Planning Committee Wednesday 3 April 2013 at 7.00 Pm

Planning Committee Wednesday 3 April 2013 at 7.00 pm

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

1. Apologies for absence. Ι 2. Declarations of Interest (completed forms to be handed to the committee clerk). Ι 3. Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 27/02/2013. Ι 4. Applications for planning permission, listed building consent, building regulation approval and appeal information. Ι 5. Any other items that the Chairman decides are urgent.

Ι Enclosed

Site Viewing Group for Tuesday 2 April 2013 will be Councillors Ward, Griffiths, Waters, Patel, Scarborough

John T Campbell Chief Executive

Date issued: 26 March 2013.

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

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

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

Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire NN8 1BP Tel: 01933 229777 Fax: 01933 231684 www.wellingborough.gov.uk BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM 2 PLANNING COMMITTEE 3RD APRIL 2013

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

------

Appendix A

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

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

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

What matters are being discussed at the meeting?

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

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

Does the matter:

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

Declaration of interests: page 5 of 5 Agenda item 4

Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Committee Wednesday 3rd April 2013 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

INDEX Page No. SITE VIEWING GROUP

WP/2012/0542/FM - Land at 14-16 Farm Road, Wellingborough. 1 WP/2013/0039/F - 4 West Street, Ecton. 8 WP/2013/0085/F - Land adjacent 23 Regent Street, Finedon. 14 WP/2013/0102/FCOU 18 White Way, Earls Barton. 19

DISTRICT

WP/2012/0445/FM - High Street, Wellingborough. 24 WP/2012/0452/CA - High Street, Wellingborough. 62 WP/2012/0533/RMM - Melton Works, Brook Street East, Wellingborough. 64 WP/2012/0562/F - 106 Gold Street, Wellingborough. 85 WP/2013/0007/F - 86 Orlingbury Road, Isham. 117 WP/2013/0016/F - Land adjacent to 420 Day Nursery, Kettering Road, 124 Orlingbury. WP/2013/0018/FCOU - Unit A, 22 24 Denington Road, Wellingborough. 131 WP/2013/0033/F - 102 Orlingbury Road, Isham. 137 WP/2013/0041/F - 53a Westminster Road, Wellingborough. 143 WP/2013/0057/F - 47 Overstone Road, Sywell. 149 WP/2013/0080/C - Victoria Primary School, Finedon Road, 155 Wellingborough. WP/2013/0081/FM - Meadowlands, Hardwick Road, Little Harrowden. 158 WP/2013/0105/F - 21a Allen Road, Finedon. 163 WP/2013/0132/C - 3 4 (Larner Pallets), Bevan Close, Wellingborough. 167

OTHER BOROUGH

WP/2013/00071/OB - Land North of Broughton Road, Pytchley. 173

FOR INFORMATION

WP/2012/0495/C - Sewage Works, A45 Nene Valley Way, Ecton. 174 WP/2012/0556/C - Ruskin Infant School, Ruskin Avenue, Wellingborough. 181 WP/2012/0569/C - Wollaston School, 100 Irchester Road, Wollaston. 188

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

SITE VIEWING (Date of Visit Tuesday 2nd April 2013 at 10.15 a.m.)

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0542/FM

PROPOSAL: Proposed new place of worship with car parking

LOCATION: Land at 14-16 Farm Road, Wellingborough. NN8 4UF

APPLICANT: Mr Chris Gledhill, Gleneagles C of E Church.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determinations as required by the Council’s scheme of delegation.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above. The applicant has identified that the floor area of the scheme is 1128m2.

The plans depict a range of accommodation including a 332 seat auditorium. The off road parking provision is illustrated as 27 spaces in total together with a cycle parking facility.

The application site is a vacant area of land at the end of a cul-de-sac which comprises of a parade of retail and take-away units together with a children’s day nursery and a public house/restaurant.

The site appears to have received an amount of spoil which it is thought was deposited when Farm Road was originally developed. Over time, the site has grassed over but is beginning to become overgrown with immature self set trees and brambles.

Despite the mounded ground level of the site, it is clear that set at a noticeably lower level than the Council owned land which bounds the rear and the highway land to the western side.

In-between the site and the nearest unit in the parade is an estate road which appears to be used as an informal pedestrian access. There is a clear pedestrian desire line up the muddy bank through to the Council and the nearby footpath.

Beyond the open grassed area and footpath is the nearest residential properties in Varley Close.

A statement concerning the design rational of the proposed church was received on 13 March and a revised Transport Plan was received on 14 March 2013.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: The adjacent shop units, public house and access road were granted permission under WP/2001/0268.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY: WP/2012/0542/FM

NORTHEN WAY

Und )) )

Path and Cycle Track

Day Nursery

22 to 24

ED & Ward Bdy 'Ock 'n' Dough (PH)

FARM ROAD

HARROWDEN ROAD

6 to 8 to 6 12

VARLEY CLOSE

4 8

7 3

2 1

Def

6 17

Foot Bridge 15 1

10 19 ) )

84.0m

Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/2012/0542/FM - Land at 14-16 Farm Road, Wellingborough 2

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): Policy 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) Policy 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) 15 (Sustainable housing provision) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: L2 (New small scale built community facilities) Supplementary Planning Document; Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework; Development and Implantation Principles, Sustainable Design, Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime, Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority – reply dated 11 February 2013 -

“The application demonstrates an in-balance between the seating capacity of the proposed building and the parking provision proposed and, although a brief assessment accompanies the application, it is insufficient to enable the local highway authority to make a view on the proposal. It is appropriate for the application to be supported by a suitable Transport Assessment/Statement assessing the impact of the proposed development on the local highway network. The assessment should include a review of the adequacy of parking facilities and should assess the site junction and the junction between Farm Road and Northen Way.

The reference to a Green travel Plan is noted and it is suggested that this should be based upon the attached template and submitted in support of the proposals.

In its present form and without alteration the proposals are unacceptable to this authority on highway safety and capacity grounds and additional supporting information is awaited.”

2. Northamptonshire County Council, Assistant Archaeological Advisor – comments that there have been recorded archaeological finds nearby and recognises that the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on any archaeological deposits which may be present on the site. The consultation response goes on to counsel that this does not represent an over-ridding constraint on the development provided adequate provision is made for the investigation and recording of any remains that may be affected and recommends the imposition of a pre commencement archaeological condition.

3. Borough Council of Wellingborough Design and Conservation Officer – opines that the design of the building is fundamentally flawed and offers detailed criticism. The Design and Conservation Officer recommends that the proposal be refused because he believes it is contrary to provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Design Advisor (NNJPUDA) – offers detailed design advice, but in summary the NNJPUDA states:

The proposal certainly represents a design that is different to the surrounding buildings, whilst design is generally subjective, it is considered that the Design and Access Statement should go into more detail about the evolution of the building, designs that were considered but not used and the reasons for the location of the specific uses within the building and the car park. More thought should be given to its position in the street scene.

5. Borough Council of Wellingborough Landscape Officer –

“This is the last of the sites to be developed and spoil was deposited on it which is undergoing a process of natural regeneration.

The levels on the site are a potential problem as the building is very close to the site boundary with the highway land and that which is owned by Wellingborough Council. Excavation adjacent to the highway boundary needs to be handled carefully as there was slippage of the bank after the cycle track adjacent to Harrowden Road had been constructed. The highway boundary hedge does not appear to have been fully considered and could potentially be destabilised at the two main pinch points. There is a steep bank on the corner of the access off the cycle track and the land to the front of the building which will require landscape treatment. The level grass area in front of the church could be difficult to achieve.

It would be prudent to require protective fencing around the trees on the slope above the site. This may double up as the boundary fence.

The desire line down the steep muddy bank from the bridge across Harrowden Road to the access to the service yard is already much used. This is partly owned by the original developer and partly by the Borough Council. It would be good to either close the gap or provide informal steps here.

There will need to be a landscape condition including details of ground retention and enclosure.”

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

7. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Protection – no comment received.

8. Borough Council of Wellingborough Property and Facilities – has indicated that there is no Council owned public car park near to the application site.

9. Northamptonshire Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor – has no objection to the application but makes a recommendation regarding the imposition of a crime prevention condition and a number of other recommendations regarding the security of the development which can be passed onto the applicant by way of an informative attached to any planning permission.

10. Northants NHS – has no requirements for section 106 contributions.

10. Councillor Patel – will retain decision until the Committee meeting.

11. Neighbours/third parties – support for the development has been lodged and the writers offer the following reasons for being in favour of the proposal:

• at the moment there is no purpose built church in the Gleneagles area • the existing building used by the church is full to capacity and with the planned 3000 house expansion of the northern side of Wellingborough there is a need to provide a community resource which will also serve physical, social and spiritual needs • no local facilities to hold weddings, baptisms or funerals • range of Christian activities will take place in the church. In addition, the church building will be a focal point and an asset to the whole community and could enable facilities for external services for example: youth drop in sessions, blood 4

transfusion service, debt advice and support services for vulnerable groups, café facilities, sport, keep fit, dance, WI and facilities for pre school children • church will promote social cohesion, be a calming influence on the area, boost morale of the congregation and would be able to accommodate more families • new church building will be capable of being used seven days a week and will provide much needed employment • church has a lot of good ideas and is open and accessible to all • church has support of local businesses and will probably attract passing trade • the building is badly needed and is with parking • provision of a church is in line with central Government’s Big Society directive and would serve the community when local government services are being restricted or cut due to current budget restraints • the Council has set a restrictive covenant on the site restricting it to a community use • account of the development of the church together with its aims and aspirations • the design of the church would be the envy of many communities being practical, flexible and accessible

ASSESSMENT: Material planning considerations:

• Compliance with policy • Effect on the character and appearance of the area • Effect on neighbours’ amenities • Crime and disorder • Highway safety • Biodiversity

Compliance with policy Policy 1 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that in the rural areas development will take place on sites within village boundaries, subject to criteria to be set out in development plan documents. The application site is clearly located within the village and other more specific areas of policy are examined below.

Policy L2 of the local plan states that proposals for small-scale built community facilities will be granted planning permission in the town where the facilities are designed primarily to meet that the needs of residents in the immediate locality. With regards to this policy it is perhaps the case that the proposed development is not small scale; however, it is thought that it is of a size which is appropriate for its intended use. It is considered that the proposed development, which is located within the heart of the community it is intended to serve, is in general accord with the thrust of the local plan community facility policy.

The National Planning Policy Framework with regards to the vitality of town centres includes culture and community development in its definition of a main town centres use. However, the NPPF goes on to say that the default threshold for an impact assessment to be submitted on the possible effect on the vitality of the town centre is 2,500m2.

The National Planning Policy Framework goes on to say at paragraph 70 says that planning decisions should plan positively for the provision of and use of shared space and places of worship to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments.

It is considered that the principle of the development taking place on the site is acceptable. More detailed aspects of the proposal are examined below. 5

Effect on the character and appearance of the area The Council is under a statutory duty to have particular regard to the responsibility of achieving good design and North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (h) says that new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings

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

The design of the scheme has attracted criticism and some adverse comment from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer and the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Design Advisor. The applicant has, however, supplied a statement which sets out the rational behind the design of the building and an explanation which details the form of the building in relation to its intended function and the need for a modest place of worship.

It is accepted that the design of the building will not perhaps be iconic, but it is anticipated that the appearance of the proposed church will be acceptable. It is suggested that when constructed the building will be a pleasing feature in Farm Close and will enhance the appearance and aspect of this entrance into the town.

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

It is considered that the proposed development is sufficiently far enough away from the nearest residential occupiers so that its use will be unlikely to cause any significant harm to their existing standard of amenity. In addition, the development would also be somewhat sunk into the ground which would also mitigate any adverse effects.

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

The applicant has supplied a Travel Plan which details the measures the Church will adopt in an attempt to reduce the reliance of the congregation on the car.

At the time of writing the report the comments of the Northamptonshire County Council Highway were not available but will be reported to the Committee by way of the late letters list.

Crime and disorder The comments of the Police can be included on the decision notice by way of a condition and an informative.

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

Conclusion 6

Subject to no adverse comments from the Highway Authority, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval with conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

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

2. Before development commences representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials. 3. Before the development commences a landscape scheme shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 4. Before development commences details of the intended porous hard surfacing or measures to prevent surface water from the car park draining onto the adjoining roads shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out in accord with the approved details. 5. The building shall not be occupied until the illustrated car parking and cycle spaces have been constructed and these areas shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles and storage of cycles. 6. Before development commences a scheme for boundary fencing/walling shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the church is first brought into use. 7. Before development commences further details regarding the existing and proposed ground levels of the site and the finished floor levels of the building shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out in accord with the approved details. 8. No development shall take place within the application site until the applicant. or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of visual amenity. 3. In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 4. In the intrests of sustainabe urban drainage. 5. In the interests of safety and convenience of users of the adjoining roads.. 6. In the interests of visual amenity and security. 7. In the interests of regulating the effects of the development 8. To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 7

INFORMATIVES 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): Policy 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) Policy 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) 15 (Sustainable housing provision) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: L2 (New small scale built community facilities) 2. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and 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. 3. The applicant is informed of the principles of Secured by Design scheme, specifically: - Front and rear door are certificated to PAS23/PAS24 with laminated glazing minimum 6.4mm thick and access control - Boundary treatments to rear should be at least 1.8m in height with lockable gates located as near to the front building line as possible - Sheds should be secured to a concrete foundation with a lockable door meeting either BS 3621:20007 standard or secured using a Sold Secure Silver standard padlock, hasp and staple coach bolted through the shed structure. - Sheds should also include cycle locking ground anchor certificated to the Sold Secure Silver standard. 4. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: 2130/E/01, 2130/E/02, 2130/E/03, 2130/E/04, 2130/E/05 Rev A, 2130/E/06 Rev A, 2130/E/07 and 2130/E/10 9 January 2013 8

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

SITE VIEWING (Date of Visit Tuesday 2nd April 2013 at 11.50 a.m.)

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0039/F

PROPOSAL: Construction of five detached properties each with two allocated parking spaces and timber built single car port with an integral shed and log store.

LOCATION: 4 West Street, Ecton, Northampton. NN6 0QF

APPLICANT: Mr Robert Nash.

This planning application comes before the planning committee for determination due to the level of third party objection.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: This site is located within the village policy line of Ecton close to the junction of West Street with Northampton Road and High Street. The boundary of the Ecton Conservation Area follows the eastern side of West Street so whilst the site is in close proximity to the conservation area it is outside it.

To the north lies the village school, existing residential development is located to the east and south with open countryside to the west. The site currently accommodates a single detached dwelling and out buildings which are of little architectural merit.

The application was originally for the erection of 5 x 4 bed detached dwellings but following local objection that the development constituted the over development of the site and concerns over parking the Applicant has reduced the number of dwellings to 4 x 4 bed.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WR/1950/0015 House - approved with conditions. WR/1962/0090 Erection of imp. shed and workshop - approved with conditions.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 General Sustainable Development Principles Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4 Villages Supplementary Planning Guidance: IV: Planning Out Crime SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Borough Council of Wellingborough, Design and Conservation Officer -

• Initial feeling that this is gross over-development • The relationship with no8 is clearly unsatisfactory, the building line is breached WP/2013/0039/F CHURCH VIEW

The WELLINGBOROUGH ROAD 18 World's End (Hotel) 1

93.6m GP

NORTHAMPTON ROAD Playground

A 7

5 1 17

Ecton Village War 5 Primary School Meml 2

FRANKLIN'S CLOSE 10 2 94.2m

PARSONS CL

1 1

2 2 Pump House

2 4 4 1

3 LB 7

5 SUNNYSIDE

12 6

Blacksmiths Yard 5

1 16 The 1 Grange

17 16a

18 91.7m

23 24

1a 25

WEST STREET

31 3

35 47 32

11a

34 7 40 15 49

11 9

28 21

19 44

23 PH 51

Rectory Farmhouse Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/2013/0039/F - 4 West Street, Ecton 9

• Units 1 and 2 create a very poor street scene with gables onto the road, front doors on the returns and inadequate ‘rear’ garden privacy • Detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area only magnifies the problem • Scheme is quite unacceptable.

2. 4 third party letter of objection –

• The proposal does not appear to provide any parking for visitors • There are already parking problems in that part of the village, especially at drop- off and collection times at the school • Parking on the junction between West Street and High Street already causes congestion and access by emergency vehicles is sometimes not possible. • Suggest that a shared parking area is provided on the site. • Purchased property in a nice quiet village, one of the key aspects was the privacy of the rear garden, very concerned that the new proposed buildings will overlook both the house and garden. • If houses built beforehand then may never have purchased property • Concerns expressed about other developments taking place in village. • Plans could be more sensitive to current residents eg. Fencing around the properties and plant trees around the gardens to ensure privacy for all • Loss of peace, quiet and privacy • The current site is a single dwelling, a change to 5 detached properties would seem to be a massive increase in the property density in this location. • Objector has pre school aged children and is very concerned about firstly construction traffic and then subsequently increased residential traffic impacting on children’s safety • West Street is a quiet road leading to a dead end, five new homes will significantly increase the traffic on the road

3. Northamptonshire County Council, Highways –

• Proforma response • As it serves 5 dwellings it is appropriate for the access way into the site to be laid out as a shared private drive • Drive width, and visibility requirements are given for this development • The visibility indicated on the application plan does not appear to comply with the full requirements of the local highway authority, the applicant is urged to review the proposals in this respect • Existing redundant points of access to be stopped up • Vehicular crossing to be constructed to the specification of NCC • Drive to be hard surfaced for a minimum of 5m to the rear of the highway boundary with positive drainage installed to ensure that surface water from the driveway does not discharge onto the highway. • Applicant advised to discuss refuse collection with the appropriate Officer • To ensure that highway safety is maintained it is recommended that the highway standards set out in the NCC document ‘Highway Authority Standing Advice’ be followed.

4. Councillor Bass –

• Objects 10

• The quantity of new dwellings on this site makes it look over developed. • There is no space for any visitor parking and accordingly this would exacerbate an already serious parking problem in the West Street • Further notes the comment made by Highways and without significantly affecting the privacy of plot 1 and 2 with this density, I am not sure the problem can be resolved.

5. Ecton Parish Council –

• Resolved to object to the application • The proposed development would result in an over development and massing on a small site • Express concerns on the effect and impact the proposals would have on adjoining properties • Due to the limited parking for any additional vehicles per house and for visitors would result in vehicles parking on West Street which already has major traffic parking problems from residents, Primary School and visitors • Any additional parking could result in West Street becoming non-negotiable and serious problems being encountered for ambulances, fire engines, refuse lorries etc. • The manoeuvrability area for vehicles within the site is very limited and will result in conflict if vehicles park in front of their properties • The proposal is also contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3 of June 2010 which relates to over development of neighbourhoods and garden grabbing • Highway Authority have stated the access to the site does not comply with highway regulations in so far as vehicles must enter and leave the site in a forward direction. Therefore vehicles leaving the site could reverse onto West Street which is extremely dangerous particularly bearing in mind the primary school is adjacent to the site. • Concerns expressed whether the addition of 5 properties would add to the existing problems with the sewerage system • For the above reasons the application should be refused.

6. Northamptonshire County Council, Archaeology – the site is likely to have been truncated by the existing development. The potential for archaeological remains in the area is low and therefore I have no objection to the proposal on archaeological grounds.

7. Borough of Wellingborough Council, Environmental Protection – the RPS Environscreen Phase 1 ERA report is acceptable. No further information is required.

ASSESSMENT: Main Issues and Material Planning Considerations:

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

Compliance with Policy Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan states that development will be granted planning permission within the restricted infill villages such as Ecton providing the site is within the village policy lines and the development does not individually or cumulatively with 11 other proposals have an adverse impact on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs.

The site is located within the village policy line and the amended proposals are not considered to have an adverse impact on the size, form, character or setting of the village and its environs.

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

The design and layout of the amended proposals are considered more sympathetic to the character of their surroundings and will not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours.

The amended proposals are considered to be in conformity with policy.

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

Concerns have been expressed by occupants of Franklins Close about the potential for over looking and loss of privacy to their rear gardens arising from the proposed development. However, given the orientation of the existing and proposed dwellings it is considered this potential will not materialise. The Applicant is amenable to providing boundary fencing and additional planting along the shared boundary with properties located in Franklins Close.

The impact of the amended proposals on the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties is considered acceptable and in conformity with Policy 13 (l) of the NNCSS.

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

In its original form the development consisted of a central access drive with two detached properties (plots 1 and 2) facing onto it and three properties across the rear width of the site. This meant that 2 x two storey gable ends faced onto West Street. Although they were in part screened by the existing boundary wall and tree planting the Design and Conservation Officer felt this created a very poor street scene. In reducing the number of plots the Applicant has also taken the opportunity to re-orientate plot 1 so that its front elevation faces onto West Street. It has not been possible to re-orientate plot 2 and retain adequate private garden space due to the depth of the plot but attempts have been made to create visual interest through the detailing of the gable.

The Applicant has also removed the proposed timber built open car ports and storage sheds/log store in favour of more traditional brick and slate garages.

A common thread running through the objections received are the parking problems experienced in West Street particularly during school drop off and pick times. Local residents feel that the proposed development does not incorporate sufficient visitor parking. 12

The proposed development meets highway standards in terms of the number and provision of parking spaces and is not considered to exacerbate the parking problem on West Street. No objections have been raised by the Highway Authority.

The amended proposals are considered to be in conformity with Policy 13 (h) of the NNCSS.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. 3. No development shall take place until measures for the protection of trees in accordance with BS5837 have been implemented. These measures shall remain in place until the completion of the development. No vehicles, plant or materials shall be driven or placed within the areas providing tree protection 4. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 5. A scheme for screen fencing/walling shall be agreed with the local planning authority before the start of construction. The agreed scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the houses are occupied. 6. Details of all hard surfaced materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before development commences. The approved materials shall not be removed or replaced without the prior written consent of the local planning authority 7. The proposed access shall have a width of not less than 4.5m for the first 10m to the rear of the highway boundary. Pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2.4m x 2.4m (2m x 2m where turning facilities are provided within the site) above a height of 0.6m and vehicle to vehicle visibility of 2m x 43m must be provided in both directions at the point of access onto West Street. 8. The vehicular crossing must be constructed generally in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and provided with a demarcation at the edge of the carriageway to West Street comprising granite setts or similar with an up-stand of 25mm 9. The existing redundant points of access into the site must be stoppped up and all highway surfaces reinstated in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980 13

10. To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway the driveway must be paved with a hard bound surface for a minimum of 5m from the rear of the highway boundary. A positive means of drainage must be installed to ensure that surface water from the driveway does not discharge onto the highway. 11. The areas shown for parking and turning on the approved plans shall be laid out and surfaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the premises are occupied and shall be permanently set aside and reserved for the purpose.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. To protect the trees which are to be retained on the site in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 4. In the interests of visual amenity. 5. In the interests of amenity and privacy. 6. In the interest of amenity and to ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site. 7. In the interests of highway safety. 8. In the interests of highway safety. 9. In the interests of highway safety. 10. In the interests of highway safety. 11. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway/s.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: Policy 13 of the North Northmptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the Council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the approved development is consistent with the relevant provisions in The Framework. 3. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: SK - 466 - 001 C, SK - 466 - 002 B, SK - 466 - 003 B 20th March 2013 4. To ensure that highway safety is maintained it is recommended that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the Northamptonshire County Council document 'Highway Authority Standing Advice' be followed. 5. The Applicant is advised to discuss refuse collection aspects of the proposed development with the appropriate officer at NORSE.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

SITE VIEWING (Date of Visit Tuesday 2nd April 2013 at 10.50 a.m.)

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0085/F

PROPOSAL: Proposed detached single dwelling and garage (single storey).

LOCATION: Land adjacent 23 Regent Street, Finedon, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Seckloe Developments Limited.

A site viewing of this application has been requested by Finedon Parish Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: This site is located in close proximity to but outside the Finedon Conservation Area. It is understood that the site previously accommodated a Public House which was demolished some years ago and it now forms part of the residential curtilage of 23 Regent Street.

There are significant changes in level in the immediate area. The front part of the application site has been levelled to provide a parking/turning area whilst the rear of the site rises by around 4m in height over its depth from the site entrance to the rear boundary.

Access to the site is via a tiered kerb, the highway being lower than the site whilst the adjacent bungalow no. 25 and its gardens are significantly higher than the application site. Privacy between the application site and no. 25 is maintained by an existing stone boundary wall which also forms part of the cartilage to no. 27 a Grade II Listed building. It is imperative this wall be retained in its entirety for privacy and aesthetic reasons.

Planning permission was granted in January 2010 for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling and double garage on the site (see WP/2009/0412). The applicant now proposes to erect a two storey bungalow with garage.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2009/0412 Proposed two storey dwelling and double garage - approved with conditions WU/1970/0228 Residential development - approved with conditions.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 1 to 12 to 1 7 WP/2013/0085/FSt Mary's Ct 5a 7 9 4 1 3

6 1

20 4 12 1a

18 AFFLECK

2 16 11

22 19

Church

21 26 27

STREET 44 33

37 30 31

32 35 15 Health CHURCH 39

40 ALEXANDER CL Centre 45

22a 47 to 53 to 47

1 10

18 1

54 53 58

22 5

56 STOCKS HILL 60 Thingdon 24

El Sub Sta

50 7 13 A 52 STREET 66.4m 38

LB 40 17 19

REGENT 21

67.4m

36 Brookside 25 18

WHITSUNDALE CLOSE

27 32 to 34 to 32 10 21 Bell Inn Tel Ex

23 26

25 22 20 4 28 15 28

IVY LANE

31 9 39

74.7m 11

43 22

Grove Cottage BELL HILL 7 24

IVY IVY LANE 29

3 21 1 West Mede A 128

4 6

Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/2013/0085/F - Land Adjacent 23 Regent Street, Finedon 15

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4 (Development within the Limited Development and Restricted Infill Villages) Supplementary Planning Guidance: IV: Planning Out Crime

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Borough Council of Wellingborough, Design and Conservation Officer -

• Solar panels should be considered for the small rear gable, in the interests of environmental sustainability • An increase in the roof pitch to 35 degrees would improve the buildings architectural character in the historic village setting close to the Conservation Area • Re-building of the sloping access in permeable paving should be considered in the interests of environmental sustainability • Please add an extra condition to the consent requiring details of the eaves and verges to be agreed

2. Finedon Parish Council -

• Would like to request a site viewing of the land as they are concerned about the wall separating 23 and 25 Regent Street

3. Two third party representations -

• Feel the revised plan is an improvement on the previous one • Only concern is ensuring proper support for the dividing stone wall between the new development and numbers 25 and 27 Regent Street, no 27 being a Grade II Listed property • See the building has been set back from the original building line and it is set substantially lower by altering the levels • Proposal not suitable because of differing levels between the application site and no. 25 • Lowering of existing stone wall not acceptable

ASSESSMENT: Main Issues and Material Planning Considerations:

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

Compliance with Policy Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan states that planning permission will be granted within the ‘Limited Development Villages’ for development providing it is 16

within the Village Policy Lines and will not, either individually or cumulatively with other proposals have an adverse impact on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs.

