overstated by the appellant. Notwithstanding the various urban influences identified, I consider that these are significantly outweighed by the scenic qualities of the locality. I conclude that the site should be regarded as forming part of a valued landscape which the Framework states ought to be protected.

33. The appeal scheme would result in a transformation of the landscape of the site because open fields would, in the main, be replaced with streets and houses. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) submitted with the application assessed this to be a moderate adverse effect on land use and

9 Paragraph 109

6 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

settlement. As I have found the baseline conditions to be such that the site forms part of a valued landscape, I would regard the landscape impact as greater.

34. The LVIA assesses the effect on footpath TL14 as beneficial, on the basis that the scheme would provide a safe, surfaced route with lighting. I do not share this assessment which, in my view, does not adequately recognise that the value of the path is that it provides a truly rural experience which is readily accessible to the residents of Irchester. The illustrative layout shows that the eastern section of the route would pass along the edge of a residential estate whilst the western section would pass directly through the new houses. This would be an urban or suburban experience rather than the countryside walk it is at present.

35. Turning to the visual impacts of the proposals, the Council and the appellant agreed at the Inquiry that the visual envelope of the scheme is relatively localised. Nevertheless, as noted above, there are currently extensive views out over predominantly open countryside from Station Road and footpath TL14. The LVIA assessed the visual effects on residents, footpath users and users of Station Road as substantial adverse in the short term, reducing to moderate adverse over time as the proposed planting becomes established.

36. Whilst I agree that the short term effects would be substantial, I do not agree that they would reduce much over time. This is because the adverse effect is on the open character of the landscape. New planting could, over time, soften the appearance of new dwellings but this would not mitigate the loss of the expansive views northwards from Station Road, nor the change in character of the views of the historic village core set amongst trees above the level of the undeveloped valley slopes.

37. Moreover, I saw that fine views of the village and church spire may be obtained from footpath TL18. Whilst those features would remain visible following the proposed development, the scale of the new housing would be a dominant element which would greatly diminish the character and quality of such views.

38. A further factor to consider is the new traffic roundabout which would be provided at the eastern access to the site. This would have an urbanising effect which would erode the rural character of the landscape.

39. The appellant argued that the Council’s reason for refusal did not identify harm to the landscape as a specific planning objection. Whilst that may be so, in applying the policies of the development plan to this appeal I am bound to reach my own view on this matter on the basis of the evidence before me and what I saw on site. The appellant also suggested that the Council’s landscape and heritage arguments were really one and the same, such that treating them separately would amount to double counting. I do not agree. Box 5.1 of GLVIA3 notes that features of historical interest can add to the value of the landscape as well as having value in their own right. Moreover, imposing church spires have been identified as a characteristic feature of the Northamptonshire Vales National Character Area.

40. It was also contended that harm to the landscape will be an inevitable consequence of the need for greenfield housing sites which is identified in the JCS. On that basis it was suggested that JCS Policy 3 should not be interpreted in an unduly restrictive way. Whilst I accept that most greenfield housing sites

7 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

will probably result in some degree of landscape harm, it does not follow that landscape harm in general should attract reduced weight. In my view effects on the landscape should be assessed in the context of Policy 3. The outcome of that assessment should then be balanced against any other relevant objectives of the JCS as part of an overall assessment of a proposal against the development plan as a whole.

41. In conclusion, I consider that the site forms part of a landscape which is to be regarded as a valued landscape in the terms of the Framework. Whilst I have taken account of the LVIA, I find that it understates both landscape and visual effects. To my mind the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. This is a matter to which significant weight should be attached in the overall balance of planning issues. The proposal would neither retain nor enhance the distinctive qualities of the landscape character areas it would affect, nor would it safeguard important views and vistas. It would therefore conflict with Policy 3 of the JCS.

The effect of the proposal on heritage assets

42. Various heritage assets have been addressed in the evidence. Based on that evidence, I consider that the impacts of relevance to this appeal are impacts on the setting of the Church of St Katherine and on buried archaeological remains within the site.

43. English Heritage (EH)10 noted that the Church is listed Grade I, placing it within the top 2% of listed buildings in the country. It is therefore a heritage asset which has a high level of significance. It dates mainly from the 13th and 14th centuries and is regarded as a fine example of a parish church in the Perpendicular Gothic style. EH commented that the tall tower and spire rise above the lower buildings of the village making a dramatic visual statement which is particularly striking when viewed across open countryside on entering the village from the east. I agree with that assessment.

44. The significance of the Church as a designated heritage asset resides in a range of factors. These include its historic and architectural interest and its communal role as a place of worship. The Framework defines setting as the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. In this case I consider that the setting of the Church makes an important contribution to its significance. The setting includes the green space of the churchyard, nearby buildings within the historic core of the village and the wider landscape from which it can be seen.

45. The Church is situated on a ridge. Although this is a subtle landscape feature, in this gently undulating terrain it is sufficient to elevate the Church above the general level of its surroundings. Together with the scale of the building, and its tall tower, this results in a landmark which has a commanding presence in the surrounding landscape. The appeal site is an integral part of that landscape. There are many views of the Church from Station Road and footpaths TL14 and TL18 in which the site is either directly within the line of sight to the Church or sufficiently close to it to form an important component of the view.

46. In assessing the impact of the appeal scheme, it is not sufficient simply to consider whether or not the spire could be seen from any given point. At

10 As it then was

8 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

present, not just the spire but the roofs, the upper parts of the Church and part of the east window are widely visible. Moreover, these features are seen in relation to the roofs of older buildings within the historic core of the settlement, interspersed with trees, on a ridge. The open agricultural land which forms the foreground to such views is an important component of the way in which the heritage asset is experienced.

47. The nature of the impact on the setting arising from the appeal scheme would vary from one viewpoint to another. In some cases, such as some views from Station Road and the western section of TL14, the views would be lost altogether or severely curtailed. In others, such as the views from the eastern part of TL14 and from TL18, the Church may still be visible but the surroundings in which it would be experienced would be transformed from a predominantly agricultural scene to a prospect dominated by new housing development in the foreground. My assessment is that the appeal scheme would have a strongly negative impact on the ability to experience the Church in its landscape setting. This would have a negative impact on the overall significance of the Church as a designated heritage asset.

48. The appellant contended that the views lost would represent only a small fraction of the many views of the upper levels of the Church which are possible from around Irchester. In fact, the views lost (or significantly impacted) would be from quite a broad sector, from approximately east to approximately south east. Whilst other views may be available, the appellant’s analysis misses the point that the affected views are particularly fine. Moreover, as noted above, they are not just glimpses of a spire. Rather, they are opportunities to experience the whole of the upper parts of the Church in relation to the morphology of the settlement, the land form and the intervening landscape.

49. It was also suggested that the vista of the Church from the east is not identified as an important view in the Irchester Character Appraisal Map, or any policy document. Whilst that may be so, the importance of views from this direction is highlighted in the comments from EH. In any event, mindful of my statutory duty11, I am bound to reach my own view on this matter in the light of all the evidence before me.

50. The appellant argued that there would be some enhancement to views of the Church. The enhancements would occur, it was suggested, because some existing hedges would be removed to make way for the new traffic roundabout and because views of Biscay Close would be screened by new housing. The visual impact of hedges is a factor which varies with the seasons and with management practices in any event. Moreover, as noted above, the traffic roundabout would be an urbanising feature. Whilst the Biscay Close housing is quite prominent, I see no reason to think that the quality of views towards the church would be materially improved by building a great deal more housing to the east, north and west of the existing cul-de-sac. I do not agree that the appeal scheme would result in any material enhancement of the setting of the Church. In my view the effect would be wholly negative.

51. In making an overall assessment it is important to note that other components of significance, such as the fabric and architecture of the Church, would be unaffected. The setting, as experienced from viewpoints in the churchyard or the High Street, would not be materially altered.

11 s66, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

9 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

52. Turning to the impact on buried archaeology, I note that trial trenching has been carried out within the appeal site. The illustrative masterplan indicates that part of the area of interest would be left as open space. In respect of the area shown to be developed, the Council is satisfied that the archaeological potential of the site could be adequately protected by a condition. I see no reason to disagree.

53. To conclude on the third main issue, I consider that the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the Church of St Katherine. It would conflict with Policy 2 of the JCS which seeks to protect key views of heritage assets, including the church spires along the Nene Valley. In the terms of the Framework, the harm to the significance of the Church would be ‘less than substantial’. Nevertheless, the Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Harm which is less than substantial is not to be equated with harm which is minor or unimportant. For the reasons given above, in this case the harm is a matter to which considerable importance should be attached. Paragraph 134 of the Framework requires such harm to be balanced against any public benefits of the scheme. I return to that balance in the conclusion to my decision.