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

The site is located within the confines of the village of Finedon, its development in not considered to adversely affect the character or setting of the village and as such is considered to be in conformity with Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and NPPF.

It is considered that the replacement of a two storey dwelling with a single storey bungalow will reduce the impact of the proposed development upon neighbouring properties.

Of concern to neighbours is the intention to reduce the ground level within the site by approximately 1.8m and the impact this could have upon the stone boundary wall situated along the boundary with no. 25 and 27 Regent Street. It is considered appropriate to include a planning condition to protect the wall and in turn the privacy and amenity of neighbours.

The site is located within an area where buildings have varied architectural styles. The adjacent property no. 25 is a stone built dormer bungalow constructed in an elevated position well above street level, opposite are post war semi detached rendered dwellings whilst the host property and to the east are vernacular brownstone buildings.

The existing vehicular access is to be retained to serve both the host property and the new bungalow with the height of the boundary wall reduced to provide satisfactory visibility.

The proposed bungalow is to be set back a further 5.5m within the site than the dwelling previously proposed, this will make it easier for vehicle to turn within the site and leave in a forward direction. The design of the proposed bungalow is considered appropriate in this village location.

The proposed development is considered to be in conformity with Policy 13 (h) of the NNCSS.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. 3. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans no consent is granted nor implied to demolish, reduce in height, replace or rebuild the stone boundary wall located along the western boundary with nos. 25 and 27 Regent Street 4. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans before development commences, details of the means of vehicular access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the construction, materials, any gates to be provided and a drainage scheme for the access, parking and turning areas. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the agreed vehicular access has been constructed. 5. The dwelling shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site for vehicles to park and to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in a forward direction. This space shall be retained for the parking and turning of vehicles thereafter. 6. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 7. A scheme for screen fencing/walling shall be agreed with the local planning authority before the start of construction. The agreed scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the bungalow is occupied.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. For the avoidance of doubt and to protect the privacy and living condition of neighbouring properties. 18

4. In the interests of highway safety. 5. In the interests of highway safety. 6. In the interests of visual amenity. 7. In the interests of amenity and privacy.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: Policy G4 of the Brough of Wellingborough Local Plan and Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. 2. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and 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. 3. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 12/D107/5, 12/D107/6 and 12/D107/7 19th February 2013 4. In the interests of environmental sustainability, this development is considered appropriate for the inclusion of solar panels and the Applicant may wish to consider their inclusion in the small rear gable

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

SITE VIEWING (Date of Visit Tuesday 2nd April 2013 at 11.20 a.m.)

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0102/FCOU

PROPOSAL: Change of use of part of dwelling to run hairdressing business.

LOCATION: 18 White Way, Earls Barton, Northampton. NN6 0HT

APPLICANT: Mrs Kimberley Little.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination due an objection to the proposal being lodged by Earls Barton Parish Council and a request for a Member’s Visit by Councillor Morrall.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described.

The site is a semi detached dwellinghouse located in a residential area of the village which has had its front garden area hard surfaced for car parking.

There are no parking restrictions in the highway nearby.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2007/294 erection of two-storey extension to side elevation – refused WP/2009/324 proposed two storey extension and single storey extension to the rear elevation. Single storey garage and porch extension to the front elevation – conditionally approved

NATIONAL GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): Policy 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) Policy 11 (Distribution of jobs) Policy 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) 15 (Sustainable housing provision) Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan: G4 (Development within the limited development and restricted infill villages) Supplementary Planning Document; Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework; Development and Implantation Principles, Sustainable Design, Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime, Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED:

1. Earls Barton Parish Council – has objected to the application for the following reasons: • there is covenant on the deeds of the property which advises that businesses cannot trade from the house STREETON WAY

TOWNLEY WAY

WP/2013/0102/FCOU 14

12 1

23 24

29 22

31 30

MANOR ROAD

51a

63 2

66 75

60 12

28a 1

8 9

WHITE WAY

BERRY CLOSE 17

22 22 13

27 52 26

13 11 1 13

2 32 34

A WEST WAY

23 19

36 14

HARROWICK LANE

6 Recreation Ground 30

6 Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/2013/0102/FCOU - 18 White Way, Earls Barton 20

• concern regarding the issue of increased parking associated with the business

2. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority – has returned the application with a pro forma response which counsels that advice be sought from its published highway standards.

3. Northamptonshire Police – comment not received at time of writing the report

4. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Protection Service - has had regard to the comments lodged by objectors to the application, but does not expect the proposed use would have a significant noise impact during the specified hours. Suggests that if it is considered necessary, a condition could be included that any associated activity such as the use of washing and drying appliances should be carried out during the allowed hours of operation.

5. Neighbours – objections have been received from Wendy Knights and the occupier of 5 White Way, Earls Barton. The objectors cite the following reasons for opposing the application: • parking difficulties already exist in the neighbourhood and possible damage to vehicles. The road is not wide and increased traffic would mean increased danger. • inability to park outside own house would result in homeowners hard paving their front gardens for parking • reference to the use of the available off road car parking space at the application dwellinghouse by members of the household • belief that most customers will not walk to and from the property • concern that the proposed hours of work will not be adhered to • anticipation that noise from the property will increase and reference to previous noise issues • staff could be employed. Recent property extension was intended for this • suggestion of other business options for the applicant • intrusion into lifestyle due to parking and noise • loss of property value • business takings in the property could lead to possible break ins • if approved, the development could act as a precedent for other residents to do the same thing, for example, a kebab shop operating from a neighbour’s garage • if approved, the Council would be to blame for any accidents causing injury or death

Support for the proposed development has been received from the occupiers of: 97 Earls Barton Road, Great Doddington; 41 Cordon Crescent, Earls Barton and 1 Thorpe Road, Earls Barton.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are: • Compliance with policy • Highway safety • Effect on the character of the area • Effect on neighbours amenities • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity • Effect on the Upper Nene Valley Special Protection Area

Compliance with policy With regards to the development plan there are no specific policies which relate to running a business from a domestic property. However, policy 11g) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that within the rural areas, new employment development will be directed to the rural and local service centres. The conversion of existing buildings and infrastructure for employment will be encouraged in locations within and adjoining settlements.

With regards to the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 21 says that local planning authorities should ‘facilitate flexible working practices such as the integration of residential and commercial uses within the same unit.’

Other aspects of the proposal are examined below.

The comments of the objectors regarding possible difficulties resulting from additional vehicles associated with the proposal parking in the road are acknowledged. However, it is clear the scale of the use would be relatively low level and there are no parking restrictions in the highway in the vicinity of the application site. Crucially, the Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority has not objected to the application and in the absence of any adverse comment from the highway authority it is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on safety on the local roads.

It would perhaps be useful to set out the enforcement regime with regards to illegal car parking.

Parking infront of a driveway is an offence under paragraph 217 of the Highway Code. Parking on a footpath is also an offence under paragraph 218 of The Highway Code and the following information has been abstracted from the Northamptonshire County Council website.

‘OBSTRUCTION OF DRIVES WHAT THE LAW SAYS Under highway law, it is illegal to park a vehicle so that it obstructs other people wanting to use a road or path. It is also illegal to obstruct a private entrance.

Police have enforcement powers and can issue fixed penalty tickets, but officers are usually busy attending to other more serious crimes.

Users of a private entrance can take a civil action for nuisance against people causing a persistent obstruction, but this process can be lengthy, expensive and unpleasant.’

The Northamptonshire County Council website advises that the Police be contacted on telephone number 101 in respect of these offences.

The County Council website goes on to say that where persistent obstruction occurs it can offer an access line across an entrance. The marking has no legal significance, but has proved helpful in discouraging inconsiderate parking.

Effect on the character of the area The comments of the objectors are noted, but it is considered that the change of use of a small part of the application dwellinghouse will not have any material effect on the character and appearance of the area.

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

The objectors to the application perceive that their existing standard of amenity will be determinately affected if the proposal is approved. It is accepted that the proposed development could have an impact on the neighbours’ amenity, but it is considered that the effects, regulated by condition, would not be so significant to warrant recommending the application for refusal.

Crime and disorder Policy 13 (b) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that development should seek to design out antisocial behaviour, crime and reduce the fear of crime by applying the principles of the Secured by Design scheme. Also a material consideration is the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Out Crime.

The comments of a nearby neighbour are acknowledged and the Police have been consulted with the proposal

No other crime and disorder issues have been identified.

Biodiversity No biodiversity issues have been identified.

Effect on the Upper Nene Valley Special Protection Area It is anticipated that the proposed development will have no significant effect on the Special Protection Area.

None material planning consideration The existence of a private covenant which may restrict the ability of the applicant to conduct a business from the application site is not a material planning consideration.

CONCLUSION It is considered that the scheme is acceptable subject to no adverse comment being received from the Police.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that subject to no adverse Police comment, the application be approved subject to conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The hairdressing business shall only operate during the following hours: Tuesday and Thursday 10:00 - 17:00 Friday 10:00 - 18:00 Saturday 10:00 - 14:00 The hairdressing business shall not operate on Sunday or on a Bank Holidays

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In order to protect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers

INFORMATIVES Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): Policy 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) Policy 11 (Distribution of jobs) Policy 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) 15 (Sustainable housing provision) Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan: G4 (Development within the limited development and restricted infill villages)

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

The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the drawings received on 19 February 2013.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0445/FM

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of existing car park on High Street, Wellingborough for houses, apartments, a multi storey car park and retail. Including for the demolition of some redundant structures - Amendments including an increase in number of residential units from 128 to 133. Changes to design elevations and layout.

LOCATION: High Street, Wellingborough. NN8 4LD

APPLICANT: Mr Martyn Johnson, Keepmoat.

Major development involving planning obligations.

THE APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDINGS: The application site (2.88 hectares) is roughly rectangular in shape with the long axis aligned in a northwest-southeast direction. It measures about 130m wide and 240m long, with about 420m of the perimeter fronting existing streets. The site’s topography indicates it has a significant fall from the northwest down to the southeast corner of about 12m, though the gradient is uneven. The high point is an artificial mound on the modern open space formed at the junction of Jackson’s Lane and West Street. About half of the site is given over to surface car parking, most of which is public (Jackson’s Lane and Leighton Place car parks). As a result of this most of the site is either covered with buildings or hard-standing for vehicles.

Mainly associated with the public parking is some soft landscaping such as grass and trees. There is an informal public space at the junction of West Street with Jackson’s Lane. Some areas of the site have become overgrown following the clearance of buildings. A majority of the trees is relatively young with minimal amenity value.

Jackson’s Lane Car Park is accessed off Jackson’s Lane only. In 2011 a new access road - Derek Hooton Way - was provided with the future intention of accessing the whole site. For the time being it serves a re-laid parking to the south of the main car park as well as providing a new means of access to the rear of houses on West Street. Leighton Place car park remains separate and is accessed off the High Street. The new road cuts across the one-way West Street and includes on-street parking within the site. Vehicle and pedestrian access is also available off the High Street between nos. BROAD GREEN

WP/2012/0445/FM14 49 PH 15 Manor House BROAD GREEN Broad Green TCB 2 OUTLAW LANE 1

51 Posts

53 WHARTON CLOSE Christian Centre Posts

80.2m 26

BROAD GREEN

21 76.5m

36 34a

18 Garage Garage

40 15

War Meml

16 17 16

14 42

Posts Posts Garage 10 to 16

12 57 to 61 52 26

62 11

62a

4 52a 9 Works 72.8m

Warehouse SalvationCitadel Army

65 4a 8

19 to 21 64 ST JOHN'S STREET Garage

2a 7

1 2 Hall 33

18 St John's House 17 1 to 10 14

SALEM LANE 4 Hall

Club A

13 9 to 1 72.5m 2 Albany

LB House 1a 21 21a

ROCK STREET Community Centre 1 9 8a 22 Jackson's

8 21 1 26

7a Lane Flats

2 1 to 6 25 1 to 9 to 1 Society of Friends Paradise House House

19 (Quakers) 18 QUEEN STREET

HIGH STREET

1 to 3 to 1 Govt Offices

3 The Cobbles 16 Surgery JACKSON'S LANE

1 Works 2 to 16 15 30 10 Orchard

Terrace 14a High Street 14 Congregational A Church

SHORT

LANE 10 PH

Works 74.4m

Queens Lane

1 2

77 FS 31 32 Car Park 33

34 8

65.8m 8b

2 7 Club 1 to 6 37

80 1

Flats 1 to 6 6 39

5 30

Cromwell 31 3 78 10

TA Centre Cottage

Leighton 32

Coach House

64.6m 33

35 34 76 High Street Place

40 Leighton HIGH STREET 71.3m House 41

42 Club CHURCH WAY

2 to 5

1 1 45

62 6

1d 1c Leighton Place

1b PH Car Park High Street Mews

1 1a

Poplar Place 41 LB

49 to 53 Lothersdale(Govt Offices) House

Court 61.3m

48 3

1 60c 1a 60b

Pavilion WEST STREET 60d 33 60a

OXFORD STREET 29 60 WEST VILLA

PC 65.2m

63.7m

25 2 to 5 to 2 ROAD 63.1m Hall 58 A

43 7

54 11

9 9

10 7 11 13 Oxford House 49

Council Offices 48b

17 5 46e 62.2m

46d 48a Westvilla Cottages 5a Flats Post 1 to 8

3 48 Waterloo Yard 1 Keble Court 46a 46c

Dancing

School 17

Club

17a 46 17b

44 39 18

PH 18a 42 OXFORD STREET 63.4m

Clinic A

21 16 17

ARCHFIELD

20a 22 2

14 27

8 Planning & Local SHARMAN Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,863 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/2012/0445/FM - High Street, Wellingborough 25

8a and 10. Though this is meant to be a service access only, it does provide direct access to Jackson’s Lane Car Park.

Three pedestrian routes into the site are at the northwest corner (through the open space), off West Street (though vacant land), and through buildings on the High Street. The High Street and Oxford Street frontages are key streets within the town centre and accordingly commercial in character, with a mix of shops, bars, restaurant/takeaways, financial and professional services, small offices, and some upper floor flats. The High Street also includes community uses, the most prominent of which is the Congregational Church opposite the Territorial Army Drill Hall. The southern end of the site faces the rear of buildings on Oxford Street and a small car park off West Street. At the point where a narrow pedestrianised street cuts through to Oxford Street, the West Street frontage changes to residential character, with older 2-storey houses opposite the site and 2-storey inter-war semi-detached houses backing onto it. Towards the north end of West Street, opposite the interwar houses, is the substantial 4-storey Lothersdale House Government offices and its large surface car park. However, the general character moving west of the site is residential, with Bassetts Close public park being a significant feature of the area.

At the top of West Street there is a recently built 3-storey block of 12 flats adjoining the open space on the site, opposite which is the 1960’s Bassetts House hostel. At the junction of West Street with Jackson’s Lane are terraced houses opposite the open space. Jackson’s Lane contains a mix of uses Employment B-Class uses lie opposite on Jackson’s Lane, a small semi-industrial/commercial area that quickly gives way to a residential area further north. To the east of High Street are more B-Class uses but also a strong presence of community buildings, not least of which is the Tresham College Wellingborough Campus on Church Street. The large Morrisons supermarket is opposite the site on Oxford Street beyond which is another established residential area set either side of parkland alongside the Swanspool Brook. The predominant range of building heights in the area is 2 to 4-storeys. Most houses are 2-storey and most properties along High Street and Oxford Street are 3 to 4-storeys.

The site is within the Wellingborough Town Centre and the Wellingborough Town Centre Conservation Area. The present area was significantly expanded when the Conservation Area Character Appraisal (CACA) was adopted in 2009. The application site boundary excludes the listed buildings within the regeneration site. These are the Queens Hall and the former coach-house to Leighton House (referred to as a barn in the official listing description). Both are listed Grade II and will be the subject of separate future applications for planning permission and listed building consent regarding their conversion, alteration and extension. Queens Hall was originally a public hall, then a library, and most recently a day centre. It is a prominent public building built mainly of the local ironstone and with a slate roof. It backs directly onto the site and is intended to be part of the hotel potential. The coach-house is principally a red brick structure with a slate roof and has recently been used as a church.

The most significant and formal listed building is the Grade II* United Reformed Church, also built with the local ironstone and with a slate roof. This is set back in landscaped grounds directly opposite the site on High Street. It is enclosed by walls and railings that are themselves Grade II listed. A second Grade II* listing is West End House, 60 Oxford Street, which was originally a dwellinghouse and is now offices: It is also the 26 oldest building relevant to the site and continues the use of ironstone, but with an even more traditional local plain tile roof. The front elevation has an oblique context with the site frontage to West Street just to the west; the rear and side elevation have an aspect to the site but do not adjoin it. Continuing along West Street are the connected Grade II listed buildings of the Methodist Chapel and associated Ministers House (now used as a separate house). These are substantial red brick buildings with a slate roof and directly overlook the site across the narrow West Street.

Leighton House is Grade II, was originally a townhouse, and is now used as offices. Only the rear has a direct context with the application site. Adjacent to the United Reformed Church on High Street are two adjoining Grade II buildings: Nos. 29 and 30, both used as houses. No. 29 has a red brick frontage and no. 30 ironstone, with both using slate roofs and both presenting prominent 3-storey frontages. They are directly opposite buildings that will be retained on High Street outside the application site and therefore have an oblique visual relationship.

A row of Grade II buildings lies diagonally opposite the Jackson’s Lane and High Street corner of the site. These comprise nos. 1 and 2 St Johns Street, and nos. 62, 62A-63 and 64-65 Broad Green. All are ironstone with slate roofs and used as houses, though no. 62 has modern render over the ironstone. The final one to note is 2-3 Broad Green - another 3-storey ironstone house. It does not have a strong visual relationship with the site but, together with the others on Broad Green and St Johns Street, forms part of an important group context on this prominent and main approach into the town centre and towards the site.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The proposal is for a residential-led mixed-use development on the west side of the Town Centre. The proposed non-residential uses comprise 408 square metres (4,400 sq ft) of Class A1 retail space and a 3-level 200-space public car park. These will be in a new building at the junction of High Street and Jackson’s Lane, with the retail all at ground level and facing the High Street. Listed buildings within the site have been excluded from the development. The applicant claims that this is partly because the listed buildings need to be the subject of a structural and historic impact analysis to identify the possibility of their conversion, and because a realistic design ultimately depends on having an end user identified that would inevitably have bespoke criteria. However, the scheme has taken account of the general potential for the listed buildings in terms of layout, access and scale, so that their future development is not prejudiced.

The residential element will provide a total of 133 dwellings, of which 15 will be in two apartment buildings to the east and opposite the rear of the proposed car park. The remainder will comprise 2 or 3-storey houses in semi-detached form or, more commonly, as terraces of 3 or 4 houses. A mix of market and affordable housing will be provided, and a range of 2-bed, 3-bed and 4-bed sizes. The proportion of affordable dwellings is subject to negotiations and will be confirmed through a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The development will have two vehicular access points for all highway users: One off Jackson’s Lane and the other using the recently completed access off Oxford Street (Derek Hooton Way). Additional pedestrian and cyclist access routes will be available off all the surrounding streets. The two main vehicular access points will be connected 27

through the site on an indirect route. It is not intended to serve as a connecting route/throughfare for traffic to bypass the High Street. A number of side roads and courtyards with the scheme will provide access to the proposed housing and some existing adjacent premises. Some housing on West Street presently has garaging at the rear that are accessed via a road within the site, which will be retained and enhanced.

Some of the existing business courtyards between the High Street and the site will be accessible from the new roads within the development. A new public open space will be provided in the middle of the site. This will be primarily aimed at the needs of future residents of the site and may contain a children’s play area.

In total, there are 217 car parking spaces for the proposed dwellings on the site, excluding the 200 spaces within the multi-storey dedicated public car park.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: In October 2010, the Committee considered and resolved to consent an application proposing highway works/improvements in the High Street, West Street, Jackson's Lane area (Ref: WP/2010/0375/FM). This is the pre-cursor to the application under consideration.

The highway works/improvements relate to the area bounded by West Street, Oxford Street, High Street and Jackson’s Lane. It is one of the 5 ‘Development Opportunity Sites’ identified/defined in the Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan (WTCAAP). The proposed works consist of the construction of roads and footways including drainage and lighting which are being provided to enhance the attractiveness of the development site C (High Street/Jackson’s Lane) to potential developers.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 4 – Enhancing Local Connections Policy 6 – Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 – Energy Efficiency & Sustainable Construction Policy 15 – Sustainable Housing Provision The site is one of the 5 ‘Development Opportunity Sites’ identified in the Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan. It is referred to as Site C and allocated for mixed use development to include a range of uses. The relevant policies of the Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan (WTCAAP) are: Policy PS 3 – High Street/Jackson’s Lane Site Policy WTC 2 – Expanding Retail Provision in The Town Centre Policy WTC 8 – Commercial Fringe Area Policy WTC 12 – Heritage Policy WTC 15 – Public Realm Quality Wellingborough Town Centre Public Realm Strategy SPD Wellingborough Town Centre Development Planning Brief for High Street/Jackson’s Lane Wellingborough Town Centre Public Real Materials Palette Informal Guidance NNJPU Sustainable Design SPD 28

Parking SPG Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire SPG

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. NCC Highways – no objections subject to the imposition of conditions and informatives.

2. The Highways Agency - the proposed development is not expected to have a material impact on the closest strategic route, the A45. Therefore, under Article 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, the Highways Agency has no objections to the proposal. The Highways Agency notes the changed increase in the number of residential units and does not consider there will be any significant impact upon the Strategic Road Network.

3. Environment Agency - we consider that planning permission could be granted to the proposed development as submitted if the following planning conditions are included as set out below. Without these conditions, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and we would object to the application.

4. English Heritage - the development of this area of vacant land is welcomed in principle, but the proposals that have come forward would cause substantial harm to the historic environment due to the design and location of the multi storey car park on a prominent corner site on the High Street.

English Heritage Advice The "Building in Context" event which the Borough Council hosted allowed all concerned to gain quite an intimate understanding of this important site. As delegates found out during that day, the site is part of an historic block based upon a medieval street pattern including part of the High Street. Examination of C19 maps reveals that the street frontages were densely built up, with the exception of West Street, which gave straight on to land that was an orchard.

The interior of the block is now used for surface car parking. Inherited characteristics include a number of historic buildings fronting on to the High Street and Oxford Street including several listed buildings. All historic built frontage has been lost however on Jackson's Lane, including its corner with the High Street, while houses dating from the early - mid C20 have been constructed along West Street.

We commented on initial proposals submitted for pre-application consideration. Positive aspects of this development included the reinstatement of built frontage along Jackson's Lane and at its corners with West Street and the High Street, which in principle could greatly strengthen the townscape character in this part of the conservation area.

We advised however that the quality of this built frontage would be a critical aspect of the townscape enhancements that the development might bring. The loss of parking provision which would be brought about by the development has 29

resulted in a desire for a multi-storey car park, but the location of this on Wellingborough's High Street will be damaging for the character of the town at this important entrance. As we have advised, such buildings can sometimes be successfully slotted into built frontages in dense, city centre environments, but on a prominent corner plot in a market town it is highly likely to be harmful, and the submitted designs amply illustrate this.

In the context of a convincing proposal, the demolitions proposed in this location could be justified on the grounds of the overall public benefit caused by the development. The loss of buildings which contribute to the character and appearance of a conservation area is defined as harm (or substantial harm) under the NPPF. Public benefits associated with any scheme can be held to outweigh such harm, and the chief public benefit a private housing development (which the multi storey car park in essence facilitates) can bring in this instance are enhancements to the town centre. This vacant corner site on the High Street is in great need of such enhancement.

The submitted proposals do not achieve this, and instead would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, and the settings of a number of listed buildings, including the grade II* listed Congregational Church, due to the proposed location and design of the multi storey car park.

English Heritage advise that the application is refused.

5. Natural England - this proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is the proposal EIA development. Nonetheless, the proposal could benefit from enhanced green infrastructure. The proposed amendments to the original application relate largely to design and layout and are unlikely to have significantly different impacts on the natural environment than the original proposal

6. Anglia Water - the drainage strategy as depicted on drawing number 11094/3 appears achievable and Anglian Water would be supportive of this approach. As stated previously we have agreed that capacity is available for the proposed foul flows from this development, it is noted that drawing number 11094/3 only shows one foul connection.

The proposed surface water strategy is acceptable with two connections, one of five litres per second connecting to the surface water sewer in High Street, and a second connection discharging at a rate of forty nine litres per second connecting south to the existing surface water sewer at manhole 9854.

There are a number of sewers onsite that will be subject to decommissioning or diversion and you will be required to discuss any legal requirements with our Developer Services team on 01604 446688.

7. Western Power Distribution - thank you for your letter regarding the above planning application. While WPD has no objection to the proposals, we do have 30

a cable easement within the area to be re-developed, at High Street Mews. These rights will have to be extinguished. If the cables are no longer required to provide supplies, we are happy to surrender the rights provided our legal costs are met.

8. NCC Development Management – request for financial contributions towards education, fire and rescue and libraries provisions.

9. Northamptonshire Police - Northamptonshire Police has no formal objection to the planning application in principle and suggest that the following recommendations/observations are considered, which if implemented will reduce the likelihood of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour occurring.

We in particular welcome the changes in layout and parking arrangements which should now relieve most of our concerns raised during the pre-application stages. The whole of the development would benefit from being built in accordance with the principles of Secured by Design (SBD) for which we encourage ongoing consultation regarding the security standards to be incorporated.

Specifically, we recommend that:

• All housing not just affordable should be built to conform with Secured by Design (minimum level 3 of CSH including the security element) • All retail premises should comply with Secured by Design • The Multi Storey Car Park should comply with the ACPO Safer Parking Scheme standards and certified under ParkMark • Fire exit doors should comply with LPS1175 SR3 with steel outer skin and no external door furniture and feature three point independent locking • Access to rear pathway links should feature lockable gates as close to the front building line as possible.