Other matters

Social and economic benefits

54. The site is not subject to any obvious physical constraints and there is no reason to doubt that it would be able to make a meaningful contribution to the supply of housing. Notwithstanding the existence of a 5 year supply in Wellingborough, this is a benefit to which significant weight should be attached, bearing in mind the Framework’s emphasis on boosting the supply of housing.

55. There was evidence before the Inquiry regarding previous under-delivery. The Council and the appellant agreed that this is a planning authority where the Framework indicates that a 20% buffer should be added to the required supply. In the 5 years from April 2011 (the start of the plan period) there has been an undersupply of 493 dwellings against the JCS requirement of 350 dwellings per annum. Allowing for this undersupply, and the buffer, an average of 538 dwellings per year will be needed over the next 5 years. This would be a step change from previous delivery rates. The JCS Inspector concluded that the JCS (as a whole) proposes an ambitious but realistic scale of new housing12. Against this background, additional supply (above the identified 5 year supply) is to be welcomed.

56. The proposal would also deliver 40% of the units as affordable housing in accordance with JCS Policy 30. The Council argued that the affordable housing ought to be secured by a planning obligation, whereas the appellant argued that it could be secured by a planning condition. I note that the Secretary of State, in allowing an appeal relating to housing at Earls Barton, saw fit to impose a condition to cover the delivery of affordable housing13. I see no reason why the appeal scheme should be treated differently. I therefore accept that the proposed affordable units could be appropriately secured by a condition and that the scheme would accord with the JCS in this regard. Given

12 CD19, paragraph 37 13 APP/H2835/A/14/2221102, Condition 11

10 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

the pressing need for affordable housing, this would be an important social benefit.

57. The proposed houses would also bring economic benefits, including employment during the construction phase and additional spending in the local economy from new residents.

The retail unit

58. The description of development includes the option of a retail unit. There was very little evidence before the Inquiry about this aspect of the proposal, although some residents are concerned about potential noise and disturbance. I consider that the potential impacts on neighbouring residents could be addressed through detailed design measures at reserved matters stage and through the imposition of appropriate conditions. Consequently, I regard the retail unit as a factor which does not add materially to the case either for or against the appeal.

Traffic and highways considerations

59. Some local residents are concerned about traffic conditions in the locality which may be made worse by the scheme. The highway authority is satisfied that the proposed means of access (which is not a reserved matter) would comply with highway standards. The application was supported by a transport assessment which considered the impacts on other parts of the existing highway network and made recommendations for improvements at two junctions. This is a matter which could be covered by a condition. The scale of development proposed, and hence its likely traffic generation, is consistent with the JCS.

Flood risk and drainage

60. The Environment Agency has raised no objection on grounds of flood risk. Local residents described the problems which have arisen with the capacity of the existing foul drainage infrastructure which crosses the appeal site. If the site were developed, there would be an opportunity to upgrade this system. This is a matter which could be covered by a condition.

Habitats Regulations

61. The appeal site is about 1.5km from the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits which are subject to European and National nature conservation designations. They are designated as a Special Protection Area, a Ramsar site and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Potential impacts on the interest features of the designated areas may arise as a result of increased public access for recreation leading to disturbance of bird populations. No Habitats Regulations Assessment was provided by the appellant – presumably because none was requested at the time the application was submitted.

62. Natural England (NE) responded to the planning application in June 2014, commenting that it had no objection in relation to the designated sites on the basis that the number of additional visitors from the appeal scheme would be low in relation to current visitor numbers14. On that basis, NE advised that there was unlikely to be a significant effect on the European site.

14 LPA3

11 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

63. By a subsequent email dated 26 July 201615, NE advised that further work had been carried out on the in-combination effects of housing within 3km of the designated site. NE now considers that there would be an in-combination effect arising from the appeal scheme together with other plans and projects. Accordingly, NE considers that mitigation would be required and suggests a financial contribution of £269.44 per dwelling. Whilst the UU includes provision for the payment of this sum, the appellant does not consider that the obligation accords with the CIL Regulations. I share that view because there was no detail of the mitigation proposals before the Inquiry. Not only does this fail to meet the CIL Regulations, it does not enable me to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation envisaged.

64. Had I been minded to allow the appeal, the information before me would not have been sufficient to enable me to discharge my duties under the Habitats Regulations16. I do not regard this as a matter weighing against the appeal because, had I been minded to allow it, I could have sought further information. However, as I have decided that the appeal should be dismissed for other reasons it has not been necessary for me to do that.

Conclusions

65. The proposal would contribute to a sustainable pattern of development and would accord with JCS Policies 11 and 29. It would contribute to meeting the housing requirements contained in JCS Table 5 and would comply with Policy 30 in relation to the provision of affordable housing.

66. On the other hand, it would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with JCS Policy 3. Moreover, it would fail to preserve the setting of the Church of St Katherine and would conflict with JCS Policy 2. In my view these conflicts would be of such significance and weight that the scheme should be regarded as being contrary to the development plan as a whole.

67. In the terms of the Framework, the harm to the significance of the Church would be less than substantial. Nevertheless, I consider that the harm is a matter to which considerable importance should be attached. Paragraph 134 of the Framework requires such harm to be balanced against any public benefits of the scheme. In my view the social and economic benefits of the scheme are insufficient to outweigh the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. The proposal would not therefore accord with the Framework in relation to the historic environment.

68. Turning to the matter of sustainable development, as defined in paragraph 6 of the Framework, I take account of the social and economic benefits resulting from the delivery of housing. However, these would be insufficient to outweigh the environmental harm in relation to the landscape and the historic environment. It follows that the proposal would not represent sustainable development.

69. My overall assessment is that the proposal would conflict with the JCS. I have not identified any other considerations which indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

15 APP3 16 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

12 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

70. For the above reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.

David Prentis

Inspector

13 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Simon Aley Solicitor, District Law Legal Services He called Elizabeth Mee Heritage Consultant BA(Hons) MA Joanna Ede Technical Director, The Landscape Partnership BA(Hons) DipLD MA(Landscape) CMLI Troy Hayes Managing Director, Troy Planning and Design BSc MSc MRTPI AICP Maxine Simmons Principal Planning and Building Control Manager BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Giles Cannock of Counsel, instructed by MHB Planning Ltd He called Andrew Brown Director, Woodhall Planning and Conservation BA BArch MSc MRTPI IHBC Suzanne Clampin Associate, rg+p Ltd BSc(Hons) DipLA CMLI John Turner Turner Morum Chartered Surveyors BSc(Hons) MRICS Martin Bagshaw Director, MHB Planning Ltd BA(Hons) BTp MRTPI

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Pamela Armstrong Chair, Irchester Parish Council Cllr Jon-Paul Carr Member of Wellingborough Borough Council, Irchester Parish Councillor, Chair of Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Tony Skipper Local Resident and member of Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group R Hunt Local resident

Save Irchester Village David Mole Tony Lyel Janice Arnold Ann Edgecombe Simon Davies

14 Appeal Decision APP/H2835/W/15/3136236

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY

Documents submitted by the Council LPA1 Opening submissions LPA2 Map showing locations of Irchester planning appeals LPA3 Bundle of documents relating to Upper Nene Gravel Pits Special Protection Area LPA4 Letter of 27 July 2016 enclosing copy of adoption statement for the JCS LPA5 Email from NHS Hertfordshire dated 3 July 2014 LPA6 Closing submissions LPA7 MacTaggart and Mickel Homes Ltd v SSCLG and South Somerset District Council [2016]

Documents submitted by the appellant APP1 Opening submissions APP2 Historic Landscape Character Assessment APP3 Email from Natural England dated 26 July 2016 APP4 Draft condition – highway mitigation measures APP5 Plan referred to in draft condition - archaeology APP6 Closing submissions APP7 Unilateral Undertaking dated 1 August 2016

Agreed documents SoCG1 Statement of Common Ground on Housing Land Requirement and Supply SoCG2 Statement of Common Ground (General) SoCG3 Exchange of emails and additional information to the Statement of Common Ground

Additional Core Documents CD15 Extracts from emerging JCS (February 2016) CD16 St Modwen Developments Ltd v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 968 CD17 Daventry District Council v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 3459 CD18 Adopted JCS (July 2016) CD19 Inspector’s report on examination of the JCS CD20 List of extant policies as of 14 July 2016

Other statements Statement of Janice Arnold Statement of Tony Lyel Statement of Ann Edgecombe Statement of David Mole Statement of Pamela Armstrong Statement of Cllr Jon-Paul Carr Statement of Mrs Hunt Statement of Simon Davies