Northamptonshire Police have no concerns regarding the increase in number of residential units or changes to design elevations and layout.

10. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (NNJPU) - General Comments: It is good to see that the requested changes to the layout have been implemented, particularly at the interface with Leighton Coach House and Plots 20-28 and Plot 18. These amendments give a much more cohesive approach with the surrounding existing urban fabric.

The following represent more details comments:

Parking • Design of front area parking and courtyard to flats adjacent to car park will need careful consideration • Additional surveillance over parking spaces to 59, 18, 1-6, 94-96, 97, 115, 102, 101 should be provided. • Will plot 20 will able to use the space?

Alleyways • Access to rear gardens should be gated to prevent unauthorised access. • The alleyways between Plot 74, 70 and 71 need rethinking to facilitate better access. • Similarly between Plot 81 and 82 there seems to be an excess for alleyways that may not be required. Further consideration of how they will access the rear gardens needs to be looked at, for example Plot 82 could be acceded off alleyway proposed behind Plots 83/84 then the leg of the alley to rear of Plot 81 could be incorporated into the garden.

Design • Units adjacent to LB/s haven’t really addressed design issues raised. • Multi storey car park needs some detailing to reflect vertical emphasis of adjacent buildings. • Unit 118 – great improvement however elevational treatment could incorporate some minor dentil brickwork/detailing to give illusion of space for a fascia.

Boundary Treatments • Parking courts to 97-115 and 1-6 should have a different boundary treatment – wall and trellis is suggested for increased surveillance and visual impact. • Plots 96-97 should be a wall as entrance to site • Plots 74-76 appear to have a 1.8m wall in front garden? • Plot 22 rear garden to street has 600mm railing? • Plot 59 – visible element should be 1.8m wall not fencing as prominent in the street scene • Plot 42 – continue wall from side along rear of garden • Plot 58 – has no side boundary detail

Policy 14 Policy 14 b is applicable to this development, as is the provision of 10% from renewable energy. The submitted report states that PV will be employed to achieve this target and should be controlled by condition. It has been assumed that the figure will be reviewed due to the increase in number of units, for now it can be extrapolated that all units including the additional will also have PV.

Performance Summary

Integrating into the neighbourhood 1 Connections Green 2 Facilities and services Green 3 Public transport Green 4 Meeting local housing requirements Green Creating a place 5 Character Red 6 Working with the site and its context Green 7 Creating well defined streets and spaces Amber 8 Easy to find your way around Amber

Streets and Home Green 9 Streets for all Amber 10 Car parking Amber 11 Public and private spaces Amber 12 External storage and amenity space Summary of BfL Review: The above summary takes into account the local circumstances that have influence over the scheme. The number of ambers suggests that there are some areas that could be improved, these are more detailed in nature and would be addressed with some of the detailed comments set out below. Character still remains a concern however it is acknowledged that certain areas of the scheme have elevational treatment that reflects adjacent LBs.

How to use BfL12. Based on a simple ‘traffic light’ system we recommend that all developments aim to: • Secure as many greens as possible • Minimise number of ambers • Avoid reds The more greens the better the development will be. A red light gives a warning that an aspect of a development needs to be reconsidered. A development proposal might not achieve 12 greens for a variety of reasons. Where a proposal is identified as having one or more ambers, which would point to the need to rethink, whether these elements can be improved, local circumstances may justify why the scheme cannot meet the higher standard expected of a green.

INTEGRATING INTO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD

1 Connections Does the scheme integrate into its surroundings by reinforcing existing connections and creating new ones; whilst also respecting existing buildings and land uses along the boundaries of the development site?

The site is served by two vehicle access points, from North and south of site. The amended design to Leighton House have improved that connection and further connection is provided from High Street.

Performance: Green

2 Facilities and services Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as shops, schools, workplaces, parks, play areas, pubs or cafes?

The scheme provides some on site open space and is near to Wellingborough town centre with shops etc. within easy reach.

Performance: Green

3 Public transport Does the scheme have good access to public transport to help reduce car dependency?

The nearest bus stops are located around 50m from the site, and the route to them is quite direct. As a town centre development there is good access to buses that go to surrounding towns.

Performance: Green

4 Meeting local housing requirements Does the development have a mix of housing types and tenures that suit local requirements?

A mix of housing types and tenures is proposed, and these will be in line with the local policy requirements.

Performance: Green

CREATING A PLACE

5 Character Does the scheme create a place with a locally inspired or otherwise distinctive character?

The information supplied at this stage suggest that contextual analysis has been undertaken, however the design of the properties does not reflect the work that has been carried out or that the character of the scheme draws from good local examples. The car parking to the front of the dwellings needs to be carefully designed and it is acknowledged that there have been some improvements in the overall design of the scheme and some units have amended elevation treatments to reflect their proximity to LB’s, it is considered that the scheme does not make most of good contextual examples.

Performance: Red

6 Working with the site and its context Does the scheme take advantage of existing topography, landscape features (including water courses), wildlife habitats, existing buildings, site orientation and microclimates?

The site is currently a car park, and the layout still provides rear access to adjacent dwellings to maintain their current situation. The site slopes and from street scenes it would appear that existing topography is taken into account.

Performance: Green

7 Creating well defined streets and spaces Are buildings designed and positioned with landscaping to define and enhance streets and spaces and are buildings designed to turn street corners well?

The arrangement of the buildings is generally logical, with building fronts addressing public spaces in most places. Turning corners is not carried out.

Also, the decision to use a court parking solution weakens the qualities of the perimeter block, undermining its public/private protection and giving rise to instances of the rear of properties being publicly accessible. This is most notable for the properties that form the entrance to the site.

Performance: amber

8 Easy to find your way around Is the scheme designed to make it easy to find your way around?

The central access and two dead ends, combined with some of the parking arrangements, mean that some residents will have to travel part through the scheme to get to their parking areas even though they are the first properties as you enter the site.

Performance: Amber

STREET AND HOME

9 Streets for all Are streets designed in a way that encourage low vehicle speeds and allow them to function as social spaces?

It is difficult to tell at this stage of design development, but the approach proposed, should help ensure that the spaces feel pleasant and that vehicle speeds will be low.

Performance: Green

10 Car parking Is resident and visitor parking sufficient and well integrated so that it does not dominate the street?

Some of the parking arrangements proposed are of particular concern. The justification for utilising a courtyard solution is accepted insome instances, however there is no local precedent for this option. However most of the units have frontage access. There is no on-street parking.

Performance: Amber

11 Public and private spaces Will public and private spaces be clearly defined and designed to be attractive, well managed and safe?

There is a potential issue with public and private spaces to some of the dwellings on this scheme, two areas have a rear boundary that is at least in principle publicly accessible. The general comments above could go some way to alleviating these concerns.

Performance: Amber

12 External storage and amenity space Is there adequate external storage space for bins and recycling as well as vehicles and cycles?

From the plans it is evident that storage space is to be provided in the rear gardens, with alleyway access to the front. Whilst these addresses this issue some of the alleyways are quite long and it is unlikely that they will be used and people will store them in the front garden. The design of the front parking and gardens areas should take this into account and design in some space for their storage.

Performance: Amber

11. BCW Design and Conservation - the proposal, as amended, represents a significant improvement on the previous scheme in the following respects: - Plots 20 and 21 have been shifted forward and 24 to 28 turned around to provide as more coherent building line. Removal of the bulk head here simplifies the layout and the pedestrian link towards properties to the west will have a major impact on the pedestrian permeability of the site.

The scheme is closed to through traffic, eliminating the problem of rat run driving through the site, and this change has provided opportunity to improve the layout and increase pedestrian access.

The space behind the listed Leighton House and its separately listed coach house, formally comprising part of the building's expansive rear gardens, has 36

been significantly improved. Properties previously backing onto it have been rotated to face the listed buildings and form a hansom urban square in this, one of the most attractive parts of the site. The opening up of this area also provides a further pedestrian route onto High Street, again, improving pedestrian permeability.

Houses adjacent to the multi-storey car park have been removed and replaced with more flats, which better respond to this more mature and dense urban part of the site, providing a more robust response.

Number 118 has been amended from a standard suburban house to respect the adjacent urban terrace facing Oxford Street. This amendment ensures that the Conservation Area will not be harmed by the building. Further details to will be required to ensure the building blends appropriately, including glazing bars to the upper half of the sash windows and detailing at shop-front fascia level, possibly with a string course at floor level.

Numbers 94 to 96 have been amended to be a more simple terrace of a single height, to provide more of a townhouse rather than suburban character to these properties, facing onto Oxford Street.

One of the major issues successfully addressed in a number of the above amendments was the scheme's response to listed buildings and the aspects of the Conservation Area, where the development spills out to interact with the wider, established built form. This has caused architectural issues because the internal development is suburban in nature, in contrast with the town centre's urban character. Whilst this conflict has been resolved for most of the proposal, it is considered that the 4 units adjacent to the West Street Chapel do not respond to the gentle meandering of the street or to other properties on the road, but more importantly, through their standardised and repetitive design which fails to properly reflect the historic Wellingborough vernacular form, are inappropriate and do not meet the statutory test and NPPF guidance of protecting the setting of the adjacent designated heritage asset, the West Street Chapel.

In conservation terms the fabric that is to be demolished to make way for the development makes a "neutral" contribution to the town centre conservation area. Accordingly its loss is proportionate in relation to wider factors relating to the form and status of the scheme, thereby complying with NPPF guidance.

12. BCW Housing Strategy - as the proposed scheme is for 133 units, the site would be expected to deliver 27 affordable units based on the agreed figure of 20% of development total. The current site layout 7580/122C shows 21 units, with the following mix:

Shared Equity – 13 x 3 bed units Affordable – 4 x 2 bed units and 4 x 3 bed units.

Therefore an additional 6 units should be identified or provisions made for a commuted sum for off-site provision. Should the units be provided on site 2 bed social rent would be preferred to meet the current identified need.

It is not clear from the amended Design and Access Statement Affordable Housing Statement paragraph 3.1.4, what the definitions of Shared Equity and Affordable are, these need to be elaborated on in order to assess if they are suitable for this site.

We will be keen to see the legal agreement for this development incorporate clauses relating to the future management of housing units on the site. I have separately written to you on the subject of the potential for an holistic ‘neighbourhood management’ approach to the whole site that could detail responsibilities for housing management within the overall context of how the open and public spaces, landscaping, car parking areas, etc. are also managed in the long-term.

13. Wellingborough Chamber of Commerce - thank you for inviting the Chamber of Commerce to respond and provide comments on this planning application. The Chamber would like to object to these proposals on several grounds.

In summary the Chamber of Commerce feels that these proposals are a lost opportunity to deliver a quality mixed use development for the town centre and Wellingborough residents. This should have benefit for the users of the town rather that merely providing a housing development. The Borough Council, as the majority landowner for the site, has the ability to influence, and to a degree dictate, how this site is delivered. Much consultation and deliberation, as well as cost, was expended in proposing a framework and principles for development on the site and it appears that much of this has been ignored or set aside.

While the Chamber of Commerce accepts that consideration of the site has moved on since the Council’s Development Brief was adopted and that viability issues will play an important part in the delivery of any scheme it wishes to outline key issues where it feels that an improvement with the current proposals would be beneficial. We set out our detailed comments below.

Layout and Design – the layout of the scheme appears to respond to the objective of maximising the number of residential dwellings that can be accommodated on site rather than delivering a mix of uses that better reflect the surrounding area. No attempt seems to have been made to deliver an integrated mixed use scheme with a transition from more commercial uses on the High Street frontage through to a more residential approach to the South and East of the site. A higher level of mixed uses within the site would promote greater activity and provide additional employment uses as envisaged by the Development Brief. The design of the houses with a large private front defendable space (primarily for parking) is not felt to be appropriate in this location. This approach would be more suitable for a suburban location and not a key town centre site. With the location of houses directly or closely adjacent to the pavement and shared on-street parking with high levels of public realm and 38

other uses, as set out in the brief, it would make this area much more accessible and integrated with the rest of the town centre.

The Chamber of Commerce strongly encourages the Council to undertake an independent design review of these proposals, if they propose to go ahead with them, which could be facilitated by CABE through the Design Council or OPUN (the Architecture Centre in the East Midlands).

The layout and design of this scheme is crucial in achieving a development which complements the existing town centre offer and also enhances this area. The Council has achieved high quality developments on its land creating and improving public realm in the past – specifically in recent years the development of Morrisons Superstore. In our opinion it would be a lost opportunity if the proposal for the High Street/Jackson Lane site went ahead in this form.

Parking – as stated above the Chamber does not believe that the parking proposals for this development represent the best solution or outcome for the town centre users or future residents of the site. The existing car parking provision on the site is approximately for 500 cars. The proposal for the multi- storey car park is for 200 spaces whereas the Development Brief allocated 682 spaces. The overall parking provision for Wellingborough Town centre for the future requires a greater number of public parking spaces to be provided in this location otherwise there is likely to be an overall shortfall. Better design and more on-street parking would enable a higher level of public parking provision.

Multi-Storey Car Park and associated retail – the Chamber of Commerce does not consider that the associated retail and or proposals to add an innovation centre or office space together with the multi-storey car park is the right solution for delivering a mix of uses across the site. There are number of opportunities as identified in the Development Brief which could bring forward office space in mews’ working together with existing listed buildings which would bring forward high quality development and would help to sustain these existing buildings into the future. The Leighton Coach House is a good example of such an opportunity. Presently the development does not respond well to this building and no parking is evident. The opportunity to integrate with the more commercial southern part of the overall site is lost and no permeability through this area is created. An approach – as articulated in the Brief – to create a combination of uses and open up this commercial back area is lost. The Chamber feels that a concentration of retail and commercial uses at the northern end of the site does not reflect the integration of uses across the site as envisaged in the Brief and will operate as a single entity rather than adding to the variety. The Chamber also questions whether the retail and commercial elements will be sustainable considering their distance from other town centre uses. There may be opportunities to make convenience retail work on this site as suggested in the Chamber’s response to the Core Spatial Strategy consultation but not in this form.

Public Realm – the Chamber believes that these proposals miss a big opportunity to deliver a new urban square and provide for a quality piece of public realm. The exclusion of the Drill Hall and Queens Hall from this proposal 39

misses the opportunity to create an entrance for the site and to provide a proper setting for the Listed Queens Hall. The retention of the Drill Hall and delivery of the square, if this is what is envisaged, through a further application has to be questioned as it would appear more practical to demolish this and to set new development in such a way that complements and enhances the future uses of the much more important listed building. An integrated development at this juncture, with the opportunity to cross subsidise elements of the scheme to deliver this new square, seems a better approach than trying to deliver something at a later date which may prove to be financially unviable. Greater public realm opportunities are also lost throughout the site as it reflects a wholly residential scheme rather than a residential-led development.

Permeability – the Chamber considers that the opportunity to create access routes through the Southern part of the site which has existing commercial uses has been missed. The opening up of this part of the site and the creation of new commercial uses is also a missed opportunity in our opinion to deliver a more integrated and mixed use scheme. The result of this is that the development will be more dependent on car borne access and walking and cycling from and to the site will be reduced as appropriate desire lines will not be available.

Sustainability - the intention to deliver all houses to Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes is considered to be unambitious. The Homes and Communities Agency require all housing as part of their Design and Quality Strategy and their Affordable Rent programme to be Code Level 4. To meet the need for high levels of energy efficiency in housing and to contribute towards the overall target of reduction in CO2 levels, as a Council owned site, it would be a statement of green credentials if a proportion of these houses and other uses could reach a code level of 4 or above.

In conclusion the Chamber strongly objects to the development proposals on the grounds that the layout and design does not reflect the adopted supplementary planning guidance and in our opinion does not enhance the uses and experience of the town centre. The parking provision and solutions are not compatible with the Town Centre Area Action Plan and will provide a reduction in parking provision for the centre in future. The public realm elements and permeability of the site do not sufficiently reflect those envisaged in the Development Brief and do not, in our opinion, add and benefit the town centre to make it more attractive for other users and future investment. Finally the sustainability of the development is compromised by the design approach and limited ambition to deliver higher energy efficient buildings.

14. NCC Archaeology - no objections subject to the imposition of condition.

15. Lawrence Wilbraham on behalf of David Cooper (Owner of nos. 14, 15 and 16 High Street - we act for Mr David Cooper, the owner of nos. 14, 15 and 16 High Street Wellingborough, on whose behalf we strongly object to various aspects of this application.

Our client's property comprises on the ground floor the office of a lettings agency and a restaurant with flats on the first, second and third floors. There is a 40

passageway between the ground floors of nos. 14 and 16 which provides access to the rear of the buildings and access to the doors for the flats.

The flats in the main body of the buildings have windows in the front and rear elevations, some of which are positioned close to the northern boundary of no. 16. Flat 2 is located on the first floor above the restaurant and has two windows in the side elevation facing north-west which serve two bedrooms. In addition there is an extraction flue to the kitchen restaurant located on this wall. These are shown on the attached photographs.

As you know Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan was adopted in June 2009 and forms part of the development plan. It identifies the High Street/Jackson's Lane and Oxford House sites as Development Opportunity Area 2 (at section 6.4). Policy PS3 states that the area should be comprehensively redeveloped for mixed use development to include: i) residential, ii) a new campus for the Tresham Institute, iii) a hotel, iv) a small quantum of shops and service uses, v) potentially an Innovation Centre for small business, vi) retention of car parking (approximately 200 spaces) discretely located within an undercroft car park (my emphasis), vii) cycle parking, viii) a landscaped pedestrian and cycle network.

These proposals are shown on Figure 6.4 in the DPD.

The larger Proposals Map to the DPD shows the route of the improved pedestrian and cycle routes which include a route which runs from High Street (in the position of the existing vehicular access) to a new landscaped space and southwards to West Street and northwards to Jacksons Lane.

The current application is very different from the proposals set out in the DPD. In particular the application proposes a multi storey car park on the south side of the High Street/Jackson's Lane junction (with retail at ground floor level on the High Street frontage) and housing. No educational facilities, hotel or small business units are proposed.

As far as the application is concerned my client's objections are set out below.

Lack of clarity The Site Location Plan (7580/041A) shows the application site edged red which includes all of the land immediately to the north-west and south-west of our client's buildings. The Proposed Block Plan (7580/044) shows a rectangle between the rear of our client's property and plots 56 to 58 but there is no explanation as to what this is.

Furthermore it appears from the Block Plan that a pedestrian access is proposed to the north of plot 56 running through the passageway between nos. 14 and 16 High Street and linking the new road within the application site and High Street.

Neither of these matters is dealt with in the Design and Access Statement and I have not been able to ascertain details of these matters in the documentation which accompanies the application. Suffice to say that there is no public right of access across my client's land and he opposes the creation of any such access. It would lead to a substantial reduction in privacy to those flats which have ground floor windows facing the passageway and lead to a reduction in security and amenity to residents of the flats. In the DPD there is no proposal for a pedestrian access between the development and High Street in this location.

Impact on 16 High Street The existing buildings at 17 and 18 High Street will be demolished to make way for the proposed multi storey car park. This is shown on the Block Plan to physically adjoin 16 High Street. However to do this will mean bricking up the two bedroom windows serving the flat above no. 16 which face north west and removing the extract flue to the restaurant. This is totally unacceptable as it will mean that the bedrooms would have no natural light or ventilation and the restaurant would not have an extraction system for its kitchen. It would mean that the restaurant cannot operate.

In addition there is a basement under nos. 15 and 16 and we understand that it extends beyond the northern wall of no. 16 and under part of the proposed multi storey car park. No details are included within the application as how the proposed car park will be constructed, including depth of foundations, and how our client's property will be physically affected by the proposal. No approach has been made by the applicant or their agent to my client to discuss these matters to date.

As you will appreciate my client has certain rights under the Party Wall Act and we do not believe that the works as currently proposed can be physically built without his consent. Such consent will not be forthcoming until these matters are resolved to his satisfaction.

Amenity issues The present building at 17 High Street has an eaves level which is the same height as the second floor window cill on the front elevation of no. 16. The ridge is level with the eaves of no. 16. Whilst the front wall of no. 17 stands forward of the windows in the flats at no. 16 the reduction in daylight as a result is limited by the extent of the forward projection of that part of the building.

The proposed multi storey car park is shown on plans 7580/106, 107 and 108. It shows a building on the High Street frontage which is substantially taller than both nos. 16 and 17. The eaves and ridge heights of no. 16 are 80.5 and 82.5 m respectively whereas the eaves and ridge heights of the car park building are 82 and 85.2 m respectively i.e. eaves level 2 m higher and ridge 2.7 m higher. As a result it will reduce considerably daylight to the windows on the front elevation of no. 16. It will also dominate the second floor window on this elevation. 42

The multi storey car park would have a devastating impact on the outlook from the windows in the rear elevation of nos. 15 and 16 by the creation of a wall over 10 m in height projecting some 40 m or so from the rear wall of the main body of no. 16. It will result in an oppressive environment for the occupiers of the flats. Due to the orientation of the car park it will also reduce sunlight and daylight in the afternoon and evening as the rear element will project south west of no. 16.

Dominating effect The car park building is far too large for this location and will appear intrusive and dominating in the street scene. From 17 High Street northwards, and on Jackson's Lane, development principally comprises two storey buildings of more domestic scale as indicated in the Design and Access Statement. Accordingly any proposals for the corner of Jackson's Lane/High Street should be no more than three storeys in height, reducing to two storeys along Jackson 's Lane.

In our view the car park is unacceptable in this location within a Conservation area and is far from the 'discrete' undercroft parking provided for in the DPD. If a multi storey car park is necessary it should be located with in the main body of the development in the general area where plots 70- to 91 are provided where the impact on existing buildings will be substantially less.

Noise The proposed car park will be immediately adjacent flats at first, second and third floor level. I assume that the car park will be open 24 hours a day. Starting engines, slamming car doors and manoeuvring cars within the car park will create noise at all times of the day and night. This can be exacerbated by the surface of the car park. Whilst some of this noise may be contained within the building there will be the escape of noise through the openings on the south eastern elevation which will lead to disturbance to the occupiers of flats in our client's property and also to the adjacent houses at plots 56 to 59.

For the above reasons we urge you to refuse this application.

Comments received post amendments: Thank you for your letter of 18 February advising of the amended plans which have been submitted in respect of this application.

In my letter of 27 November 2012 I set out the objections to this development on behalf of my client, Mr Cooper, who owns nos. 14, 15 and 16 High Street which adjoin the site.

In that letter we expressed concerns regarding the lack of clarity in respect of the submitted plans; the adverse impact of the scheme on 16 High Street; the reduction in daylight which would result from the proposed car park; the dominating effect of the car park on the High Street; the impact on the basement which extends underneath the site, and the potential noise impact on the flats at first, second and third floor level at 16 High Street.

Having studied the amended plans it now appears that 'stepping back' the proposed multi-storey car park away from the rear of no. 16 overcomes the concern in respect of the flue to the restaurant at ground floor level. However the overall height of the proposed car park will mean that daylight to the side windows in the flat at first floor level in no. 16 at the rear of the building (and shown in the bottom photograph accompanying my earlier letter) would be extremely severe.

The proposed Block Plan, drawing no. 7580/0448, has a notation 'access and constraints to rear of existing properties to be confirmed'. That is not acceptable as my client needs to be fully aware of what is being proposed in order to assess the impact on his property. We are still unclear as to whether it is proposed to provide an access through my client's property to the High Street and what the security implications of the proposed development will be.

Whilst we welcome the reduction in the height of the tower adjacent no. 16 on the High Street elevation, my client remains extremely concerned at the reduction in daylight which will result to the second and third floor windows in the front elevation of no. 16. Likewise my client maintains his objection to the proposed side elevation of the proposed multi-storey car park and the dominating effect that this will have on the outlook from windows in the flats in nos. 15 and 16. The concern in respect of noise from the use of the car park also remains.

In summary, my client maintains his objection to this development on the basis that a multi-storey car park of this scale is wholly inappropriate in this location within the Conservation Area. It would have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of residents of the flats at nos. 15 and 16 High Street at first, second and third floor level in relation to noise and the reduction in light. In addition detailed proposals relating to the treatment of the common boundary with my client's property need to be put forward and clarification is needed regarding the basement which extends under the site and what is to happen to this and whether access is proposed through my client's property to the High Street.

16. Joanne Abell (23 High Street) - I own a business on the high St 'Tantastic' I strongly object to the development of Jackson's lane car park and have listed my reasons below.

1. We do not need more retail units with empty premises still available in the town centre. 2. Any closure of the existing car park while building work goes ahead will cause complete disruption to workers in the town as there will not be enough spaces (like it did when the road building at the bottom end of the car park did) this will then lead to there being no spaces for my customers to park, I have up to 100 clients a day at peak times with a max of 10 in my salon at any one time and the same clients visit several times per week for tanning sessions, if they cant park they wont come in and my business could be forced to close or forced to move premises to where there is parking which will be out of the town. iv spent over £50000 on the 44

salon interior and will be devastated to leave. I specifically chose this premises because I need parking near by. 3. Why build a multi storey when we have one already? I have a safety issue for myself and my staff as we leave work at 8pm and going into a multi storey alone causes safety issues where as at the moment we feel quite safe in an open car park.

This car park is vital for all the High St shops and without it there will be a lot more empty retail units as I wont be the only shop to suffer and end up closing especially with the state of the economy at the moment the planned building work is unwanted by the retailers and shoppers, losing any spaces in a popular car park will only anger shoppers and they may choose to go elsewhere where then can park.

17. Mr Colin Armstrong of no. 18 The Headlands - I write to object to the current application in respect of Highway Safety. I am a resident of Wellingborough and have worked for the past 33 years in all matters relating to Highway design.

The application as submitted is a full application however it is considered that insufficient information has been provided in respect of the proposed alterations to the highway for the access arrangements at the junction of Jacksons Lane and High Street. It is right that these matters should be fully assessed prior to determination by your committee to ensure that development of the site is carried out in a safe manner for all concerned. It is proposed to alter the current one way arrangement from High Street into Jacksons Lane to create a two way road allowing vehicles from the development to exit the development onto High Street. The exiting of vehicles from the development onto High Street is welcomed and is critical to the development to allow users to permeate through the development.

Within the Travis Baker Transport Assessment, a preliminary drawing ref F12104/01 has been submitted showing proposals for a simple priority T junction arrangement onto High Street. The Transport Assessment states that no further detailed assessment should be required for the proposed site access junctions at High Street/Jackson’s Lane and Oxford Street/Derek Hooton Way or any the study area junctions.

Whist the assessment concludes overall there will be less traffic movements generated by the development than currently exists, which is encouraging, there will however be changes to the way traffic uses the proposed site and in particular at the junction of High Street and Jacksons Lane. Traffic exiting the existing site does so via Jacksons Lane westbound towards West Villa Road and also via the High Street access opposite Salem Lane. No traffic currently exits at Jacksons Lane junction.

The Transport Assessment states the combined vehicular trips for the proposed development during the weekday peak periods would be:

• morning peak 90 arrive 53 depart 143 total • evening peak 53 arrive 85 depart 138 total 45

• daily total 656 arrive 619 depart 1275 total

Figure 6 of the TA shows that no assessment of the vehicle movements at the existing junction of St Johns Street/High Street/Jacksons Lane has been carried out. The location of the proposed multi storey car park will continue to attract vehicles via the junction and is likely to be the main generator of traffic in the AM and PM periods. Figure 10 presents the proposed trips from the whole development in the AM and PM peak hours.

This suggests that the total traffic using Jacksons Lane will be;

• morning peak 75 arrive 27 depart 102 total (71% of development) • evening peak 36 arrive 60 depart 96 total (69% of development)

It is proposed to alter the nature of the existing junction that will create an all movements left right staggered junction with Jacksons Lane, High Street and St John's Street. The layout of the existing junction is of course historic and will have been constrained by the surrounding buildings and presumably the previous buildings fronting Jacksons Lane that have been demolished over time.

These previous constraints should not be a reason for simply modifying a historic non compliant junction arrangement or to facilitate the desire to create a continuous street scene to the buildings along High Street. Jacksons Lane is also used by vehicles to gain access via West Villa Road to Oxford Street and to Morrisons/Sharman Road Car Park. Whilst the development layout will introduce changes to this route, it will continue to allow this movement as such there will be through traffic that may not have been fully assessed in the Transport Assessment. Currently, vehicles crossing High Street from St Johns Street into Jacksons Lane do not have sufficient space to allow a safe right turn stacking before carrying out the manoeuvre and regularly wait in St Johns Street for gaps in the oncoming High Street traffic before carrying out the crossing in a single “s shaped” manoeuvre, this is often carried out by accelerating quickly to cross High Street. This is currently made possible as there is no opposing traffic exiting from Jacksons Lane.

Enclosed are photographs taken 27th November 2012 over a 10 minute period during the AM peak period between 8.47am and 8.57am that show a range of manoeuvres occurring at the junction. This shows the some of the stacking and waiting that occurs at the junction. The proposed 2 way operation of Jacksons Lane will introduce additional traffic movements out of Jacksons Lane that will change the way the junction operates and will intensify movements.

The proposed form of modified access does not comply with the layout required by current Highway standards. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges published by the Highways Agency is the standard applied by all Highway Authorities. In particular TD 42/95 deals with the Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions. The existing distance allowed for vehicles turning right into Jackson's Lane is below that required by current highway standards set out in TD 42/95.

The existing stagger distance between the centrelines of St Johns Street and Jacksons Lane is only 11m. The current proposals seek to only increase this to 15m. This falls well below the mandatory stagger distance required in TD 42/95 Para 7.65 that states “for simple left/right staggers, the minimum stagger distance shall be 50m”. This is to allow sufficient safe distance for vehicles to carry out the both of the right turns in a safe manner. Furthermore, an assessment of existing Personal Injury Accident records for the local area is presented in the Transport Assessment to ensure that there is no existing highway safety issues that could be exacerbated by any increase in movements associated with the proposed development.

Extracted from the Transport Assessment is the following from Figure 7 that lists assessed the accidents occurring at the junction of Jacksons Lane. It is considered that a full appraisal of the accidents occurring at this junction has not been fully carried out to take into account the introduction of the proposed exit manoeuvre from Jacksons Lane. Four of the recorded accidents involve vehicles turning right into Jacksons Lane. Introducing an exit manoeuvre from Jacksons Lane will exacerbate the situation with the likelihood of additional accidents occurring.

The close proximity of the signal controlled pedestrian crossing is another factor that regularly results in vehicles queuing back from the crossing, past the junctions of Jacksons Lane and St Johns Street. Consideration should be given to relocating the crossing as part of the access arrangements if necessary to accommodate a safe and compliant junction to current Highway standards. It is considered that opportunity does exist within the development proposals to revise the layout of the junction to accommodate a junction layout that compliant with Highway Standards, takes account of the existing accidents and provides a safer arrangement for all modes of transport users of the junction.

The applicant should be requested to submit a full assessment of the Jacksons Lane junction along with revised plans to show a junction arrangement that is compliant with Highway Standards. This may also necessitate changes to the layout of the development and buildings proposed in the vicinity of the proposed junction. The Planning Committee has an opportunity to approve a much needed major development in the Town Centre of Wellingborough, one that only comes along every 30 years or so. But in order to do so they have to be assured that a full appraisal of all matters has been carried out to ensure mistakes are not introduced that can not be rectified later. At this present time, this is not the case.

The applicant also has a duty to fully consider the impacts of the development and present the best solution for all concerned, in particular for the people of Wellingborough, now and in the future.

18. Richard Symons of 52 West Street - I have been informed that the site will have 3 storey houses built on the border of the project which will be directly behind my own property on West Street. As my house is only a 2 storey house, the proposed houses will over shadow my own property. This will mean that our garden will be exposed and people will be able to see directly into it, which we 47

were assured in the planning process that this would never happen. Also these houses will block out most if not all of the sun in the summer which rises to the rear of our property and sets to the front. My biggest concern is we were told that this development would not bring the value of our property down, but I fail to see how this would not be the case having been enclosed within a towering brick prision, with no view, you extended the job centre building some years ago which meant the view from my front window turned into a view of a brick wall and now you propose to build houses which will eclipse my house and again give us a view of a brick wall. I am not opposed to houses being built at the rear of my property but not a 3 storey house, as I’ve already stated this was promised that any houses built behind us would be in keeping with existing buildings and would only be 2 storeys.

19. Rodney Pope of no. 35 Ryeburn Way - I went to the exhibition last Saturday of your proposal at Morrisons supermarket. So there I discussed the proposal of the development the company which is doing to do it so I spoke to Martyn Johnson one of the managers there. So after discussing this with Mr Martyn Johnson which I told him that the development if it goes ahead with it so it would not be suitable for Welling borough in the area of Jacksons Lane.

So as I try to explain to him that this is a valuable piece of land and shouldn't be rushed in to this because the company (KEEPMOAT) is key just to building more houses on it. But this will ruin the centre of Wellingborough in the sense that you the council has come up with a figure that says you only need 200 car parking spaces within the area of Jacksons Lane.

So that are they are going to build a multi-story car park to that figure of 200 cars. Which came from your department but that not all you needed as mart be moor also I went through this with Mr John and told you quite plainly? That plainly that you the council have got their figures wrong as if any survey was done on Jacksons Lane car park you would see straightaway. That 200 car is would not be another in a multi-story car park to cope with shoppers which you are encouraging to shop at Wellingborough centre. Also that you haven't taken that in consideration of all these houses that you propose to put on Jacksons Lane car park.

Because there is only got one parking space in front of these houses all so we discussed with Mr Johnson planets that theirs are any shops or commercial premises will be built on Jacksons Lane car park. As stated before they would not do also we did discuss as well what would happen to the drill Hall.

Because as it is a bit of a wreck now because you left it to the vandals now and should be pulled down and made way for commercial expansion in the sense of shops and other community things that the centre of Wellingborough that is needs. Because when you put this forward of Jacksons Lane three or four years ago you being the planning, Department you stated. Their development was a mix bag in the sense of the college to be built there which obviously it's not because there's no money for it from the government for this.

Also you stated then there will be a hotel built there as well and also stated that the multi-story car park to be built further down Jacksons Lane car park. Also it will cope with more than enough then the amount of cars which Park at the moment. So that is what you said then so as all being scrapped and torn up and put in the bin?

So I put this to Mr Johnson very clearly as I stated I have living in Wellingborough for 20 years now. So obviously the developers and yourself being the planners still do not know how Wellingborough works in the sense of the amount of people that live in Wellingborough. Because already the figure now stands at something like 74,000 people and that means you have to cope with that figure or more on the amount of people. As they deed to do because the services they need as well the traffic that can be very band in Wellingborough sometimes specially the way the town planners have planet the one-way system round the town.

Also to put up all these houses are in a very valuable piece of land and if this is developed it we too late to change the plan in years to come if you want to change the use of that land once houses are built on. As this valuable piece of land could reuse for retail businesses and small businesses starting up in a small way what we need in this town. Because we need more work not more houses specially in the town centre bearing in mind you got WELLINGBOROUGH EAET and when that is built and finished. So you will have plenty of houses and another little town centre there as well and passably in 20 years time it will link up with FINEDON AND IRTHINGBOROUGH itself that little town as well being swallowed up to.

So the other thing I discussed with Mr Johnson was the fact if this proposal goes ahead to build houses on so then parked a car in a car parking will becomes expensive and very scarce indeed to Park in Wellingborough to do any shopping.

Also if the Lake retail Park is given the planning to develop it that will drive your customers which you want to shop in Wellingborough away from Wellingborough to the new development at the Lakes near Rushton. Al so to Castlefield retail Park and to Tesco's because of car parking charges car and parking scarcity because of your planet is so bad. Also for not thinking ahead of what Wellingborough should be like in 20 years or 25 years time?

Also we discussed with Mr Johnson that you are the planning department has not been successful in getting other developing companies to develop on that land. Also one thing we discuss as well with him was the fact that in the last 12 months or more we have lost our lot of well-known stores to do the shopping in and now of course we have now lost, the electrical Department stores that have been round for a very long time too.

So town planners as you can gather I am not in favour of this proposal as it stands at the moment. Because I have given my reasons and why I don't agree with you too. But the only thing I come up with is that this country is going through a very bad period as it's run out of money and it cannot borrow that much either. So because of that situation we are in as a country is not good. 49

So you will not make a horrible mistake in allowing all these houses to be built on such a valuable site as Jacksons Lane. So my proposal would be to leave things alone for at least for another five years so in that time the country may improve. So if it does and we all hope so it does you may find out that other companies will be very keen to develop on that valuable piece of land. Which will by this time the town of Wellingborough as a commercial centre being Jacksons Lane? So I hope what I have just said to you will take on board and if you need any more help from me I am glad sorted out with you. Also to come to a answer and obviously the answer you, have it's not the right one for the town of Wellingborough in 2012.

20. Wellingborough Civic Society - the Society would like the following points to be taken into consideration when discussing this application.

First, we feel that the comments from the Conservation Officer should be acted on, his expertise and knowledge of the town should be your guide. On first looking at the plan it appears that the architect’s brief was to cram as many dwellings on the site as possible. We agree that the local vernacular has been ignored.

The design is vehicle friendly with little thought to pedestrians. Residents, especially school children, have poorly designed exits from plots 7 to 32 to 60. Also walking exit to the town centre appears to be badly thought out.

The listed buildings in West Street have plots 110-111 as affordable housing facing them, these properties and 108-109 would be better if they took their design from houses in West Street, possibly rendered and painted. Plots 94-96 face an attractive shop in West Street and would be better all the same height and lower.

The Society wonders who is going to use the multi-storey car park, uphill from the town centre, right up the High Street. The dominating appearance of a multi- storey car park does not add to the attractiveness of the site. If it was nearer to Oxford Street and sunk into the ground possibly on plots 85-96, it would be more accessible. Have the market traders been given vehicle parking?

We expect that all hard standing is permeable.

The Conservation Officer has a very valid point in the placing of trees in private gardens (insurance risk, leaf nuisance, residents removing them). This is not a good idea, and as he points out widening the streets with tree planting (species carefully thought out) is a much better plan.

The planning of this site should be carefully thought out and not rushed into, future generations will not be pleased if you get it wrong. The Hemmingwell Estate is evidence of this.

The Society would like all Councillors to receive a copy of this letter. If necessary the decision should be deferred. 50

21. Shelley Holliday & Colin Gauntlett - we are the owners of 31 West Street, Wellingborough, NN8 4LY. Our property is a grade II listed building and has a considerable frontage onto West Street, which is situated directly opposite to plots 111 and 110 on the amended plan.

We were most disconcerted to find that the new plans proposed have been radically changed in detriment to property owners on West Street. The previous plan proposed plots 110, 111 to be transformed into a tree-lined road leading up to the rear of West Street, the new plan shows 4 new properties.

In light of these changes, we strongly object to the amended plans relating to proposed plots 111, 110, 109, 108.

Our objections are as follows:-

The proposed plots of 111, 110, 109 and 108 are currently, on an elevated position, there is a uninhabited house set back on the opposite side of the road. At present, this house frontage is situated slightly behind the line of the rear wall of the current existing adjacent property. The property already, to some extent overlooks our property. However, it does not currently block our light, nor is particularly intrusive.

The new amended plan intends to knock down this existing house, add two "affordable housing" properties -1 x 3 bed (plot 111) and 1 x 2 bed (plot 110) and a further two properties 109, 108 and to position them approximately 25ft closer to our property.

This means that our entire frontage will be overshadowed from just a few feet away. As we are situated on a much lower elevation (approximately 8ft) this proposal will contravene, our right to light, will seriously invade our privacy as all windows of the proposed properties will look down into our kitchen and bedrooms, and affect the value of our property.

The road which separates the properties is a single one way street. There are no paths on one side of the road, and a very small path that runs alongside our property. This means that the space between the proposed houses and our property will be less than a normal sized road.

We attach current photos of the existing house from our kitchen windows. By positioning the new houses a further 25ft closer will be obtrusive and totally unacceptable.

West Street will not be able to deal with more traffic than there currently is a present, especially in its current state. There is no proper footpath for push chairs and many pedestrians are forced to walk in the road My property has been scraped on a number of occasions by large vehicles trying to pass. By placing this development here with no thought to expanding the existing road is dangerous and could amount to negligence.

By positioning new houses so close to a listed building also contravenes the conservation view and strategy distributed by Wellingborough Council regarding the maintaining of current esthetics of Wellingborough's old buildings and streets.

We also believe that "affordable housing", should be placed within the "new development" and not on the edge of the development where there are already existing home owners. Furthermore, I believe that there is a highly regarded planning survey in circulation that highlights that affordable housing should be integrated within the main area of the development to aid full integration of the new occupants.

We would welcome a site visit from the planning committee to see first hand, the impact this proposal will have on our property.

We will be seeking legal guidance on this matter and we will also be raising this issue with English Heritage, together with our local MP.

ASSESSMENT: Principle of Development Policy PS 3 of the Town Centre Action Plan states: Proposal Site C, as identified on the Proposals Map, should be comprehensively redeveloped for mixed use development, to include: i. Residential (C3), anticipated to be approximately 220 dwelling units, comprising a mixture of tenures and housing types (family houses, consisting mainly of 2 and 4 bedroom properties, and flats); ii. a new landmark campus for Tresham Institute (D1), comprising approximately 3500 sq m gross floor area; iii. a hotel(C1), comprising approximately 50 rooms, and partially involving the conversion of the Grade 2 listed Queen’s Hall on the High Street; iv. potentially a relatively small quantum of shops and services (A1, A2 uses), leisure (D2) and/or restaurant/café/bar (A3, A4) space, comprising approximately 500 sq m gross floor area, and office (B1) space, comprising approximately 1500 sq m gross floor area, integrated into the mixed-use scheme to enhance vitality; v. potentially an Innovation Centre (B1), providing incubator space for small businesses; vi. retention of car parking for general public use (approximately 200 spaces), discretely located within an undercroft car park; vii. cycle parking; viii. a landscaped pedestrian and cycle network, with high quality links lined by active frontages; and two landscaped spaces located in the north-west and centre of the site, the latter of which is to include a play facility (minimum Local Area for Play standard). Redevelopment must be undertaken to a high design quality, ensuring that a mix of complementary uses and building types is accommodated in an integrated way. A ‘perimeter block’ urban design arrangement is sought, with active frontages defining the public realm and a layout that integrates with the surrounding town context via a series of new streets, footpaths and cycleways.

The proposed development broadly complies with the above policy provisions, bearing in mind the provision of 133 dwellings (with acceptable dwelling mix consistent with the terms of the policy), a 200 space public car park and retail provision. The future of a significant proportion of the site is yet undecided due to the listing protection that the majority of the remaining buildings currently enjoy. In the circumstances, there are opportunities to provide for the other land uses advocated by Policy PS 3. It should be borne in mind that site constraints, particularly the siting and state of the existing heritage assets may prevent all the development options set out above from being realised.

Character and Appearance, Impact on the Setting of the Listed Buildings and on the Conservation Area In 2006 the Council published the High Street Development Planning Brief to guide the development of this site. The brief was based upon the identification of the site as a regeneration opportunity in the Local Plan. The Brief site boundary is larger than the application site area, but nonetheless, it includes a thorough analysis of the site and surroundings. This analysis has been an important source of reference in formulating the layout of the development. The vision for the site was set out as follows:

“The Vision for the High Street site is of a new urban quarter for the town centre – distinctive, vibrant, desirable and safe. The proposals will protect and enhance the best of the old, whilst creating new streets and squares, a significant number of new homes and jobs supporting high quality sustainable urban living. Fitting in with the surroundings, connecting better to the town centre, making good use of the slopes, bringing vibrant green spaces into the heart of the town – this development will be the start of the process of, and setting the standard for, the overall future town centre regeneration, helping take the town successfully into the 21st Century.”

An indicative birds eye view of the site potential was produced in the brief, and although the resulting development is not expected to slavishly adhere to nor conform to the suggested layout, the proposed development nevertheless reflects the indicative layout. This brief illustrates some of the key outcomes sought including: a high density mixed- use scheme of residential, commercial, and education; a multi-storey car park for around 400 cars to replace all the present surface car parking; retention and refurbishment of historic buildings and particularly the cluster of courtyard buildings in the southeast corner; and the creation of new vehicle and pedestrian routes through the site, in conjunction with new public spaces.

The density and mix of uses reflected circumstances relevant during the period in which the site was analysed, the document drafted and consulted upon, and the final brief adopted. The circumstances included local factors, such as the provision for Tresham College to relocate to the site, and the very buoyant national economy at the time, which particularly favoured high density flats. As such the site needs to address various issues that include; maintaining and enhancing a key town centre car park function; provide quality mixed tenure housing in line with sequential development and Council’s Housing Needs Strategy; maintain and enhance the edge-of-town retail function; provide for town centre employment; as well as provide an opportunity to develop a new campus for the Tresham Institute. 53

The main traffic routes toward the site are from the north to the Jackson’s Lane entrance and from the south adjacent to Morrison’s from Oxford Street. Much of the remaining road network local to the site has restricted access either in terms of width or through one way systems. Currently the entry points/gateways to the site are generally poorly defined, with the exception of the High Street Buildings. There are strong and important pedestrian desire lines that establishes a link to Bassett’s Park, to the United Reformed Church, Tresham College, All Hallows Church and more generally the High Street and Town Centre.

In developing the site it would be desirable to consider the principle node points. The High Street/Jackson’s Lane Corner is the main node point into the site, which in this case has been utilised to provide a development frontage and form a gateway. The site and indeed the surrounding area lack any clear definition or development of public, semi public or private space. As a consequence there are no clear routes or links through the site.

The site as a whole is permeable with the exception of the houses to the west of the site. There is evidently an opportunity to develop and enhance routes and links to public spaces. The High Street edge to the site is permeated with several minor entrances and it is important to ensure that these are developed to enhance pedestrian routes through to the public square in front of the Drill Hall.

Overall, a development of this magnitude and with so many constraints cannot satisfy all the design parameters and inevitably, compromises have to be struck. The concept of this proposed development is a product of various factors and site characteristics. English Heritage have made references to the historical antecedents of the area, but the character and appearance of the area have changed significantly over the years, so much so that there is no coherent pattern of development, in terms of plot sizes, plot ratio etc. The pattern of development along Jackson’s Lane is markedly different from West Street and Oxford Street. The proposed dwellings are primarily presented as blocks and in the context of the surrounding area, these blocks relate satisfactorily to the pattern of the surrounding development. The houses on West Street for example have wide frontages, but the proposed development on West Street are presented as semi-detached dwellings with similar frontage width to the existing dwellings on West Street.

In relation to the detailed design of the buildings, again this is a product of the surrounding buildings. The fenestrations of the proposed buildings are similar to the existing buildings. The general character and vernacular of the area around the site is characterised by the use of traditional materials; brick, render, stone, ironstone and slate. Using this palette of materials there is often more elaborate detailing to the facades of buildings; brick detailing around windows and to eaves and verges is common, as to the use of stone quoins. Many of the listed and more historic buildings in the area are constructed using Northamptonshire ironstone which is a locally sourced material. The full details of the materials to be used in the construction of the proposed buildings have not been presented, but these can be conditioned nonetheless, giving the Council the opportunity to ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of conservation and visual amenity of the area.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which refer to the duty of the decision maker to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. The Conservation Officer and English Heritage have not raised any objection to the loss of some buildings earmarked for demolition as they are considered to make little contribution to the character and appearance of the Town Centre Conservation Area. In the light of this and the above, it is considered that the proposed development relates satisfactorily to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and therefore passes the statutory test. In the circumstances, the proposed development complies with the relevant development plan policies.

Highways and Traffic Impact The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment which confirms that no further detailed assessment should be required for the proposed site access junctions at High Street/Jackson’s Lane and Oxford Street/Derek Hooton Way or any of the above study area junctions. It is concluded that the proposed development would not result in any significant detrimental impact at any of the major junctions within the surrounding highway network. Hence, no mitigating offsite highways improvements should be required.

An accident study for the surrounding area has revealed that the additional traffic movements associated with the proposed development should not exacerbate any existing accident problems within the surrounding highway network. In terms of servicing requirements, refuse collection vehicles can park at the kerbside adjacent to all dwellings, or manoeuvre to within 25 metres walking distance for refuse workers of any designated collection points, in line with the recommendations contained in ‘Manual for Streets’. A swept path analysis has been carried out to ensure the proposed turning facilities provided within the development would accommodate refuse vehicles.

The proposed development comprises a public car park for 200 cars with the residential element comprising 217 car spaces. Nonetheless, the proposed development would be well placed to accommodate travel by non-car modes such as walking, cycling, and public transport by virtue of its central and accessible location in the Town Centre. The proposed increases in person trips could be satisfactorily accommodated through the existing infrastructure. The assessment also demonstrates that the proposed development should not result in any detrimental impact on the surrounding highway network. The proposed site access arrangement would comply with relevant design guidance. The surrounding opportunities for sustainable travel should also satisfactorily accommodate any increases in pedestrian, cycle and public transport trips resulting from the proposed development.

The proposed development traffic increases would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding highway network in terms of capacity or highway safety and, hence, no mitigating improvements should be required. Furthermore, the existing opportunities for travel by sustainable modes should satisfactorily serve the site and no off-site improvements should be necessary. The proposed development therefore complies with the requirements of NPPF.

The residential development is well located to accommodate trips by sustainable modes via the existing walking, cycling and public transport facilities in the vicinity of the site. 55

The developer has stated that a Travel Plan Welcome Pack to new residents will be issued when they receive the keys to their property. This pack will comprise up to date sustainable transport information and several incentives to influence travel habits.

The developer will also appoint a specific individual to act as Travel Plan Coordinator prior to the first dwelling being occupied. The Travel Plan Coordinator will be responsible for implementing and managing the Travel Plan at the site and will be the key point of contact for both residents and Northamptonshire County Council. As part of the normal process of handing over properties to new residents, sales representatives will be trained in personalised travel planning so that they can provide travel advice.

The developer also states that they will liaise with local schools, to ascertain whether they current have a working Travel Plan. In addition to the school-specific measures all residents of the site will be encouraged to take shared walking journeys to and from the site for a number of purposes. The developer will liaise with the organisation ‘Liftshare’ to obtain promotional material for their online car sharing database. To encourage cycling, the developer will investigate the possibility of including cycle parking facilities within each individual plot/dwelling. The developer will also set up a Cycling Club at the site, where residents could sign up to share/coordinate cycling journeys within the surrounding areas.

The developer will investigate the possibility of providing new residents with a free or discounted broadband connection for a limited period, say three months, to encourage home working and online shopping. To further market the surrounding opportunities for travel by non-car modes, the developer will arrange for sustainable travel newsletters to be distributed to all dwellings at the site every 6 months. Details of upcoming national sustainable travel events and campaigns will also be displayed on the Travel Plan Notice Boards.

Amenity Impact/Living Conditions The proposed dwellings (with the exception of plot 118 on Oxford Street frontage) are not physically attached to any of the existing surrounding buildings. The existing buildings are separated from the development site by either access roads or informal space. As a result, the proposed development will have minimal amenity impact on the surrounding buildings in terms of mutual overlooking, loss of daylight and loss of sunlight.

Planning Obligations Officers have successfully negotiated planning obligations with developer and the heads of terms include the following:

- Affordable Housing; - Education provision/enhancement; - Fire and Rescue; - Libraries provision/enhancement; and - Public Realm/Town Centre and other Environmental Improvements and provision/enhancement of other community facilities.

These will be secured via a S106 Agreement or suitably worded Unilateral Undertaking. 56

Conclusion At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 14 states that this presumption should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. Paragraph 7 of the Framework states: There are 3 dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles. Allied to these three dimensions are the core planning principles set out under paragraphs 8 and 17 (with further details at chapters 6 and 11), which include, amongst others, the need to take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it. The proposed development is broadly consistent with the provisions in the national guidance.

It also complies with the Town Centre policies and policies in respect of the Conservation Area and listed buildings. The traffic impact is acceptable and there would be no detrimental impact on the neighbouring amenities and living conditions. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Full Permission in respect of WP/2012/0445/FM subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement/Unilateral Undertaking and the following conditions:

1. The development shall be begun no later than 3 years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Notwithstanding any materials specified in the application form and/or the drawings, particulars and samples of the materials to be used on all external surfaces of the buildings, including fenestration, windows and doors, eaves/verges and their surrounds, door canopies shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the commencement of the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3. Details of those parts of the site not covered by buildings including any parking, roads, footpath, hard and soft landscaping, surface and boundary treatments (including front curtilage walling/fencing) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the commencement of the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4. The proposed tree planting/landscape scheme shall be implemented during the next planting season after the completion of the building operations on site or within any such longer period as may be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Such planting shall be maintained, including the replacement of dead, dying or defective trees, shrubs or ground cover plants for a period of 5 years. 5. A Landscape Management Plan including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules of all landscaped areas, other than small, privately owned domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the development. The Management Plan shall be carried out in accordance with 57

the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other Order revoking or re-enacting the Order), no buildings, extensions or alterations permitted by Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be carried out to the 118 dwellinghouses hereby approved without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. 7. The car parking spaces shown on the approved drawings shall be laid out and provided before the occupation of the dwellings and shall thereafter be kept free from obstruction and shall be retained for parking purposes for the occupiers of the development and their visitors. 8. A Construction Management Plan including measures to ensure that mud and other such loose materials do not migrate onto the highway for the duration of the construction period and also the hours of working and any necessary routing agreements which would show preferred HGV and other vehicle routes around or through town shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the development. The Management Plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 9. The development shall not commence until details of the following works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and no part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until these works have been completed in accordance with the approved details: Improvements to the junction of the A5193 High Street and Jacksons Lane, Wellingborough as set out in the approved drawings and such amendments required by the local planning authority or otherwise approved by it in writing; Works to the junction of the A5128 Oxford Street and Derek Hooton Way, Wellingborough as set out in the approved drawings and such amendments required by the local planning authority or otherwise approved by it in writing; Works to the junction of the Jackson's Lane, Short Lane and West Street, Wellingborough as set out in the approved drawings and such amendments required by the local planning authority or otherwise approved by it in writing; Traffic calming measures to West Street, Wellingborough as set out in the approved drawings and such amendments required by the local planning authority or otherwise approved by it in writing. 10. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme detailing the security standards to be incorporated within all openings associated with the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the Police CPDA and in line with the recommendations of Secured By Design. The developers will need to provide proof prior to occupation of the development that these measures have been implemented. 11. The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) of 19 October 2012 (Reference 11094), FRA Addendum of 20 February 2013 (Reference 11094) and the following mitigation measures: 1. Surface water to be discharged to the Anglian Water Services Ltd sewer at a rate of 49 l/s at manhole 9854 and 5 l/s on High Street. 2. Surface water attenuation to be provided in the form of cellular storage with a 58

combined volume of 381.6 m3 . 3. Finished floor levels to be set no lower than 150 mm above surrounding ground levels. 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. 12. No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until a remediation strategy that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: 1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified all previous uses, potential contaminants associated with those use, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors and potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. 2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. 13. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) 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. 14. 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. 15. No development shall commence until details of a scheme, including phasing, for the provision of mains foul water drainage on and off site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. 16. No development shall take place within the area indicated until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 59

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. To ensure a satisfactory appearance for the development in the interest of visual amenity. 3. To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped and in order to maintain and enhance the visual amenity of the area. 4. To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped and in order to maintain and enhance the visual amenity of the area. 5. In order to maintain and enhance the landscape quality and visual amenity of the area. 6. To afford the local planning authority the opportunity to control future developments on the site, having regard to the nature of the site and in the interests of safeguarding the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. 7. To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and in order to prevent additional parking in surrounding streets which, could be detrimental to amenity and prejudicial to safety. 8. In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. 9. In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. 10. In the interest of the security and quality life of future occupants of the Development in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. 11. To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site; To prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided; To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. Should you require any additional information, or wish to discuss these matters further, please do not hesitate to contact Heather Claase (Partnership and Strategic Overview) on number 01536 385126. 12. To protect the quality of controlled waters is accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 109 and 121. 13. To protect the quality of controlled waters is accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 109 and 121. 14. To protect the quality of controlled waters is accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 109 and 121. 15. To prevent flooding, pollution and detriment to public amenity through provision of suitable water infrastructure. In order to satisfy the above condition (15) an adequate scheme would need to be submitted which demonstrates that there is (or will be prior to occupation) sufficient infrastructure capacity for the connection, conveyance, treatment and disposal of quantity and quality of water within the proposed phasing of development. 16. To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded, in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 141.

INFORMATIVES 1. Pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan 60

policies and there are no other material planning considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 4 - Enhancing Local Connections Policy 6 - Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency & Sustainable Construction Policy 15 - Sustainable Housing Provision Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan Policy PS 3 - High Street/Jackson's Lane Site Policy WTC 2 - Expanding Retail Provision in The Town Centre Policy WTC 8 - Commercial Fringe Area Policy WTC 12 - Heritage Policy WTC 15 - Public Realm Quality 2. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and 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. 3. The implementation of any works that may affect the existing highway requires the explicit written permission of the local highway authority. Such permission would be issued subject to the completion of an agreement under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and any subsidiary agreement under either Section 4 or Section 6 of the Highways Act 1980, as determined by the local highway authority. - Full engineering, drainage and other related constructional details would need to be submitted for the approval of the local highway authority. The details would be subject to a full technical and safety audits which may result in changes or amendments to the details shown indicatively on the planning approved details. - The Applicant is advised to gain the full technical approval of the local highways authority prior to the submission of such approved details to the local planning authority to facilitate the discharge of the associated planning conditions. Failure to do so will delay the discharge of conditions. - Commencement of works on the highway will also be the subject of appropriate Road Booking Space on each of the roads affected. This is a minimum of 3 months but may be more if other planned works are programmed. - Any Temporary Road Closures to facilitate construction must be agreed with the local highway authority in good time. - The Applicant is reminded that their proposals rely upon Traffic Regulation Notices which are subject to consultations outside the planning system. The results of the consultations should not be assumed. The determining authority is the County Council.

4. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawings received: 7580/041B, 042A, 043A, 044B, 045, 059A, 060A, 062B, 063B, 064B, 065B, 066B, 067A, 068D, 069A, 070A, 071B, 072B, 073A, 074A, 075B, 076B, 077B, 078B, 079A, 080A, 081A, 082A, 083B, 084A, 085B, 086A, 087A, 088A, 089A, 090A, 091B, 092B, 093B, 094B, 095B, 098A, 099A, 105A, 106A, 107A, 108A, 110A, 112, 113A, 114, 115B, 116, 117A, 118A, 119, 122C, 123, 124, 125A and 3A (Drainage Strategy Layout) 62

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0452/CA

PROPOSAL: Demolition of some redundant structures in relation to redevelopment of existing car park on High Street, Wellingborough for houses, apartments, a multi storey car park and retail (Application for a Conservation Area Consent) - Amendments including an increase in number of residential units from 128 to 133. Changes to design elevations and layout.

LOCATION: High Street, Wellingborough. NN8 4LD

APPLICANT: Mr Martyn Johnson, Keepmoat.

Major development involving planning obligations.

NOTE: Cross reference with the report on WP/2012/0445/FM.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conservation Area Consent subject to the following conditions:

1. Demolition shall be begun not later than 3 years from the date of this consent 2. Demolition shall not be carried out until a contract for the works in respect of the full permission (WP/2010/0401/FM) has been entered into.

Reasons: 1. To comply with the requirements of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 2. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and in order to prevent the premature demolition of the buildings which would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area.

INFORMATIVE/S: 1. Pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan BROAD GREEN WP/2012/0452/CA Works

49 PH 15 Manor 2 House BROAD GREEN Broad Green TCB 2 OUTLAW LANE 1

51 Posts

53 WHARTON CLOSE Christian Centre Posts

80.2m 26

BROAD GREEN 21

1 76.5m

36 34a

18 Garage Garage

40 15

War Meml

16 17 16

14 42

Posts Posts Garage 10 to 16

12 57 to 61 52

62 11

62a

4 52a 9 Works 72.8m

Warehouse SalvationCitadel Army

65 4a 8

19 to 21 64 ST JOHN'S STREET Garage

Depot 2a 7

1 2 Hall 33

18 St John's House 17 1 to 10 14

SALEM LANE 4 Hall

Club A

13 9 to 1 72.5m 2 Albany

LB House 1a 21 21a

ROCK STREET Community Centre 1 9 22 8a Jackson's

8 21 1 26

7a Lane Flats

2 1 to 6 25 1 to 9 to 1 Society of Friends 7 Paradise House 6 House 19 (Quakers) QUEEN STREET

5 18 HIGH STREET

1 to 3 to 1 Govt Offices

3 The Cobbles 16 Surgery

4 JACKSON'S LANE

6 76.8m Works 1

15 2 to 16 4 30 10 Orchard

Terrace 14a High Street 14 Congregational A Church

SHORT

LANE 10 PH

BUCKWELL END Works 74.4m

Queens Lane

5 to 9 to 5 4 8a

Factory 2

1 2 77 31 FS 32 Car Park 33

34 8

65.8m 8b

2 1 to 6 7 37 Club

80 1 6

Flats 1 to 6 39

5 30

Bassett's Court A

Cromwell 31

78 3

TA Centre 10 Cottage

Leighton 32

Coach House

64.6m 33

35 34 76 High Street Place

40 Leighton HIGH STREET 71.3m House 41

42 Club CHURCH WAY

2 to 5

1 1 45

62 6

1d 1c Leighton Place

1b PH Car Park High Street Mews

1 1a

Poplar Place 41 LB

49 to 53 Lothersdale(G ovt Offices) House

Court 61.3m

48 3

1 60c 1a 60b

Pavilion WEST STREET 60d 33 60a

OXFORD STREET 29 60

WEST VILLA

PC 65.2m

63.7m

25 2 to 5 to 2 ROAD 63.1m Hall

58 A

43 7

54 11

9 9

10 7 11 13 Oxford House 49 Council Offices 48b

17 18 5 46e 48a 62.2m

46d 17a 5a Westvilla Cottages Flats Post 1 to 8

3 48 Waterloo Yard 1 Keble Court 46a 46c

Dancing

School 17

Club

17a 46 17b

44 39 18 PH

42 18a OXFORD STREET 63.4m

Clinic A

16 17 TCBs 21

ARCHFIELD

20a 22 2

31a

31 6 10 8 7

SHARMAN

6a 12 5 Kenroyal 11

6b Nursing Home ROAD Training Centre 5

2 7 Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:2,000 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/2012/0452/CA - High Street, Wellingborough 63

policies and there are no other material planning considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan (WTCAAP) Policy WTC 12 – Heritage 2. In accordance with the provisions in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the Council as the Local Planning Authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the approved development is consistent with the relevant provisions in The Framework. 3. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following indicative drawings received on the date shown. These drawings are for indicative purposes only. Drawings numbered: Date Received: 7580/041B & 7580/042A 14/02/2013

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0533/RMM

PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application seeking approval of layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping and amended access details for the former Saxby site pursuant to condition 1 of outline planning permission WP/2008/0010/OM dated 05/09/2011 for the erection of 134 residential dwellings comprising 24 x 2-bed flats, 32 x 2-bed houses, 39 x 3-bed houses and 39 x 4-bed houses, associated infrastructure, access roads, car parking and landscaping - changes to the description of development/amended plans/additional information.

LOCATION: Melton Works, Brook Street East, Wellingborough. NN8 1ND

APPLICANT: Mr James Griffiths, Kier Homes Limited.

Major development referred to Committee because of the number of objections

BACKGROUND: In June 2008, the Committee considered and resolved to grant outline permission (subject to the completion of a Legal Agreement) for redevelopment of site for residential purposes. The Legal Agreement was subsequently completed and the decision notice issued. The outline proposal that was considered and consented stated that consent was sought for the redevelopment of the site to provide up to 175 residential units at a density of about 70 dwellings per hectare. The access arrangement was considered at the outline stage.

THE APPLICATION SITE: The Saxby factory site is located on the western side of Chester Road and bounded by the Swanspool Brook to the south. It abuts the rear gardens of properties fronting Midland Road to the north and measures approximately 2.55 hectares. The site previously contained a collection of factory, office and ancillary buildings. These ranged from single to 2 storeys but were up to 10 metres in height, equivalent to 3 to 4 storey residential properties. Additionally there were a number of large storage tanks situated close to the eastern boundary. The buildings extended to a combined gross floor area of circa 10,000m2. All buildings on the site have since been demolished and the site currently is vacant. Buildings and hard standing previously covered about 82% of the site, with just 0.38 ha 15% of the site previously soft landscaped.

130 WP/2012/0533/RMM40

4 191 57.3m

236 Surgery 118

151 183

Langton 4 Car Park 230 65.2m 46

VIVIANROAD

3 47

1 149 222 107

Laurel

179 A 212

Court 129a

6 108 RANELAGH ROAD 129

131 42 171

4 61

44 106 1 165

130 KNOX ROAD 115 128

8 64.4m

163 40 24 118

120 to 126 to 120

101 114

104 106 to 112 to 106 PH

100 10

153 36 52 19

11 13 11 151 99 WINSTANLEY ROAD 63.4m 99a 63.0m 145 1

ED Bdy St Mary's Church 30 93 CR 89 23 DRYDEN ROAD 133 63.0m

1 11a

142

61.7m 96 12a 119 6 88

12 132 107 2 103 KNOX ROAD 57.6m

120 St Mary's Paddock Car Park 12

112

106 14 14 18

LB 17

32 16 Day

Nursery 13 14

119 27 71

63 82

103 22 to 17 18

112

70a 70 89

Church 17

Presbytery 59.4m

75 96a

96 2a 94 Vicarage 55.2m 2

78 TCB 73 53.0m 57.0m 191 197 LB 185 195

RANELAGH ROAD 183 46 to 50 to 46

PALK ROAD 15 194 49

15b Elsden Park 56.4m 44 to 40

Victoria Centre 15a MIDLAND ROAD 184 38

176 30

Flats 19 166

Club to 21 2 159

56.7m 175 160 Flats 10

to 18 Linden Manor 171 158

Nursing Home 165

The Pines 55.2m 53.9m 154

Great Glen 12

151 A Flats 1 to 9 to 1 Flats

Hotel 140

142 157a 130 Factory 157

1a 153a 155 126 1 to 6 153

Cromwell 22 House 124b

52.1m 1

131 135 124 53.6m

124a 2 49.4m 114

Belview Lodge 12

112a

112

110 20

108

106

30 1

MIDLAND ROAD to 104 96

88 40

13 9 COLWELL ROAD

A 76a

34 CHESTER RO AD Allotment Gardens 23 1 to 5 to 50.9m

36 10

34 FIELDS VIEW 33 BROOK STREETEAST

Gas Gov 9

El ESS Sub Sta

13 A (Flats 1 to 22) 2

19 to 25

All Saints C of E 12

Primary School 18 to 6

16 and Nursery Unit 24 1

34 CHACE ROAD

25 13 23

4 35 SwanspoolG Brook Castle View

FB PC

Pavilion 37

Allotment Gardens Playground

D Fn Swanspool Brook

Castle Fields G Path

Bandstand

23 16

Path

49.0m 45.1m SAXBY CRESCENT ROAD

IRTHLINGBOROUGH 1b FS 1 Chimney

A 3 IRTHLINGBO RO UG H ROAD 1 21 to 25

El Sub Sta 9 Mannock Medical Centre 43.0m

Fire and

COURT MEWS 8 to 1 15 TO 20 TO 15 Ambulance Station

31 Pond

32 13 Tanks 12 9

THE CLOISTERS 11 Drill Tower

10 33 TO 41 TO 33

Equity

47 House TO Isebrook Sunningdale

42 Hospital Crowsley

6 58 TO 61 TO 58

26 48 TO 57 TO 48 1 to 40 28 Rosewood Court 22 24

10 Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:2,500 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 WP/2012/0533/RMM - Melton Works, Brook Street East, Wellingborough ± GetMapping PLC 1999 65

The site is in an area of uneven topography. The land rises steeply at the northern boundary, adjacent to the rear of Midland Road properties. The site also contains a number of trees, predominantly on the eastern and southern boundaries, which were subject to a tree survey, submitted with the original outline application in 2007. An updated tree survey has been undertaken to accompany this application, which is described in more detail in the submitted Arboricultural survey and Design and Access Statement (DAS) landscape chapter.

There were historically been four points of access to the site. The main entrance for cars is located at the south-eastern corner, on Chester Road where it forms a crossroads with Chace Road. This entrance provides access to the level terraced area at the bottom of the site where most of the car parking and service areas were historically located and the main factory was sited. A second vehicle access exists approximately half way up Chester Road. This access, which is almost directly opposite Colwell Road, provides access to the service yard. This access is currently gated but during production was in regular use by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs).

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The proposal under consideration is a reserved matters application submitted for approval relating to layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping, pursuant to conditions 1 and 2 of the outline approval Ref: WP/2008/0010/OM. Approval is also sought for amended proposals to the access arrangements from those approved at the outline application stage.

This proposal aims to deliver 134 dwellings (24 x 2 bed flats; 32 x 2 bed houses; 39 x 3 bed houses; and 39 x 4 bed houses) and has been prepared and developed in accordance with the broad principles approved by the outline permission and develops from the Illustrative Outline Masterplan submitted with that application. The design development undertaken by the applicant has introduced some variations to the illustrative proposals, including slightly modified access arrangements, which deliver design enhancements from the original layout.

The Outline illustrative masterplan provided a communal open space area, principally for the apartments fronting onto Swanspool Brook. Notwithstanding that these apartments have been replaced by traditional family housing, the communal open space concept has been retained, and in fact increased. The area of open space now extends to 0.29 ha (11% of the site).

This will form a community focus within the scheme, providing for amenity recreational and sitting out space. The density of the scheme approved at Outline stage was circa 67 dwellings per hectare with a broadly equal mix of one and two bedroom flats arranged in mansion blocks and three and four bedroom houses. The scheme now provides for 134 dwellings across the 2.55 ha site, at a reduced density of 52 dwellings per hectare.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening The Network of Settlements Policy 7 – Delivering Housing 66

Policy 4 – Enhancing Local Connections Policy 9 – Distribution & Location of Development Policy 10 – Distribution of Housing Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 – Energy Efficiency & Sustainable Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance: Building Better Places, Parking and Planning Out Crime. Supplementary Planning Document : Sustainable Design.

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

2. Environment Agency – no objections subject to the imposition of conditions.

3. Northamptonshire Police – no objection but suggested measures to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour.

All ground floor windows and others that are easily accessible meet BS7950 or equivalent with laminated glazing to 6.4mm minimum thickness certificated to BS EN 356 P2A; All external doors to conform to PAS23/PAS24 or equivalent with glazing laminate 6.4mm thick and certificated to BS EN 356 P2A; All apartment doors to conform to PAS23/PAS24 or equivalent with leterplate deflectors fitted internally if thumb turns are used and located within 400mm of the letterplate opening; Access control to be provided for blocks of apartments with audio visual capability to each apartment.

4. BCW Design and Conservation Officer - this is a high-quality scheme which can expect a very good Building for Life score when completed. I therefore have very little to say negatively about it. The only points I would like to make are: The need for permeable paving on common surfaces; and a better railing type should be requested. Just a straight-forward flattened spike top would look traditional and acceptable.

5. Mrs Cummings of 9 Chester Road - I am dissapointed that the amended plans do nothing to address the objections raised by myself or other residents on Chester Road. As such I strongly object to the amended property plans due to:

the proposed property development will be too over-populated for such a small area, bringing with it:- - noise issues - severe parking issues, as a number of cars will also park in this road in the afternoon/early evening to access the park. Although the plans show that each property will have a drive or parking space, half of Chester Road's parking will be taken out to accommodate this, which means that residents on Chester Road, Colwell Road & Chase Road will have less parking in an already overcrowded area as the majority pf properties on these roads are terraced and there are very few properties with offroad parking. - congestion and traffic issues (as there are only 2 entrances into the proposed estate, both of which being on Chester Road, which will turn it from being a very 67

quiet road, to a busy and noisy road, making it less safe for residents and for children and dog-walkers accessing the park.

As per my previous objection, we live in a single storey Bungalow on the corner of Chester Road/Chase Road, and the plans show a row of high 3-storey town houses directly opposite us (in particular properties 16 & 17 on the plans, where the third storey is within roof space, but in which the roof is much higher than a typical 2-storey house), which are extremely imposing with high roofs, but the whole row (properties 14-21) will obscure late afternoon/early evening sunlight (as the sun is more towards properties 14/15 in the winter/spring, and properties 19/20 in the summer/autumn), when previously the only thing opposite was a 6 ft fence covered with bush growth and small trees amounting to no higher than 8/9 ft directly opposite our bungalow. Having properties (as per those shown as properties 23-26) on the whole of Chester Road would be far less imposing than the 3 storey town houses, and also appartments further down the road to current residential properties.

A better resolution to parking concerns and imposing height of properties would be by turning the direction of the properties around and having the properties rear gardens backing on to Chester Road and having frontal access (including drives) from within in the grounds of the old Saxby site.

Also, the style of the new properties are not in keeping with the area, and by enclosing the properties within the ground (as per the above paragraph), this would be less noticeable.

My original objection (as re-issued in this document) still stands and I am STRONGLY against the number of properties to over-develop this land, and also the design and layout of the proposed development application as it currently is, which will negatively affect residents on Chester Road (and Chase Road and Colwell Road).

6. Wendy Young of 19 Chester Road - this is far too many houses/flats being crammed into such a small site. This proposed development will create lots of traffic problems and noise which will be far worse than when Saxby owned this site. Turning a quiet residental area into a noisy over populated area. Building flats will also block out the view over the park which is the very reason i bought my house.

7. C & K Mitchell of 29 Chester Road - with reference to the Planning application for development of the former Saxby site, I wish to object in the strongest terms to the following aspects of the Planning Application.

1. Type of property on the site.

The previous application restricted the house types to two storey properties in order to fit in with the existing properties. This application plans on building 2 and a half and three storey properties in the outer edge of the estate, being opposite my house at the bottom of Chester Road. I do not wish to have three storey properties overlooking my house which for its entire lifetime of over 100 68

years has had NOTHING opposite. Two storey properties would be much more in keeping with the area.

I note that there are still apartments to be built on the site, these being 4 storey. The previous application did have apartments, although not as tall and these were placed at the lower end of the site to minimise the height impact. The new application put these very high buildings at the top end of the site where their height impact is at its worse. They will be seen from every angle. This is hardly in keeping with the area.

The design of the properties do not lend themselves to the local area. Timber cladding, metal Juliet balconies and dark grey UPV window frames will stick out like sore thumbs compared to the surrounding brick Victorian dwellings.

The photographs in your design statement of ¿surrounding¿ housing developments are, in my opinion, misleading. The first picture shows 3 storey apartments, which do not directly overlook any properties, as the houses on the other side of the road are sideway on. The third picture shows a very small development which has very little road frontage, what there is as the rear gardens of the properties, and the three storey properties do not back on to older terraced two storey properties. None of these developments are close to the area concerned, and are all in very different settings, one being the site of an old persons home, and one being part of a churchyard.

2. Parking. In your access statement you show three possible planning layouts. The second one was dismissed with one of the reasons being ¿ a relatively poor design in the south east corner where developments slips away into parking courts and doesn’t address the street scene.

On the initial planning application these spaces were put in place to aid the parking for the residents at the far end of Chester Road who have no road frontage and have to use that area for their parking. You have removed this area from the plan, ensuring that the new properties have parking but the existing residents of Chester Road do not. At our suggestion the previous plan was to turn these properties inward facing and provide these spaces for the existing residents. Could this not be achieved here too?

The remainder of Chester Road is also a problem with parking. All the on street parking is replaced with parking for the new properties. There has historically been parking issues in the three roads, Chester, Chace and Colwell, which after a 10 year battle has been partially resolved by the introduction of a residents parking scheme, which we pay for. ( Incidentally, should you not choose to add your roads to this scheme, I am sure that they will be immediately filled with commuter parkers.) Chester Road is not only used for its residents, but also had overflow parking for Chace and Colwell, as these are very narrow streets and parking remains a problem.

Overall should the amount of on street parking be reduced to the level of not having enough spaces to park, then the viability of the parking permit scheme 69

may be brought into question. I am sure that, given the choice, existing residents would prefer to see the rear of properties and have enough parking, than be looking at the front of houses with their own drives and nowhere to park their cars.

3. Road Layout My concern is mainly with the main access road being opposite the end of Chace Road. There are many people walk down Chester Rd to access Castle Fields, with dogs and with children. I feel that Chace Road will become a rat run, and cars going into the site will not stop at the end of Chace Road, leading to collisions. I am not sure how this can be changed, but I think it should be recognised that this may be a problem

Secondly, the state of repair to Chester Road is quite poor as a result of years of HGV traffic form Saxbys and I would respectfully suggest that on completion of the site that the road is completely resurfaced by the contactors as part of the section 106 agreement that will be in place as it will have deteriorated further in the time that it takes to build the houses.

8. A & N Katwa of 31 Chester Road - we STRONGLY OBJECT to the the proposed development which will have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of ourselves and our neighbours as it will cause a lot more noise and disturbance and loss of privacy, having houses in close relation and at 2.5-3 stories which will over look our property and create an imbalance to a well established street, this will have an effect on the development on the character of the neighbourhood as houses located running alongside houses that have been have been here a very long time.

I believe the high density / overdevelopment of the site, has been done to maximise the houses at the cost of detriment to local people. The cars parked on Chester Road have often been congested and this would lead to even greater stress on parking along the road and particular at the bottom of Chester road near the park. Lots of young children and people using the road as an access to the park. Having a road continuing in parallel with Chace road will increase the traffic flow and cause increased difficulty for people to park their cars who are located near the park and for Chace Road and nearby areas. I believe any road should take this into account as this will create an obvious parking congestion problem and increasing risk of danger to particular young children and dog walkers who regular use the road to access the park.

Also the proposed development is over-bearing in terms of its appearance compared with existing houses in the vicinity as they are Timber cladded and totally not in keeping with the street, The housing should be set a side so not on the boundary of the Chester road side. This would lessen the impact of the new buildings with the more traditional long standing buildings.

Also the loss of existing views of the park will be impaired if the proposal should go ahead this would affect neighbouring properties and would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners.

In summary, the development is overdevelopment, in style and manner completely inappropriate to its surroundings and not taking account the safety and parking issues of residents.

9. Alexander Foster of 13 Chester Road - I am in receipt of your communication dated 7th December. I have the following objections to the proposed development :-

1. You will recall that in 2011, after years of having to put up with rail commuters parking in Chester Road and adjacent roads on week days from early morning until evening, a residents parking scheme was introduced. Although there are houses on only one side of Chester Road, the "overflow" from Colwell and Chace Roads park in Chester Road, as do the residents of the houses fronting onto the footpath at the foot of the road, leading into Castle Fields. I note from the plan of the proposed development that a number of houses will front onto Chester Road, each apparently, with two off-road parking spaces, which would preclude parking of vehicles on the greater part of that side of the road by holders of residents parking permits as they will be blocking the above mentioned parking spaces. My concern is that this would leave insufficient room for all the vehicles owned by holders of parking permits - Colwell and Chace Roads are always full up when folks return home from work.

2. It would appear from the plan that the only means of access to and egress from the proposed development will be from and to Chester Road, which is already busy at peak times with vehicles taking a "short cut" from Senwick Road. Why is there no proposed access from Brook Street East? If the reason for this is that Ranelagh Road is immediately opposite Brook Street then surely traffic lights would be the answer? I would point out that up until a few years ago all traffic to and from Messrs. Saxby's used Brook Street.

10. Greg Moore of 36 Colwell Road - 1. The planning drawings show double parking to the front of the dwellings proposed for Chester Road, which would require a dropped curb the entire length of Chester Rd on the western side. This will prevent street parking on that side of Chester Rd. There are typically about 15 vehicles parked nightly along that roadside. Removing all that available parking will create difficulties for the existing residents of the area.

2. The streets neighbouring the site, especially Chace Rd and Colwell Rd are narrow and crowded with parked cars. It should be a condition of planning consent that no construction vehicles associated with this development be allowed to travel down or to park in those streets. When the site was an industrial estate trucks trying to use those streets regularly damaged parked cars. Even today larger vehicles such as trucks and large vans find their journey impossible because of the narrowness of the streets and become stuck, unable to progress and unable to reverse, until residents can move their cars. Regular construction traffic, possibly for several years, would be a serious detriment to the residents of those streets.

3. The submission makes clear that only the social housing will seek to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes certification, and then only Level 3. Given that 71

Wellingborough has (or at least, had) ambitions to be the sustainable industries capital of the UK, this is very disappointing. At very least all housing should meet Level 3, and preferably a higher Code rating in anticipation of the proposed changes in 2013 to Part L of the Building Regs.

4. The proposed designs for the dwellings and blocks of flats are very disappointingly bland. It's good that the designs attempt to be modern and not historicist pastiche; it's sad that the proposed designs are so undistinguished.

11. Helen Rainbow of Chace Road - I would like to express my objections to the Planning Application for the development of the former Saxby's site on Chester Road, on the following grounds:

1. Safety: with the proposed main access to the development being at the end of Chace Road it has the potential to become a rat-run with people choosing to use it as a short-cut to Senwick Road. Chace Road is a very narrow residential street and was never designed to cope with the increase in traffic that a development of over 100 new dwellings will generate. It should be noted that cars already park on both pavements and it is not uncommon for pedestrians, particularly those pushing buggies, to have to walk on the road. This creates a serious safety concern both for residents and pedestrians wishing to access the park.

2. Affect on environment/local wildlife: it has been noted that several large, mature trees have already been felled BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT HAS EVEN HAD APPROVAL. This has already had an impact on the environment, wildlife and the fragile ecosystems that they support. Bushes at the bottom of Chester Road have also been ripped out, these were previously nesting and roosting areas for birds. The new development have stated that they will plant new trees but these will take many generations to grow as mature as the ones that have been destroyed.

3. Parking: parking spaces along Chace Road, Colwell Road and Chester Road have always been at a premium. This proposed development will remove some of the available parking space from Chester Road which will impinge on the existing residents that are already required to pay for having a parking permit. This will put further pressure on the already congested streets with a further impact on safety.

4. Aesthetics: the proposed architecture of the development is completely out of keeping with the surrounding Victorian red-bricked housing, spoiling the character of the area. It is also noted that some of the proposed dwellings are 3 and 4 storeys high. This will impinge on the privacy of existing residents, particularly those in Chester Road and may have an effect on their light levels.

5. Affordability: the proposal states that it is making available affordable homes. Yet only a very small number of them are being designated as such. Therefore I can see no social justification for the development.

I would also like to make the point that only residents in Chester Road, Midland Road and Brook Street East were consulted with regard to this proposal. Those in Chace Road and Colwell Road were left out of this consultation. I feel this is unacceptable as the development affects these residents as well.

12. June Sara Morby of 3 Chester Road – I am horrified and devastated in spite of your explanation for the amended road and access point. Not enough thought and empathy for my home that will have to bear the consequences and outcomes of this access road opposite my property has been considered.

All vehicles emerging from this road will be heading straight for my disability vehicle which is parked outside my property. A meeting of planners, architects and residents may be beneficial as soon as possible.

13. Salli Scudamore of 43 Chester Road –

“I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding the current plans for the proposed building of 135 dwellings on the above site.

I am in a house where the road has ended and has become the throughfare to the park. Parking has always been an issue for us, though has recently been eased by the council agreeing to a permit scheme. However, with the construction of these new houses it would appear that all the parking up the side of the street next to the site will be diminished by houses with driveways and dropped kerbs. There are three members of my household and we have two cars – if we cannot park them then we will be forced to move, like many of my neighbours. The disregard of existing residents, if this is the case, is absolutely staggering.

I would be grateful if you could shed some light upon this situation for me and confirm if this is definitely the case.

I would also like at this point to express my absolute disgust at how Kier have ruthlessly hacked down all the beautiful trees along the brook in Castle Fields. I am aghast that they were allowed to do this and, like all the people who frequent the park, remain deeply saddened at their loss.”

14. Karon Hawes and Marion Turner of 13 Colwell Road –

“We wish to make a number of objections to the proposed development of the Old Saxby's site.

A Formal Complaint re - Consultation Before we do, we wish to lodge a formal compliant that we were not properly consulted or notified about this planning application, a development which will have a direct impact on our enjoyment of our home and our immediate surrounding area. We noted that signs had gone up near the site a few weeks ago, just after the bushes and trees were removed. But these are misleading as they request people to raise objections by 28 Dec 2012. Clearly they relate to an earlier notification which we were also not notified about. We do not recall 73

seeing these signs before late Feb 2013, and we walk along the line of the site everyday.

We were completely unaware that an application is presently being consulted upon. We only heard following receipt of a note from a neighbour in Chester Rd last Wednesday (13th March), leaving us just 6 days to view the plans and raise any objections.

We are very upset about this and request this be investigated as a formal compliant as per The Council's procedures. We are also upset that this is the first we have heard of this application when it is clear, from having now looked at the Council's website, that consultation on the Planning application actually began in early December 2012.

I hope you will look into this as a matter of urgency, as well as the poor and untimely placing of public notices around the site.

Our Objections We wish to submit objections on a number of grounds but also wish it to be noted that due to the lack of time we have had to consider the planning application properly, there are a number of issues mentioned by others we are not able to comment on as we have not had time to study the plans in detail. However, we are also concerned by the proposed size of homes lining the left hand side of Chester Rd and over looking existing properties and the likely reduction of late afternoon sunlight to the whole area.

(1) Site Access Looking at the plans we were shocked to find that there will be only one road in and out of the housing complex, which will be opposite Chase Rd. This seems completely inadequate as, with around 135 dwellings, the site is likely to generate about 270 cars and it will cause a great deal of traffic problems for both the residents of the new site and existing residents on Chase Rd, Colwell Rd and Chester Rd. It will also generate a lot of problems for cars emerging on to Midland Rd.

We suggest that a second access route be opened up on Brook St East and that Traffic lights be placed at the top of both Brook St East and Chester Rd to help manage the flow of vehicles into and out of the area. We also strongly suggest that Chase Rd and Colwell Road become one way, with the flow going from Senwick Rd end towards the Old Saxby Site. That way all vehicles would leave our area via the new lights at the top of Chester Rd. With out this it will be mayhem, with all the parked cars in the streets and two-way traffic. Already the area is heavily congested with parked cars, any more traffic would make it impossible for emergency services and the bin lorry to access the area and our homes.

(2) Parking Our second objection is on the grounds of parking. We note from the plans that some 15 - 20 homes will face out from the site on the left hand side of Chester Rd (as you face up towards Midland Rd). This aspect of the plans is causing us 74 great concern. We note that each property would have drives and parking for 2 vehicles each. This feature would remove all the parking spaces from the left hand site of Chester Rd. This would cause major problems for exiting local residents, not just those at the bottom of Chester Rd who don't have road access from their homes, or residents further up Chester Rd, but also to the many residents on Colwell Rd and Chase Rd who already have problems parking on their own road and regularly have to use Chester Rd as an overflow.

We note there are about 40 properties each in Colwell Rd and Chase Rd, and only about 40 parking spaces (at a squeeze) per road. With many residents having more than one car the result is that many people have to park on Chester Rd. We also note that regularly there are about 40 cars parked in Chester Rd in the evening, with more than 25 on the left hand side (the Saxby's side of the road). Retaining the properties with drives on that side of the road will not only remove those 25 parking spaces but also restrict parking on the other side when space to access the site is reconfigured.

There seem to be no plans to help solve this parking problem for existing residents and we feel it is incredibly short sighted and unfair that new residents should have 2 spaces guaranteed, where as exiting residents (who already pay to park in the area via the parking permit scheme) will have a lottery every day to just get one space! Its not as if we could park in a neighbouring street. Those areas are themselves also suffering because of the parking problems in the whole area near the station.

Also as Karon is disabled we need the car to be fairly close by as she cannot walk unaided. Even though she has a blue badge and can park in many areas, clearly if all the parking spaces are in use she may have to walk a long way from whatever space we find for us to park. This is of considerable concern to us.

Possible ways of easing the parking problems could include:-

(a) The site developers providing a fund for homeowners in the Colwell, Chester and Chase Rd's to adapt their front gardens and turn them into drives. We could have 'soft walk ways' at the front of the drives (like the new 'soft kerbs' in the semi pedestrian areas in the centre of town, not sure what the technical name for these are), and the area could be designated as a residential area with a 20 mph speed limit (again a technique often seem in new housing developments)

(b) Another option could be to include additional parking in the new site providing at least 30 spaces for existing residents,

(c) or, simply reverse the frontage of the new houses due to face in to Chester Road, so rather than having a drive at the front, their gardens would back onto the road thereby retaining the existing parking spaces on the left hand side of Chester Rd.

(d) or, can you suggest another way to ease our parking problems that wont cost existing residents even more money?

Also parking for visitors and service providers does not seem to have been considered. Obviously, many existing residents have visitors but we are also aware that many people drive to the area and park at the bottom of Chester Rd to walk their dogs in the park. Thereby using up further scare parking space.

We would call on the developers to hold a meeting with existing residents to discuss our concerns and hopefully together we could come up with some good solutions that would suit us all. We are not opposing the development in principle but we do feel much more consideration of the needs of people already living here should be made.

(3) Personal Access Related to My Disability A third objection is on the grounds of access for local disabled residents and families with young children. At present, with the way people already park on Colwell Rd, (ie, with cars on the pavement and bins everywhere) if Karon wishes to leave our home in her electric wheelchair, she has to use the back exist via the alleyways that run at the back of Colwell Rd and Chase Rd.

We are concerned that the alley and dropped kerbs, that she needs to use to exit, will be even more blocked by cars. Already its often a nightmare getting out what with cars and dustbins blocking the exits of the alley and cars parked across dropped kerbs.

Often she has to ride on the road as the pavements are not assessable. She fears this would be even more dangerous if there are an extra 200 plus cars in our area! Have the planning people taken in to consideration the needs of the local disabled residents like Karon and their ability to have access in our area? We are aware of at least 4 people on Colwell Rd alone who have disability and access issues.

Much more needs to be done to make the area accessible as it is, with the present plans for the development those problems will increase considerably. Perhaps the developers could consult directly with local residents with disabilities, and parents with young children, to see what can be done to help alleviate some of the problems we face (together with the Council).

We hope you will consider our objections carefully and adjust these plans accordingly.”

15. Mr and Mrs A G Foster, 13 Chester Road –

“We would like to protest at the building works due to start on the old Saxby site near Castle Fields in Wellingborough. As local residents we have already had concerns about the level of traffic and parking in this area. This has been addressed by the provision of a resident parking scheme. However, this new site will severely affect the local parking for residents, in particular those who are at the bottom of Chester Road, without a road outside the house. If houses front onto Chester all the way up the street as shown on the new plans, there will be no parking for residents already there. The level of traffic therefore attempting to park will start to restrict access for larger vehicles such as emergency transport.

The side roads such as Chase and Colwell are already fully parked, with vehicles on the pavement and a limited amount of space up the middle of the road. The “overflow” from these roads use Irchester Road at the end of the working day, and at weekends.

We would like to have these concerns addressed in the new planning application and would welcome a reply to this letter.”

WP/2008/0010 WP/2012/0532 & WP/2012/0533 Original plans; bottom end of Updated plans, now showing no Chester Road, showing parking spaces parking for present residents, and no houses fronting onto the road, and housing fronting onto Chester therefore leaving parking for present Road all the way up. residents.

16. Julie Mason and Paul Arnold, 39 Chester Road Ms Wendy Young, 19 Chester Road David and Debra Bell, 33 Chester Road Mrs Rita Neal, 35 Chester Road (all with the same generic letter) –

“I/we would like to protest at the building works due to start on the old Saxby site near Castle Fields in Wellingborough. As local residents we have already had concerns about the level of traffic and parking in this area. This has been addressed by the provision of a resident parking scheme. However, this new site will severely affect the local parking for residents, in particular those who are at the bottom of Chester Road, without a road outside the house. If houses front onto Chester all the way up the street as shown on the new plans, there will be no parking for residents already there. The level of traffic therefore attempting to park will start to restrict access for larger vehicles such as emergency transport.

The side roads such as Chase and Colwell are already fully parked, with vehicles on the pavement and a limited amount of space up the middle of the road.

I/we would like to have these concerns addressed in the new planning application and would welcome a reply to this letter.”

17. Mr D Chang, 5 Chace Road –

“I would like to formally object to the planned housing estate on the old Saxby's site.

As a resident of Chace Road I and my family will be directly effect, not only by the length and process of construction, but also and mainly by the lasting effect of introducing 170+ new homes at the bottom of our street.

Parking is already at capacity, and our streets are extremely narrow to where parked cars need to be curbed on both sides to allow a single car to proceed down the road. Adding further housing in the area will only increase to this already congested problematic parking issue.

Chace Road is traditionally the main route for people in this area to walk into town and for local children to commute to school. As a result to the size of the street most of these people are forced to walk in the street. Once the added households and their, at least 176 cars (though we can easily imagine that it will 78

well over 200 added cars) start using Chace Road as its through fair this will become very dangerous to say the least.

As previously stated, Chace Road is a narrow road, and unfortunately it is used as a cut through for people driving up to Midland Road. Quite often these people drive far too fast for the size of the street. So with the added households and vehicles using the road this danger will only increase. Especially noting that quite a few households on the street are young family with small children.

Therefore, I feel that putting the entrance of this proposed estate right on the bottom of Chace Road is seriously negligent and inconsiderate of the residents of Chace, Chester and Colwell Roads.

I also agree with the previously stated arguments on other objections about the social aptitude of the proposal as being and having no value to the community. As well, I object to the size of the housing, as it would ruin the allure and communal continuity of a Victorian neighborhood.”

ASSESSMENT: Principle of Development The principle of development is established given that the Committee previously resolved to grant outline planning permission (Ref: WP/2008/0010/OM). This planning permission approved the principle of redevelopment and maximum unit numbers, for up to 175 dwellings. The scheme proposals within this reserved matters application seek consent for new housing for 134 units for the site, as part of the approval of reserved matters pursuant to the outline permission.

The details presented in this application documents meet the requirements of the outline planning permission. These matters are assessed against the development plan policies to see whether on balance the scheme and details as a whole accord with the whole of the development plan. If the conclusion is that, on balance yes they do and that the scheme would provide a sustainable development, then in accordance with requirements of the Planning Acts and as set out in the NPPF, permission should be granted.

Layout, Appearance, Design and Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Area Revisions are proposed to the site layout in response to the initial comments from officers and the County Council specifically in relation to both the south-west and southeast corners of the site. Firstly, the revised housing layout in the south-west corner brings the building line of residential properties forward, towards Brook Street East, so that the units now more appropriately address the streetscene and present a residential frontage, in terms of both scale and design, as opposed to the more ‘industrial’ design of the pumping station and electricity sub-station. The relocation of these units has enabled the inclusion of a further corner unit type (2 dwellings) fronting the Brook and proposed open space.

The electricity sub-station has been moved from its previous location as it lay within the 9 metre maintenance zone the Environment Agency (EA) are seeking for Swanspool Brook. Its new location is within the southern apartment block car park, which will 79 enable servicing to take place without affecting access to any other unit, or blocking of the highway. Due to its new location and proximity in the streetscene, the sub-station design is of brick walls with pitched, tile roof, making it a feature, which will act as a marker for the pedestrian and cycle route and be a gateway feature into the site at this point.

In the south-east corner of the site, there has been a minor revision to the layout to pull the built footprint away from the Brook and beyond the 9m Swanspool Brook maintenance zone requested by the EA.

In response to the Council’s Design Officer’s comments, regarding the stepping of units along Chester Road to match the existing character of dwellings here, the levels and design of the units fronting Chester Road have been amended, which sees them paired as they step up the street, with a continuous ridge line for each pair, as opposed to stepping the ridge for each unit. A further change in response to the Design Officer’s comments is the inclusion of Solar panels on units 43 – 47, the affordable units, which will be used to deliver solar hot water. These panels are shown on drawings 281-2BH- A-01 Rev C 2 bed 2 storey and 281-3BH-A-01 Rev C 3 bed 2 storey respectively.

Whilst scheme revisions in terms of layout have been necessitated, in part by drainage matters and changes in levels, the opportunity has been taken to reconsider the external appearance of some elements of the scheme and so deliver a more contemporary finish in terms of the units external appearance, than previously achieved. In this regard, the houses will now be predominantly red multi-stock brick, with some being yellow multi-stock brick, with the incorporation of white render and/or timber effect panelling. The panelling will now be either sail cloth (cream/off-white) or white in colour. Changes are also proposed to the external appearance of the apartment blocks, with white render introduced on the main elevations, together with timber effect cladding, with the lower floors of red brick.

The roof finishes for the houses are also proposed to be amended, to either smooth grey (slate effect) or burnt heather (dark brown) roof tiles.

These proposals are considered to more appropriately reflect the contemporary approach desired for the site and with a varied combination of use of these materials across the development, will reinforce the architectural language chosen for the site through the repetition of the palette of colours, materials and textures. This will provide a contrast to the slightly heavier and distinctive character of existing houses along Chester Road and Brook Street East. In terms of building scale and massing, building heights were broadly agreed in the Outline Application and allowed for four storey apartment blocks and two and three storeys housing, as described in the Outline DAS, which stated that:

“Block heights vary due to location but follow a pattern of perimeter two-storey building to four-storey within the centre of the site where the existing site “cut” has left a lower ground level. These four-storey blocks are thus perceived as three-storey blocks from the edge of the site”.

The scheme proposals are consistent with this, providing for two four-storey apartment blocks, albeit in the north-west corner, where the site has been cut in to the slope, 80

rather than as the perimeter to the open space. These will appear as three and three and a half storey blocks on the Brook Street East frontage, as set out above. The Outline DAS also described the scale proposed as “The developed design will provide a variety of townscape utilising various building heights and appropriate scale commensurate with type of occupation.”

As set out in the DAS accompanying the current application and demonstrated on the submitted plans, the houses proposed within the development are restricted to two – three storeys, with pitched roofs. The houses on the eastern and western boundaries respond to the existing neighbouring context. Development at the scale and massing proposed will ensure there is no loss of privacy or adverse impact on sunlight and daylight to any properties.

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that the layout, design and appearance of the development are satisfactory and would produce a development that is in keeping with and enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Access Arrangements, Highways and Parking Issues Access arrangements were initially sought to be approved under the outline planning permission. However, as design and layout of the development have evolved under the reserved matters, minor amendments to each of the proposed access are now sought. Junction layout analysis has been undertaken and plans prepared for each of the revised access locations. The main site access junction is proposed on Chester Road near the south-eastern corner, in the location of the existing site access.

It is shown from the junction design proposals submitted, as set out in the Transport and Highways Design Statement, that they can accommodate a large refuse vehicle (3 axle) undertaking the turning moves within the available carriageway and the junction and road layout provides sufficient radii to allow HGVs to turn into and out of the access from each direction of Chester Road, as is demonstrated by the swept path analysis. At its narrowest point the proposed main site access has a sufficient carriageway width to allow two HGVs to pass as stated in the Department for Transport publication Manual for Streets.

The secondary access in the north-east corner opposite Colwell Road is also marginally amended from the outline proposals, but is demonstrated “that a large refuse vehicle (3 axle) can undertake the turning moves within the available carriageway and lane widths. The junction provides sufficient radii to allow HGVs to turn into and out of the access from each direction of Chester Road.

Finally, the new junction arrangement/access at the southern end of Brook Street East, is designed in the form of that approved at the outline planning permission stage, and although this access will serve only 5 dwellings and the pumping station and electricity sub-station, it is designed to appropriate scale with a minimum site access width of 6.0 metres such that 2 HGVs could pass each other, notwithstanding that it is a cul-de- sac/turning head only.

The proposed parking provision has been based on the approach adopted for the outline proposal, which is in accord with policy requirements. The design layout shows 246 spaces are proposed, broadly in accordance with the above approach. The 81

proposed development makes provision for a minimum 132 cycle parking spaces, which marginally falls short of 100% provision, but acceptable nonetheless. All spaces are secure in either communal parking blocks or in specific cycle storage units in back gardens of houses (which are likely to be able to accommodate more than 1 cycle).

The proposals facilitate new pedestrian and cycle links through the site from east o west, in at least two routes, via the new accesses opposite Colwell and Chace Roads, with a choice of direct links via the main avenue, or meandering through the open space in the south or along the new access and steps in the north of the site. All paths are level and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant and provide for both pedestrians and cycles, except at the location of existing steps in the north of the site, where site levels are too steep to allow for a cycle path. A staircase is provided to traverse the steep level changes at this location so only a walking route is provided.

Landscaping The landscape scheme will create an attractive setting and strong green framework for the new development and preserve the local distinctiveness of the area. The existing mature boundary trees and hedgerows along the Swanspool Brook will be retained wherever practicable and be supplemented with new native tree and shrub planting to enhance the boundary with the adjacent Castle Fields Park. New structural trees planting as well as new hedges and ornamental shrubs will be used throughout the development to improvement the public frontages, which will help soften the profile of the new buildings, reduce the visual effects of development on neighbouring properties and retain the screening along the perimeter of the public park.

The choice of planting has been selected for their appropriateness to the location, to reinforce the character areas within the development and to provide year-round visual interest for residents and visitors, with especially the choice of shrub and hedgerow planting helping to delineate between public and private spaces, and provide for defensible space to properties.

Furthermore, the open space within the development will provide a substantial amenity area for the development, although the large Castle Fields Park also provides a wide range of play and recreational facilities that residents will overlook and have immediate access to. The enlarged green corridor along the Swanspool Brook will enhance its setting and increase the wildlife potential of the watercourse. The proposals also include a comprehensive range of robust high quality surface and enclosure treatments that will help define the public realm spaces, route corridors and property boundaries. Materials will be coordinated with the elevational finishes on the buildings and, in combination with the planting, create a cohesive and attractive appearance to all the external areas.

Amenity Impact The layout, design and scale of the proposed development takes account of the siting and form of the surrounding properties. Owing to the uneven topography of the site and the north-south undulation, the proposed dwellings would be at a lower elevation than the existing dwellings fronting Midland Road. In the circumstances, the proposed houses are unlikely to be visually intrusive and having regard to the separating distance between the proposed and existing, it is also unlikely that there would be a significant loss of privacy. As the proposed houses would be built adjacent to and facing the rear 82

gardens of Midland Road properties, there are benefits in that security would be enhanced through natural surveillance of an otherwise obscured area.

Conclusion With the principle of residential development firmly established by the outline approval, the reserved matters application proposes development based broadly around the essence and principles proposed and approved within the outline application. The design parameters such as the heights of the buildings, their scale and massing are all within, and to some degree reduced from, the parameters approved at the outline stage. The houses range from two to three storeys and apartment blocks are four storeys.

The proposed development responds appropriately to the character of its surroundings, extending to the careful detailing of the buildings and the proposed finishes and high quality materials. It is considered that the final design scheme as submitted retains the aspirations of the approved outline permission and masterplan, and accords with parameters approved in that permission.

The scheme proposals have evolved following detailed pre-application discussions with officers, which have resulted in a number of changes, and all comments have been addressed in the final design proposals as submitted.

Environmental considerations have also informed the design of the scheme and have been taken fully into account, notwithstanding that this application proposal is not an EIA development. The sustainability of the development generally has been demonstrated, with the affordable homes meeting sustainability requirements of Code for Sustainable Homes, and all units reducing carbon emissions significantly; inclusion of sustainable drainage features as site constraints permit and all units meeting building regulations Part M for accessibility requirements.

Overall, the application proposals deliver a sustainable development on an existing brownfield site, consistent with the provisions in the development plan and NPPF. The NPPF sets out a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, and advises that applications that accord with the development plan should be approved, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to following conditions.

1. The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (reference JKK7091 Rev A dated 28 February 2013). Finished floor levels must be set no lower than 44.1 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). 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. 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a End detailed surface water scheme to has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Anglian Water must provide confirmation 83

that they are satisfied with the surface water sewers offered for adoption. If they are not able to adopt the surface water sewers, an alternative maintenance proposal must be submitted. Surface water drainage scheme must include detailed calculations for all events as well as the cross section of the control chamber (including levels) and manufactures hydraulic curves. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, 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. 3. No development shall commence until details of a scheme, including phasing, for the provision of mains foul water drainage on and off site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reasons: 1. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future users. 2. To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory maintenance of the surface water scheme and to ensure that surface water is adequately managed on site. 3. To prevent flooding, pollution and detriment to public amenity through provision of suitable water infrastructure. In order to satisfy the above condition an adequate scheme would need to be submitted which demonstrates that there is (or will be prior to occupation) sufficient infrastructure capacity for the connection, conveyance, treatment and disposal of quantity and quality of water within the proposed phasing of development.

INFORMATIVES: 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 - Strengthening The Network of Settlements Policy 7 - Delivering Housing Policy 4 - Enhancing Local Connections Policy 9 - Distribution & Location of Development Policy 10 - Distribution of Housing Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency & Sustainable Construction 2. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and 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.

3. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following indicative drawings received on the date shown. Drawings numbered: 281-LP-01 (Location Plan), SK-01F, SK-02F, SK-03F, SK- 04F, SK05E, SK06C, H111-01C, H117.1-01C, H117.2-02, H117.4-01C, H105- 02, H094-02, F069-01C, 3BH-C-01B, 3BH-A-01C, 2BH-A-01C, H069-01B, H094- 01B, H117.2-01B, WEL-FE-05D, WEL-RE-07D, H105-01C, WEL-FF-02C, WEL- GF-01A, WEL-SE-06C, WEL-SE-08C, 06-STD-EXT04A, 06-STD-EXT-05A, 06- STD-EXT-08A, 06-STD-EXT-11A, 06-STD-EXT-15A, 06-STD-EXT-37A, 06- STD-EXT-24 A, 2396-LA-01C, LA-02C, LA-03C, PP-01CPP-02C, JKK7091 SK16A, P12-166-SS004C, J45.95/01 & J45.95/01. 4. The Crime Prevention Adviser at Northamptonshire Police has recommended the following: All ground floor windows and others that are easily accessible meet BS7950 or equivalent with laminated glazing to 6.4mm minimum thickness certificated to BS EN 356 P2A; All external doors to conform to PAS23/PAS24 or equivalent with glazing laminate 6.4mm thick and certificated to BS EN 356 P2A; All apartment doors to conform to PAS23/PAS24 or equivalent with letterplate deflectors fitted internally if thumb turns are used and located within 400mm of the letterplate opening; Access control to be provided for blocks of apartments with audio visual capability to each apartment. 85

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0562/F

PROPOSAL: Construction of single storey building comprising of 2 no. A1 units with associated access, landscaping and car parking (re-submission following withdrawn application WP/2012/0466/F - A5 unit now deleted).

LOCATION: 106 Gold Street, Wellingborough. NN8 4ES

APPLICANT: Mr James Pritchard, LSP Developments Limited.

NOTE: Decision on application deferred at Planning Committee which met on 27th February 2013.

Minutes -

8. PLANNING APPLICATION WP/2012/0562(F) – 106 GOLD STREET, WELLINGBOROUGH

The annexed circulated report of the Head of Planning and Local Development was received, including late correspondence, on planning application WP/2012/0562(F), for the construction of a single storey building comprising of 2 number A1 units with associated access, landscaping and car parking (resubmission following withdrawn application WP/2012/0466(F) - A5 unit now deleted) at 106 Gold Street, Wellingborough for Mr J Pritchard (LSP Developments Limited).

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

The Site Viewing Group visited the site on 26/01/2013, and a record of the visit was set out in the circulated notes.

Requests to address the meeting had been received from 4 objectors, Councillor Hawkes (Ward Councillor) and the agent.

It was proposed by Councillor Bell and seconded by Councillor Griffiths that planning permission be deferred due to the late receipt of a bat survey and no retail impact survey being received. WP/2012/0562/F

23 ESS

149

139

ED & Ward Bdy 138 59 84.7m

Track

129 128

55 119 GOLD STREET 122

60 114

83.5m 54

107 A

112

108 48 65

52 95 83.5m

Warehouse 63

FERRESTONE ROAD

36 39

White Lodge BEDALE ROAD 51

Beechwood

100

33 25

28 41

Burford House

Rose Lawn

The Poplars 13 31

25 27 7 10 8

5 6 30

8 1 to 4 to 1 Charnwood

28 13

20 29

Ivy Crest 3 1

AVENUE ROAD 1

Lymehurst 22 18

10 4

2c 2

15 Rockdene 2 THE AVENUE

El Sub Sta 1 6a Planning & Local 7 to 10 Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/2012/0562/F - 106 Gold Street, Wellingborough 86

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

RESOLVED that the planning permission be deferred due to the late receipt of a bat survey and no retail impact survey being received.

The following late letters were presented at the Committee (and any letters since) -

E-mail from Councillor Hawkes - I am attaching for your information a letter received from Mr. Richardson who is a bat expert who has, in the past, advised the Council. The contents are self explanatory. I would ask Mr. Kilpin to telephone me and advise me of the relevance of the issues raised.

“I can find no ecological survey reports accompanying this application. I would expect bats to use this site (trees are present in which they may roost, and certainly feed around) and the surrounding housing is used by bats for roosting. The bats then may travel across this site to reach foraging areas. Obviously the commuting flight lines and any roosts on site need to be located by survey and suitable mitigation applied to protect them (this may involve such things as the type and amount of lighting on site, location of the buildings, the need for a green route across the site etc.).

Wellingborough BC has a duty to consider Protected Species in such applications and the lack of an ecology report is a serious omission.

Other Protected Species that may be involved include great crested newts and badgers.

With no detailed ecology survey it would not be possible to decide the application without Wellingborough BC failing to consider PPS9, and the legal challenges that may arise from that omission.”

The applicant has since submitted a bat survey which was carried out recently. 87

89 90 91 92

Forwarded letter from Councillor –

“Dear Councillors,

I am so sorry to trouble you at this time however I feel very strongly about the proposed development on the former site of the Medical Centre on Gold Street. My name is Elizabeth Mansaray the owner occupier of 110 Gold Street, two doors down from this proposed development. There are many things I object to about in respect of this development and I am concerned that the lot of the concerns raised by objectors seem to be glossed over by the planning department and applicants. For me though the biggest issue is the fact that the planning department is proposing approval of the application with the following proviso

The use shall not operate outside the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 hours and deliveries for the site including during operation of the business shall take place no earlier than 7.00 am and no later than 6.00 pm without the prior approval in writing of the local planning authority. This includes waste collection services.

I have resided on Gold Street for ten years. The Doctors surgery had impact for traffic, noise etc and combined with the chemist was at times unbearable but residents dealt with the inconvinience because it was mainly during the week and by 6pm things were quieter. Twice a week already the rubbish is collected from the chemist. I can assure you they do not stick to the after 7am rule. They come as early as 5am, lorry parked outside homes, lights flashing and engine revving. Yes I complain - they abide by the time for a week or two then they arrive when they want. Again you just about tolerate it. I do not believe that this new development of shops with different delivery companies etc and times will be bearable to residents, that conditions will be adhered to and opening hours until 11pm will do anything other than blight the lives of residents like me who would no longer have any peace or quality of life. Please Please Please do something.”

Objection letter received (Harwoods) –

“Having viewed the report of the Head of Planning and Local Development relating to the above Planning Application which is due to be presented to the Planning Committee for consideration on 27th January 2013, I request that the following statement be read out, in full, to the Planning Committee.

The "summary of replies to consultations/representations received" only includes a censored and selected few of the numerous objections to this application.

The previous medical centre building was single storey with a high ceiling area over the waiting rooms and not two storey as stated. There was only parking for 14 patients at the front of the site with restricted visiting times. 94

Only doctors vehicles were allowed down to the back of the site. This is not at all similar to the proposed development.

Convenience stores in urban areas do not have car parking provision. They are for local people on foot. The proposed development is contrary to Policy S5 it is an out of town mini supermarket and is not located in a local centre or group of shops.

The proposal is contrary to NPPF Policy as it fails to deliver a building that enhances or compliments the environment. The report claims it is similar to what was there before. The point of the policy is that we do not want to re-build the 1970's.

The report goes on to suggest that a retail unit is preferable to existing Class D1 Uses. In fact any of the Class D1 Uses would be preferable, including a place of worship as the usage would be less intense than the 16 hours per day, 7 days a week, 365 days of the year currently proposed.

True "convenience stores" do not employ 10 to 15 staff. This area is well served by 7 convenience stores within 600 metres of this site. The proposed development is not necessary to the local residents and is wholly inappropriate.

The report does not comment on why it was considered unnecessary to have an ecology and protected species report prepared especially given that sightings have been reported to the Council.

Please would members consider whether they agree with the statement in the report which claims that proposed development would not generate more noise than the former medical centre or any other Class Dl Use, particularly in view of the trading hours proposed.

In consideration of the above, on behalf of the local residents, we implore members to reject this Planning Application.”

Statement received - Beechwood, The Avenue -

“Firstly I would like to apologise for not being able to speak myself but as an 83 year old widow I do not feel confident about speaking in public. I have lived all my life in Wellingborough and for the last 50 years I have lived in Beechwood which directly borders 80 metres of the west side of the 106 Gold Street plot so I have a deep personal interest in any proposed development on this site. The proposed development is a mini supermarket more suited to those found in retail parks by virtue of its car park, not a small residential area, it is therefore not suited to this location. The noise generated by cars parking day and night and also large delivery lorries turning into a small opening from the very busy Gold Street with cars parked one side, making the deliveries from early morning to late at night with their loud reversing alarms, would greatly affect the quality of 95

my life as my room completely faces the side where all the lorries would be driving down and turning. With cars parking at all hours the overflow of cars would end up being parked on the grass verges in The Avenue, which at the moment it is one of the few beautiful tree lined avenues left in Wellingborough that are pleasant to walk through. The grass verges border my property and I already try to maintain them, alongside the maintenances of my private garden to enhance the experience of a walk through The Avenue for the residents of Wellingborough, and the many children who walk to school through The Avenue. More cars would just make it more dangerous for those children who we try to encourage to walk to school. The proposal would also generate light pollution to the detriment of not just myself but to all the surrounding residents. The proposal to remove all 22 of the trees including a rare Ginko tree from the site, would significantly diminish the visual outlook and privacy of my property and the surrounding area and the screening of my home to the west of the site for ever. This desecration of trees that have stood for generations and have always enhanced the look of the street scene are to be replaced with just 3 small maple trees. There is also a significant chance of having large gangs of young people hanging around the shops late at night drinking alcohol with all the noise and nuisance that goes with it. Many of the residents that live near the site are elderly like myself and do not want that type of behaviour near our homes, or the fear that things could get out of hand culminating in the building being set on fire as happened to the doctors surgery, which I can tell you was very frightening. I also hope that the Spar shop owners have taken on board the fact that the site is protected by a number of covenants one of which prohibits the sale of alcohol. Also anything that will cause nuisance, cause noise or create fumes, including access to the site of commercial vehicles, were set in place to protect any individuals, the local residents and the community at large. I will strongly protect these covenants, for future generation to come after me. In conclusion, I strongly object to the proposed development and believe the site would be much more suitable for the provision of much needed affordable housing which would be much more appropriate in this part of Wellingborough.”

Landscape officer comments -

“There has been a bat survey which confirms what I have observed i.e. there does not appear to be a problem. Tree cover will be largely be maintained around the edge of the site if these are use as foraging routes by the bats. The site is mainly hardstanding.”

Letter received from resident at Gisburne Road -

“Thank you Ms. Smith, it sounds as if the application is for shops and not dwellings, which if the case is very unfortunate as there are so many other shops fairly close to the site; there is however a great need for flats for single people.”

In response, the Borough Landscape Officer comments as follows:

The site area was previously taken up with the medical centre building and the maximum number of car parking spaces which could be accommodated. Some trees were planted on the site, but the potential for wildlife habitat was considered to be somewhat limited. When a bat report was provided on request, it confirmed that there was no evidence of bat roosts in the trees within the site which were planted when the medical centre was built. Four trees were placed in category 2 in the survey which means that they can be felled using reasonable avoidance measures. The trees do not have obvious cavities with staining, although the cracks in the furrowed bark characteristic of false acacia could potentially be used by bats at any time. The requirement to reinspect these trees should be considered with the planning conditions.

In addition to the bat survey and in respect of the retail provision, Planning Policy comments as follows:

Further to our discussion, re. above application, I make the following observations in respect of the retail impact assessment and bat survey.

• Retail Impact - Par. 26 of the NPPF is categoric about a default threshold floor space of 2,500 sq.m below which a retail impact assessment would not be required. The proposed retail floor space is well below the threshold and BCW has no specific standards/thresholds. Under the circumstances (and outside the applicant's goodwill) there is no basis for requiring a retail impact study and little (if any) prospect for sustaining a refusal on this basis.

• Bat Survey - The Bat Society and Barwoods raised concerns about bats which the applicant addressed through a Bat Survey dated 22nd Feb. Unless there is compelling evidence contrary to the findings presented in that report, it is unlikely that this argument can be a basis for a refusal. The bats issue was not discussed in the body of the report and it might be worth your while updating members on its contents so they may appreciate the facts.

From the planning policy side, I am afraid there is not much basis upon which we might expect the applicant to provide additional information in respect of the two issues. You may wish to clearly explain to the members why this is the case.

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 27/02/2013

Report of the Head Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0562/F

PROPOSAL: Construction of single storey building comprising of 2 no. A1 units with associated access, landscaping and car parking (re- submission following withdrawn application WP/2012/0466/F - A5 unit now deleted).

LOCATION: 106 Gold Street, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr James Pritchard, LSP Developments Limited.

Committee consideration due to the number of representations. Site visit.

BACKGROUND, APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDINGS AND THE PROPOSAL: A previous application (Ref: WP/2012/0466/F) proposing an A5 unit (Hot Food Take- away) alongside a retail unit was recently withdrawn to allow the applicant to take account of concerns raised by officers and neighbours. As a result, the proposals now incorporate the following amendments:

- Use of the 93sqm ancillary unit will now be A1 (Retail). The earlier A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) use has been omitted; - Building has been moved a further 1.5m away from the eastern site boundary and a further 1m away from the southern site boundary.

The site lies on the southern side of Gold Street between the junctions of Bedale Road and The Avenue. It is the site of the former Wellingborough Medical Centre. The site is situated within a predominately residential area, although there are a number of commercial uses on Gold Street, reflecting its role as a key link into the town centre. The site is bounded to the east, west and south by residential dwellings. There is also a pharmacy immediately adjacent to the east of the site on Gold Street. Residential dwellings are also situated to the north of the site on the opposite side of Gold Street.

The built character of the area is mixed. There are a number of detached, semi- detached and terrace dwellings, mainly two-storey, ranging from early to late 20th Century. There is a mixture of lower density building to the north and west and higher density to the south and east. The site slopes down towards the south from Gold 98

Street. The previous medical centre building has now been demolished and the site has been cleared. There remains a small number of trees within the site boundary.

The amended scheme/revised proposal is for the erection of a single-storey commercial building on the site, incorporating a 375 sq m ground-floor A1 retail unit and a 93 sq m ground-floor smaller A1 retail unit (468 sq m total). The proposals also include 25 car parking spaces. It is understood that the larger retail unit, if approved, will be occupied by Spar and operated as a convenience store. The proposed unit conforms to Spar’s preferred trading and demographic requirements. Should this proposal fail to materialise, it is anticipated that a similar form of local, principally top-up, convenience retail would occupy the proposed unit. It is proposed that the smaller ancillary A1 unit will be occupied by a non-food based retailer.

The site was formerly a two-storey medical centre building with associated car parking. The medical centre building has recently been demolished and the site is now vacant; thus serving no meaningful purpose. The medical practice has now relocated to a new facility within the Isebrook Hospital complex, hence the existing facility is surplus to requirement.

The site is situated on a busy main road running directly into the town centre. Due to its former use as a medical centre, the site also benefits from good accessibility to public transport, having a dedicated bus stop on each side of the road immediately adjacent to the site. The proposed building will be single-storey and will be set back within the site. The sloping topography of the site implies that the ground levels around the building will be approximately 2m lower than the Gold Street levels.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Development Policy 12 – Distribution of Retail Development Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 – Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Wellingborough Local Plan Policies S1 and S2 – Impact upon Town Centres and Locational Requirements Policy S5 – Local Shops

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. NCC Highways – Further to my earlier response I would advise you that I have now received the comments of my colleague, the Senior Transport Planner, on the revised Transport Statement in respect of the above development. I am advised that the document is now considered to be fit for purpose and no objection is raised to the application on highway safety or capacity grounds.

The vehicular crossing must be constructed, any parts of the existing redundant crossing removed and all highway surfaces affected by the works reinstated in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980; to prevent loose material being carried onto the highway at least the first 5m of the driveway in rear of the highway boundary must be paved with hard bound materials; 99

vehicle to vehicle visibility of 2.4m x 43m and pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2m x 2m above a height of 0.6m must be provided and maintained on both sides of the point of access.

2. BCW Design and Conservation Officer – no objection.

3. BCW Trees and Landscape Officer - the trees on this site were assessed in the arboricultural report which was submitted with the previous application and none are in the top category for retention. While the loss of any tree may be regretted it should be observed that the intensive use of the site as a doctor's surgery with the pressure of demand for parking did not provide an ideal environment for the trees and there is some evidence of decline and damage. There is a lot of dead wood in the canopies of the three false acacia trees nearest to the road which might otherwise be considered to be of the greatest visual amenity value. This tree species is not a good choice in a car park because of the tendency to produce suckers and drop small branches.

The present scheme would retain the sycamore tree adjacent to the highway and three holly trees along the west boundary. New trees would be provided along the highway boundary and plant beds around as much of the perimeter of the site as practical. The applicant has increased the amount of new planting around the site and in the course of discussions has agreed to provide another tree with ground cover in place of one car parking space. Because of the continued pressures on the site there is an argument for concentrating on the areas around the boundary where planting stands a better chance of thriving. This would include the protection by a suitably worded planning condition in accordance with BS5837 of the rooting area of the trees which are on the other side of the west boundary as well as those to be retained within the site. Details should be finalised prior to the commencement of development on the site.

The need to provide adequate maintenance of the planting should also be covered in the planning conditions.

4. BCW Environmental Protection - I have reviewed the noise impact assessment report and associated documentation submitted as part of the above planning application and I would request that the following conditions be inserted to any planning approval granted:

Noise nuisance

• To prevent an increase in background noise levels and to protect the amenity of local residents: prior to the operation of the retail units a scheme for the control of noise and vibration of any external plant (including ventilation, refrigeration condensing and air conditioning) or ducting system to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include acoustic insulation and shall ensure that the background noise level at the boundary of the site or the nearest sensitive dwelling does not increase. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The equipment shall be maintained in a condition so that it does not exceed the background noise 100

level whenever it is operating as agreed with the Local Planning Authority. After installation of the approved plant no new plant or ducting system shall be used without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

• Prior to the commencement of the development a detailed scheme for the location, design and construction of noise barriers shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include but not limited to the acoustic properties of the barrier and the proposed level of mitigation it shall provide. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the development and retained thereafter in perpetuity. The barrier shall be maintained in a satisfactory state of repair to ensure its efficient operation.

• Deliveries for the site including during operation of the business shall take place no earlier than 7.00 am and no later than 6.00 pm. This includes waste collection services.

Construction/demolition

• A Demolition/Construction method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to construction and demolition works commencing. This statement should include detailed information on:

- Proposed demolition and construction works including information on operating hours and construction traffic routes. - Local environmental effects (including noise, dust and vibration) of those works. - Identified sensitive human receptors within the vicinity - Location of ancillary equipment, such as small generators and compressors. - Suitable mitigation measures to control or mitigate all of the indentified environmental impacts (noise, dust, air quality etc). - An environmental risk assessment - Details of the site management of environmental impacts, including control of subcontractors, contact details, public relations and information systems. - Site waste management plan.

The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

5. Northamptonshire Crime Prevention Officer – no objection subject to certain measures being implemented to prevent crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour.

6. Harwoods - we would refer to our letter to you dated the 2nd November 2012 and your subsequent letter of the 17th December 2012. We note that this application has now been re-submitted for consent to construct a single storey building comprising of two A1 units with associated access, landscaping and car 101

parking. We now write on behalf of our client, Mrs B E Illingworth of Beechwood, The Avenue, Wellingborough, NN8 4ET to formally register an objection to this revised application.

Very little appears to have changed from the original application and our client remains of the opinion that this revised Planning Application should not be supported by the Borough Council of Wellingborough, nor approved by the Planning Committee for the following reasons.

The proposed development is a mini supermarket more akin to those found in retail parks and by virtue of its car park, is not at all similar to any other convenience store in a built up residential out of centre urban area. It is therefore, not appropriate to its location.

The proposal fails to deliver a building that enhances or complements its environment.

The proposal would damage the viability of existing local businesses.

The proposal would generate noise affecting the quality of life of adjacent residents in both Gold Street, The Avenue and Bedale Road.

The proposals would create light pollution to the detriment of local residents.

The proposals do not demonstrate how third party rights over the site, in particular the drainage installation , would be accommodated.

The proposal is to remove all the trees from the site. This significantly diminishes the visual amenity of the street scene for at least a generation and the west boundary screening to Beechwood House forever.

The supporting documentation, in particular that relating to traffic assessment and noise assessment is, if not wrong, at least misleading as they ignore the smaller retail unit that is proposed and thus only represent 80% of the proposed development.

The basis of this application relies heavily upon the development being tenanted by Spar for one of their chain of convenience stores. Once again Spar should be asked to confirm that it would be prepared to abide by the existing covenants on the land, as, if they were not prepared to, the current proposal would not stand up. Compliance with the existing covenants renders much of the supporting statements submitted as part of the Planning Application as invalid.

Planning Statement There are several references in the Planning Application supporting documents simply claiming issues agreed with Wellingborough Borough Council during pre- application discussions, yet the application form, under "pre-application advice", specifically denies any such advice. Any pre application advice should be referenced for review or the Planning Application should not rely on such claims. The previous, withdrawn application , referenced meetings, emails, and detailed 102

"happy with architectural style and concept of development. Some queries regarding policy covered within sequential test". This is still pre the current application and is presumed valid but there is no detailed support for this rather casual claim.

The planning statement claims that Wellingborough Council agreed that a Retail Impact Study was not required. Given the sheaf of supporting documents it seems incredible that the effect of this development upon local established stores and comer shops was not considered relevant by the Borough Council of Wellingborough. There are already , six general store/comer shops within 600 metres of this site including a Tesco Express, all of which are trying to make a living from the local residents.

The planning statement says the proposed unit conforms to Spar's preferred trading and demographic requirements , but Spar is not the owner or applicant and is not committed to occupying the site. The development of this site is therefore speculative as to occupancy and any prospective occupier, other than Spar, may well not want to trade from a unit that conforms to Spar's preferred trading and demographic requirements . The greater probability is that they would re-apply to amend any planning permission which, if already granted, would be very hard to resist having set the precedent.

We understand that the application site is protected by a number of covenants, one in particular prohibiting the sale of alcohol. Although this is not a planning issue, it probably goes against the preferred trading and demographical requirements of Spar, thus increasing the likelihood that Spar will not take up the tenancy and the development will lie vacant.

Another covenant restricts access to the site for commercial vehicles. The proposed servicing strategy is, therefore, impossible to implement and all related supporting documents invalid.

Yet another covenant prohibits the use of the site for any activity deemed to create noise or fumes. Restrictive covenants are commonly applied to parcels of land to protect the interests of individuals, the local residents and the community at large. The existing covenants are at variance with the planning statements, assessments and reports submitted in support of the application. It is considered to be a material planning issue to establish if the applicants intentions are to contest such covenants as to do so would go against the Council's policy of ensuring the quality of life for local residents is not adversely affected. The very reason the covenants were put in place in the first instance.

It is considered that this proposed development is contrary to the following statements :

Policy S1 - As the impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole has not been demonstrated. It is considered however that the vitality and viability of the existing local shops in the area will be decimated by the proposal.

103

Policy S2 - As the Sequential Test is too dismissive and suggests that Wellingborough town centre and 300 metres beyond is so well served that it does not have a single vacant site, of only 400 sq metres, suitable for a convenience store. That being the case, why would the town need one located just 400 metres from the town centre.

Policy S5 - As it is not located within a local centre nor within a group of shops.

NPPF - Because the development cannot be considered "sustainable" if it results in bankrupting existing businesses.

NPPF - As the proposed development is in the service sector, it does not promote economic growth, it lives off it.

NPPF - Because the proposed development could not promote competition as it is not on a level playing field with the existing local businesses. As such it is considered that the proposal would have an unfair advantage if permitted.

NPPF- Because a low slung single storey box does not add to the overall character of the area in any way, nor does it establish a strong sense of place or support local facilities. It does not respond to local character nor history nor the identity of the local surroundings and materials. Irrefutably it is not visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

NPPF - Because the proposal does not integrate the development into the natural, built and historic environment and fails to take the opportunities available for improving the characture and quality of the area.

NPPF - Because the siting of a mini supermarket with on site parking provision in a built up residential area is not considered an "appropriate location".

DPD - Because the proposed out of centre development is not in an established urban local centre.

DPD- Because the proposed development has not been justified to be outside the town centre on the basis of the criteria ofPPS4.

Arboricultural Implication Study The re-submitted application again requires the destroying of every single tree on the land, 22 trees in total being lost from the visual amenity. This desecration is justified by the ''comprehensive landscaping scheme". This "comprehensive landscaping scheme" consists of just three Maple trees.

The current planning application does not appear to include a full tree survey to the requirements of DS5837 (2012) Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction Recommendations. Nor necessary information, categorisation, protection measures etc required by BS5837 (2012) all being contrary to the Borough Council of Wellingborough's Planning Policies. The previous withdrawn application did include such information raising a question mark over the validity of the current submitted landscaping proposals which references to the previous 104

report and is remarkably similar to the previously submitted landscape proposals. It is difficult to appreciate how the original report can be considered impartial and objective as it appeared wrongly biased in favour of the fee payer.

The study identified a tree, reference T334 as a Ginkgo and categorises it as "early mature and with an estimated 20 remaining contribution years". This is somewhat surprising given the location it is growing, suggesting it is not that old (probably less than 40 years), and that they can live for well over 200 years in the UK, 1000 years or more being reported in China.

A Gingko tree (also known as the maidenhair tree), is a unique species of tree with no close living relatives. The Gingko is a living fossil, a unique species recognisably similar to fossils dating back 270 million years. The Gingko also adapts well to the urban environment, tolerating pollution and confined soil spaces. They rarely suffer disease problems, even in urban conditions and are attacked by few insects. For this reason, and for their general beauty, Gingko's are excellent urban and shade trees and are widely planted along many streets.

The tree study identified a tree, reference T344, as a Robinia and categorises it as "mature in good physiological and structural condition with an estimated 20 remaining contribution years". Robinia's are often planted alongside streets and in parks, especially in large cities, because they tolerate pollution well.

The tree study identified a tree, reference T346, as a Sycamore and categorises it as "early mature, in good physiological and structural condition with an estimated 20 remaining contribution years". The Sycamore is as a survivor, a hardy tree, surviving cold winters, shady conditions and almost any type of soil and usually flourishes wherever it goes. The Tolpuddle tree in Dorset, is some 320 years old, a bit more than the common estimate of 200 years for the trees life span. Why should a tree, described in the report as having very few defects and a reasonably long life expectancy, be categorised as having no material conservation or other cultural benefit?

The study identified a group of trees, reference T342, as a group of three Cypress trees and categorises them as "mature, in good physiological and structural condition with an estimated 20 remaining contribution years". These trees are dominant in the landscape and are important contributors to the visual amenity.

The whole of the west boundary to the site is currently lined by trees. All the trees on the "wrong side" of the fence are to be removed thus reducing the tree line by two thirds seriously impacting on the setting of Beechwood House to the west of the site. The remaining third, on the right side of the fence, are not categorised in the report but are identified as possibly being affected by the installation of new car park wearing surface claiming it should have no implication for trees roots. Question, how is the existing surface to be removed (hand tools specified to pick off the existing surface, binder and base courses), sub base prepared and new surfacing added within 1 metre of the trunks of these trees, under their canopies and within the tree protection zone, without causing any damage to the tree roots? 105

Transport Statement The transport statement references the sites previous use as a medical centre with some 37 parking spaces located to the front of the site immediately adjacent to the public highway. Medical centres generally open to the public from 8.30 am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday, and, occasionally 8 am to 11 am on a Saturday. The proposed retail development requires opening hours from 7 am to 11 pm on 7 days a week for 52 weeks a year, including bank holidays with car parking extending well down the site away from the public highway , directly behind houses formerly protected from such issues by the former medical centre building. The proposal represents a significant uplift in traffic movements to the severe detriment of local residents.

The transport statement claims the majority of vehicles visiting the development will already be users of Gold Street. It is acknowledged that Gold Street is a substantial arterial route with enough capacity to serve this site without detriment to the area. The transport statement draws parallels with other, existing, Spar .stores and especially one located in Lincoln. These examples claim some 530 customer vehicles traverse the footpath to the developments (265 each way). 192 of these customer vehicle movements are said to occur after 6pm each and every day of the year. These figures are presumably conservative as they ignore the last two opening hours of the convenience store.

For six months of the year over a period of 5 hours, and 2 hours for the other six months of the year, each and every evening the residents of properties fronting the site across Gold Street, and backing onto the east and west boundaries of the site, will be strafed by 192 sets of vehicle headlights manoeuvring into, around, and out of the site. Due to the incline of the site road, even dipped headlights will shine directly into first floor bedrooms of the properties in Gold Street before dropping down to their ground floor living room windows as the vehicles cross the crossover to the main road. None of this occurred when the site was occupied by the medical centre.

The transport statement says the convenience store will be serviced by six separate vehicles each day, AN INCREASE OF TWO SERVICE VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY ON THE WITHDRAWN APPLICATION. The service vehicles are said to be outside the opening hours of the retail unit - before 7am or after 11 pm. Other supporting documents supplied suggest that these deliveries will take place between. 6.30 am and 7 am. The proposal put forward for the Council's consideration is that six service vehicles (plus an allowance for the smaller retail unit, say two) should visit the site each and every day of the year between 6.30 am and 7 am. All goods vehicles are now fitted with audible reversing sounders which have a pitch design to be heard above the most adverse noise levels normally encountered during the peak of their working days. At 6.30 am it is considered highly likely that this noise will appear exceptionally loud to local residents and especially disquieting to families with young children.

The transport statement fails to draw the comparison between the former use as a medical centre and the current proposal, to demonstrate the change in 106

circumstances, and hence the impact upon local residents and their quality of life.

Noise Impact Assessment The noise impact assessment is clearly flawed as, when considering Noise Maps 1 and 2, the noise contours are un-affected by the 2.3 metre high stone wall fronting White Lodge to Gold Street and the garaging and fencing along the west boundary of the site to White Lodge/Beechwood. As this base data is incorrect, the impact of the additional on site noise predictions will be wrong.

The noise impact assessment is incomplete as it considers "fixed plant and mobile noise sources" and "road traffic movements", it fails to consider the impact of service vehicles manoeuvring around the site at 6.30 am every day.

The assessment considers construction noise but overlooks the fact that some 70% of the site is covered by concrete that will need breaking up by pneumatic hammer and, in the interests of material conservation, a crushing machine. Additionally, there is no reference to the effect of construction noise upon neighbours where the retained wall of the former medical centre building forming the east boundary to the residential properties in Bedale Road will need to be removed before any acoustic screen protection can be erected.

It seems incomprehensible that a car park, having 530 vehicle movements a day, located within 5 metres of a residential house would only generate a 2.1 dB (A) increase in noise level over traffic noise from a 30 mile an hour urban road some 30 metres distant.

The predicted noise from on site road traffic movements is wrong. Table 4.2 of the assessment states predicted noise levels from on site road traffic movements. The basis for the predicted noise levels is not stated but appears to equate to the indicative noise level normally associated with a freely flowing traffic and "a busy road at 5 km" whereas an indicative noise level of 75 - 85 dB (A) associated with "city traffic at 5 m" should be used to reflect slow moving traffic jostling for position, multiple vehicles of different speeds, individually changing vehicle speeds and engine revving. On top of which there would be car boots and doors being opened and closed.

The noise impact assessment does not clearly identify the increased noise levels that can be expected to impact on the properties in Gold Street and those in Bedale Road that would back onto the proposed car park compared to their former situation behind the medical centre building. They must inevitably have to endure· a significant reduction in their quality of life as a direct result of these proposals.

The close boarded fence screening detailed in the report is not as that normally categorised as "acoustic fencing" and would be ineffective.

Energy Statement and Renewable Energy Review This document has been provided in support of the North Northamptonshire Supplementary Planning Document on Sustainable Design which emphasises 107

the importance of incorporating energy efficiency into the design of a building as well as enhancing opportunities to utilise renewable energy technologies.

This document pays only lip service to sustainable design taking 15 pages to conclude that the design of this "new build" is only suitable for a token solar photovoltaic cell installation as it will not work to maximum efficiency due to the building's "designed" orientation.

On the basis of the above points raised it is considered that this Planning Application does little to improve on the original and it is considered that it should not be supported by the Borough Council of Wellingborough, nor should it be approved by the Planning Committee.

7. The occupier of no. 121 Gold Street - I would like to object to planning permission as it stands for this site because

(a) Gold St already has several shops. (b) Extra litter with a seemingly non existent litter picking service provided by the council. (c) Alcohol will be sold and more than probably consumed in the street which is an alcohol free area. (d) Gold St is a residential area as is the area around and this will increase traffic and parking of cars on the main road. (e) On this application the fast food outlet is omitted and yet it is shown in property week as retail outlet and fast food outlet.

If this last subject which was a contentious issue with residents can be omitted what else will be overlooked to pacify public opinion to get this application through

8. The occupier of no. 110 Gold Street - as a resident directly affected by this application I write to strongly object to planning permission being granted in respect of this application. Some of my thoughts have been outlined below.

- The Uplift in traffic. Gold Street is a main road already suffering from traffic and parking issues. Building of a shop and takeaway would only add to the problem. This concern seems to have been glossed over.

- Parking issues – the plans indicate that there would be parking. However coupled with the Chemist I can assure you that this would provide additional problems for residents. It is the case that residents are unable to find parking at certain times of the day and this will just compound the problem adding to the misery residents’ already suffer.

- There is of course the issue of increase safety issue on the roads for pedestrians and road users alike not to forget that this is a route for many children as there are several schools nearby. That does not seem to be considered at all.

108

- The impact of deliveries not to mention rubbish collection. It is the case that twice a week already my quality of life is profoundly affected by rubbish collections from the chemist who arrive anytime from 5.30 am (despite repeated complaints). The lorries are parked outside our homes, engines revving, and lights on. Imagine the impact of the increase of such vehicles servicing a shop and takeaway. I dread to think. This will tremendously be detrimental to the quality of life and wellbeing of local residents.

- As a consequence there would be the increased issue of noise pollution which no doubt will have an impact. Apparently the noise survey was conducted on a Sunday afternoon which is essentially the only day one has any peace on Gold Street.

- The smells from a takeaway food establishment, the issue of rubbish, the attraction of rodents, foxes etc. and the impact on the locality. It is the case that recently I have noticed the presence of very large rats in the area which I am sure would not be helped by the presence of yet another take away establishment. This was in broad day light.

- The concerns around the increased likelihood of people congregating, after a night out, possible anti-social behaviour etc. Already on Gold Street I have at least on a couple of occasions been woken in the middle of the night by people trying to break into the chemist and having a domestic outside my house attracted by the area in front of a business to shelter. I am very much concerned about the impact along these lines given an area for people to congregate.

- There is the issue also of course that these retail establishments are being plunk right in the middle of a residential setting adding no added value to the ascetics of the surroundings. It is my contention that to the contrary the proposed planned buildings will serve to have a negative impact even affecting the value of residents’ homes particularly those of us unfortunate enough to reside so close.

- It’s totally shocking that the council would approve something that would involve trees being destroyed. This will affect the overall benefits that these trees bring and destroy them for ever. Is anyone thinking of the environment?

- There is no guarantee that these establishments will be occupied. What if they are not given the economic climate and the proximity of other businesses? Then we have to contend with the eyesore of unoccupied businesses.

- I have not even touched on the impact of construction yet which seem to all intents and purposes glossed over.

- There are enough food takeaways serving the town and given concerns around health and wellbeing and promoting good health surely the 109

consideration of such an establishment near several schools should be a course of concern.

I do understand that something has to be built on this site. However I believe that Wellingborough Council and the Planning Committee should look at granting planning permission to something that would be of value and improve the health and wellbeing of its local residents whilst providing economic value. This planned development in my opinion does not fit this brief. It is with greatest respect that I urge you to reject this application.

9. The occupiers of nos. 34/36, 44, 109, 119, 127 Gold Street, no. 32 The Avenue and Mr Tony Ireson - all raised objections to the proposal on grounds of: Extra traffic, potential accident and disturbance; extra rubbish; proliferation of retail outlets in the vicinity; new housing will be more suited to the site; noise, late night opening and anti-social behaviour; pollution; and loss of trees.

10. Letter from Harwoods –

“We would refer to our previous correspondence with regard to the above Planning Application and the objections of our client Mrs B E Illingworth.

Bats have been seen in the area amongst trees and we would refer to the previously withdrawn application WP/2012/0466 in respect of this development. A previous objection, dated the 12'11 November 2012, to the withdrawn application also confirms that Pipistrelles and Brown Long Eared Bats have been seen. The site itself, and neighbouring properties, provide an ideal habitat for this protected species which could be impacted on by the removal of trees and shrubs to accommodate this unnecessary development. Given the sightings that have been reported and the legislation set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended), the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC 2006) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010) that protects bats, their roosting places, and other Protected Species including owls, an Ecology report with particular reference to the above should be provided by the applicants.

The issue of the impact of the proposed development on this protected species does not appear to have been addressed to date by the applicants and we would at least have thought that the Council would have required further investigations in this respect.

ASSESSMENT: Principle of Development The application site has no specific designation in the development plan. Nonetheless, Core Strategy Policy 13 seeks to protect community facilities, unless it can be demonstrated that they are surplus to requirements or that the facility is being relocated and improved to meet the needs of the new and existing community. The Gold Street Medical Practice has recently relocated to a purpose built facility within the Isebrook Hospital complex in Irthlingborough Road. The application site is therefore surplus to requirements and has been vacant for some time. In principle therefore, the loss of the 110 community facility on the site is acceptable, subject to the replacement facility being of appropriate design and standards in respect of amenity impact, parking provision etc.

In terms of the proposed use, the scheme involves the creation of a 375 sq m ground- floor A1 retail unit and a 93 sq m ground-floor A1 retail unit (468 sq m total). Policy S2 of the Wellingborough Local Plan states that planning permission for retail developments on sites out of the town centre or on the edge of the town centre will be refused unless the developer demonstrates that there are no suitable sites or buildings suitable for conversion available in the town centre. The policy goes on to state that in the case of sites out of the town centre, planning permission for retail development will also be refused unless the developer demonstrates that neither are there suitable sites nor buildings for conversion available on the edge of the town centre.

This policy approach is compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which seeks to direct town centre uses to town centre sites in the first instance, then edge-of-centre, then out-of-centre. For retail purposes, the NPPF defines edge-of- centre as a location that is well connected and up to 300 metres of the primary shopping area. For all other main town centre uses, edge-of-centre is defined as a location within 300 metres of a town centre boundary. The proposal is exclusively for an A1 retail use, which will be approximately 400m from the primary shopping area of the town (approximately 320m from the edge of the town centre boundary). The site is therefore considered to be out-of-centre.

Both Policy S2 and the NPPF require a sequential test approach to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre. The NPPF goes on to state that LPA’s should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge-of-centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out-of-centre sites be considered. A sequential appraisal of alternative sites was therefore undertaken as part of the planning application and is submitted as a separate accompanying document. Early discussions were held with Wellingborough Borough Council officers to agree the parameters of the site search. It was agreed that the site search should consider town centre and edge-of-centre sites only, no other local centres need be considered. Officers also requested that the criteria consider sites based on retail floorspace alone rather than including any associated car parking.

Further parameters were agreed with officers prior to the submission of the revised planning application. It was agreed that the Sequential Assessment would be revised to search for suitable sites that can accommodate the proposals in their specific form, scale and layout as a whole, rather than search for two independent A1 units of 375 sq m and 93 sq m respectively. This approach is consistent with a recent test case (Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council (2012)) where the court determined that in order to meet the sequential test of suitability, the issue to be determined is whether an applicant has answered the question as to ‘whether an alternative site is suitable for the proposed development, not whether the proposed development can be altered or reduced so that it can be made to fit an alternative site’. This approach was agreed with officers at Wellingborough Borough Council and the Sequential Assessment was revised accordingly.

111

The revised sequential site search concluded that there are no available or suitable sequentially preferable sites within the identified search area. On this basis, the proposals are deemed to be consistent with Policy S2 of the adopted Wellingborough Local Plan. The NPPF states that when considering edge-of-centre and out-of-centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. The issue of retail impact was not considered as part of this assessment on account of the fact that the NPPF sets a default floorspace threshold of 2,500 sq m (where no locally set threshold exists), below which a retail impact is not required. This matter was also agreed with officers beforehand.

On that basis, it is considered that the proposals do not conflict with Policy S1 of the Wellingborough Local Plan 1999 which seeks to ensure that new retail development proposals do not result in a significant adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole. The proposals are also fully compliant with the sequential approach required by the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and the NPPF.

Layout and Design In terms of design, the proposals involve the erection of a modern, single-storey commercial building on the site. Although the surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, a commercial building of this nature cannot be expected to reflect the design of the neighbouring residential buildings. Consideration also has to be given to the previous 2-storey medical practice that previously occupied the site. The proposed layout is a consequence of the operational needs of retail occupiers with car parking and servicing spaces at the front of the site and a single building to the rear. This is similar in all respects to the arrangement that existed prior to the demolition of the medical practice.

Residential Amenity The previous proposal involved the creation of a small A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) unit on the site. Owing to concerns expressed by the neighbours in relation to the potential of the A5 unit to create disturbance by virtue of noise and smell issues, the A5 element of the proposals has been omitted and no longer forms part of the revised proposals. It should be borne in mind that the site previously contained a 2-storey building built right up to the boundaries of the residential properties fronting Bedale Road.

The proposal for a single storey structure which has been sited away from the common boundaries with the adjoining residential properties is certainly more desirable and an improvement on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers in terms of visual impact. Furthermore, the site by virtue of the last use falls within Class D1 of the Use Classes Order. There are no limitating conditions on the consent in place and in the circumstances, the premises could be used as a place of worship and other environmentally incompatible uses with far greater adverse amenity impact than the proposed retail use. It is acknowledged that there would be some impact arising from the proposed development, but not to an extent resulting in consent being declined, having regard to the previous use and the potential for other uses within Class D1 and with adverse impact.

There are a number of areas of the proposed development where it is considered that an assessment of the potential noise issues is necessary. These include:

112

Construction of the new A1 convenience units and associated car parking; Operation of plant equipment (i.e. air conditioning and ventilation plant and refrigeration condenser); and Road traffic movements and general vehicle activities.

A Noise Impact Assessment was carried out for the revised proposals and accompanies the submitted planning application. The report assesses the impact of the proposed development with regard to noise. It describes the methods used to assess the impacts, the baseline conditions currently existing at the site and the potentially affected noise sensitive receptors, the potential direct and indirect impacts arising from the development and provides an example of mitigation measures required to meet appropriate guidance and standards. The Environmental Protection Officer has assessed this document and recommended conditions that are hoped will safeguard the amenities of nearby occupiers.

In respect of the impact of vehicle movements to and from the site relative to adjacent property garden boundaries, the assessment looked at the traffic flow demand data provided by the Transport Consultants to see if it would generate any significant impacts. The assessment concludes that there would no significant increase as a result of the vehicle movements based on a worst case scenario peak hour flow.

In respect of fixed plant noise (ventilation, refrigeration, air conditioning etc) and event noise (weekly waste bin emptying and shopping trolley movement etc) associated with the proposed development, the assessment recommends noise control measures in the form of an acoustic screen along the east, south and western development boundary to reduce any minor increase in noise levels associated with the operation of the retail units. The assessment concludes that with the proposed noise control measures in place, the proposals would not result in any significant increase in residual noise levels.

Lighting details are also submitted as part of the application. Proposed lighting around the site has been designed to minimise glare and light pollution.

With appropriate measures in place to ensure that extraction and ventilation systems are installed to properly mitigate against smells, noises and lighting, the use would be entirely compatible with neighbouring properties. The applicant is willing to accept reasonable and appropriately worded conditions which require precise details of the extraction/ventilation/lighting systems to be approved by the LPA as well as agreeing opening hours so as to provide further protection to neighbouring properties, in the event that planning permission is granted.

Traffic Impact A Transport Statement (TS) has been prepared for the proposed development and accompanies this planning application. The TS concludes that the site occupies a sustainable and highly accessible location, with excellent opportunities for pedestrian and cycle travel, as well as being well situated for bus travel. The site’s former use as a medical centre means that it benefits from its own designated bus stops either side of Gold Street immediately adjacent to the site entrance. This provides users with a service directly into and out of Wellingborough Town Centre.

113

The connectivity of the site to the town centre is also an important consideration when sequentially appraising the site from a retail location point of view. This is looked at briefly below and in the accompanying Sequential Assessment.

In terms of traffic impact, the TS concludes that although the proposed development will result in an increase in vehicle movements at the site access junction, the majority of these trips will already be on the highway network and will simply turn into the site. Furthermore, the TS concludes that the access junction will have the capacity to accommodate the turning movements, thus no further assessment or mitigation is necessary.

The proposed development is considered to be in compliance with paragraph 32 of the NPPF, which states that proposals should be assessed on whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up and whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved. Paragraph 32 also states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. The County Council Highways Team have considered the submissions and have raised no objection to consent being granted, subject to the imposition of conditions.

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that the proposals accord with the policy objectives of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) and the NPPF in supporting a modal shift away from reliance on the use of the private car by encouraging opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport. Furthermore, the proposals are also considered to accord with the NNCSS and NPPF requirements for out-of-centre sites to be well connected when considering them sequentially.

Landscaping As part of the wider landscaping proposals, a Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Study for the site were undertaken. The Arboricultural Impact Study identifies three potential impacts: Trees lost for development (this will only affect category B and C trees and will principally be as a result of construction of the new building, access road, car park and boundary fence); Retained trees that may be affected by disturbance (only likely to affect category B offsite trees, this impact will principally be due to the renewal of the existing hard surfacing adjacent to the boundary fences); and Trees to be pruned (again, this will only affect category B offsite trees that overhang the site)

The Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Study and Landscaping Proposals are all submitted as part of this planning application and should be read in conjunction with this statement. The impact study concludes that the proposed development will only result in the removal of a number of desirable tree specimens; however, the impact will be offset by the implementation of a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the site. A detailed Method Statement is also appended to the impact study; this sets out the working practice methods that will allow the successful retention of the existing trees to be retained.

114

The Landscape Officer considers the landscape proposal to be acceptable subject to the imposition of suitable conditions. There would be a material increase in the tree coverage on the site following the implementation of this proposal, thereby improving the visual outlook of the area.

Energy Efficiency The North Northamptonshire Supplementary Planning Document on Sustainable Design emphasises the importance of incorporating energy efficiency into the design of a building, as well as enhancing opportunities to utilise renewable energy technologies.

An Energy Statement and Renewable Energy Review was also submitted with the proposals. The statement assesses the suitability of the site for the incorporation of various forms of renewable energy technologies. The statement concludes that use of Solar Photovoltaic Cells would be the most suitable and viable in terms of achieving a reasonable carbon reduction percentage.

Conclusion The proposed retail development lies outside the Wellingborough Town Centre boundaries. Nonetheless, it would not significantly harm the spatial vision of directing retail development towards the Town Centre and is not in conflict with the development plan policies. The layout and design of the development are acceptable and the amenity impact acceptable in comparison to other potential uses. The imposition of conditions should further minimise the impact on neighbouring amenities. It is expected that the proposed development will provide 10-15 new jobs, thus contributing to the economic development of the area.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Prior to the operation of the retail units a scheme for the control of noise and vibration of any external plant (including ventilation, refrigeration condensing and air conditioning) or ducting system to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include acoustic insulation and shall ensure that the background noise level at the boundary of the site or the nearest sensitive dwelling does not increase. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The equipment shall be maintained in a condition so that it does not exceed the background noise level whenever it is operating as agreed with the local planning authority. After installation of the approved plant no new plant or ducting system shall be used without the written consent of the local planning authority. 3. Prior to the commencement of the development a detailed scheme for the location, design and construction of noise barriers shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Details shall include but not limited to the acoustic properties of the barrier and the proposed level of mitigation it shall provide. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the development and retained thereafter in perpetuity. The 115

barrier shall be maintained in a satisfactory state of repair to ensure its efficient operation. 4. The use shall not operate outside the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 hours and deliveries for the site including during operation of the business shall take place no earlier than 7.00 am and no later than 6.00 pm without the prior approval in writing of the local planning authority. This includes waste collection services. 5. A Demolition/Construction method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to construction and demolition works commencing. This statement should include detailed information on: - Proposed demolition and construction works including information on operating hours and construction traffic routes. - Local environmental effects (including noise, dust and vibration) of those works. - Identified sensitive human receptors within the vicinity - Location of ancillary equipment, such as small generators and compressors. - Suitable mitigation measures to control or mitigate all of the indentified environmental impacts (noise, dust, air quality etc). - An environmental risk assessment - Details of the site management of environmental impacts, including control of subcontractors, contact details, public relations and information systems. - Site waste management plan. 6. The proposed tree planting/landscaping scheme shown on the approved drawings shall be implemented during the next planting season after the completion of the building operations on the site or within any such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Such planting shall be maintained, including the replacement of dead, dying or defective trees, shrubs or ground cover plants for a period of 5 years. 7. No preparatory works, site clearance or other building operations in connection with this approval shall commence until a plan showing the method and means of tree protection in accordance with British Standard 5837 and a programme and schedule of tree protection measures (including dates and times) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such protection as approved shall be in place before any building work commences and shall be retained throughout the period of works. 8. The vehicular crossing shall be constructed, any parts of the existing redundant crossing removed and all highway surfaces affected by the works reinstated in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980; To prevent loose material being carried onto the highway at least the first 5m of the driveway in rear of the highway boundary must be paved with hard bound materials; Vehicle to vehicle visibility of 2.4m x 43m and pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2m x 2m above a height of 0.6m shall be provided and maintained on both sides of the point of access.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 116

2. In the interest of the amenities of the nearby occupiers. 3. In the interest of the amenities of the nearby occupiers. 4. In the interest of the amenities of the nearby occupiers. 5. In the interest of the amenities of the nearby occupiers. 6. In the interest of the visual amenity of the area. 7. To safeguard the protected trees in the interest of the amenity of the area. 8. In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 9 - Distribution and Location of Development Policy 12 - Distribution of Retail Development Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Wellingborough Local Plan Policies S1 and S2 - Impact upon Town Centres and Locational Requirements Policy S5 - Local Shops 2. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and 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. 3. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown: Drawing Numbers: Dates Received: 824-100, 824-101M, 824-200C, 824-300B, 824-450B, 0873 001C, 0873 002B, 0873 401 2696/AL/01 - SK.01, CB/53359/E/800, 16942 OGL O 17/12/12 & 25/1/13

117

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0007/F

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of new dwelling and detached garage.

LOCATION: 86 Orlingbury Road, Isham, Kettering. NN14 1HW

APPLICANT: Mr G Connolly.

A site viewing of this application has been requested by Isham Parish Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: This site lies in open countryside within an area of ribbon development; adjacent properties are a mixture of two storey dwellings and bungalows.

The site currently accommodates a modest two bedroom detached bungalow with an internal floor area of 104 sq m. The bungalow is to be demolished and replaced with a three storey eight bedroom house of 557 sq m.

The proposed house has a width of 19m and a depth of 14 m with a ridge height of 10.4m.

A detached garage of 28 sq m is to be demolished and replaced with a detached double garage of 70 sq m.

The adjacent properties consist of 80/82 Orlingbury Road a pair of post war semi detached dwellings and 88 Orlingbury Road a bungalow.

Whilst there are no objections in principle to the demolition of the existing bungalow and its replacement with a new dwelling and modest enlargement the main issue is the scale of development proposed and its impact upon the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of adjacent properties and on the area in general.

Neighbours have also expressed concerns over the erection of a ‘log cabin’ in the rear garden which does not form part of this application and which they fear will be occupied as a separate dwelling.

Enquiries with the Applicant have revealed that this structure falls within the scope of Permitted Development. Its intended use is as a garden room/games room/gym ancillary to the enjoyment of the main dwelling.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WR/1961/0178 House - approved with conditions WR/1963/0006 Proposed bungalow and garage - approved WP/2013/0007/F

Silo

80 Isham 82 86 75.0m

88 96a

96 75.0m

102

106

WR/1965/0201 Proposed garage - approved WR/1973/0372 Two bungalows in grounds - refused

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 9 Distribution and location of development Policy 13 General Sustainable Development Principles Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G6 Open Countryside Supplementary Planning Guidance: IV: Planning Out Crime

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Borough Council of Wellingborough, Design and Conservation Officer –

• Advise that the ridge height of the proposed dwelling be no higher than that of nos. 80/82, 82 is simply a 2-storey building with a retro room in the roof • Irrespective of the reduction in height, I think the structure is over massed for its context • Consider shading of the existing neighbours on either side

2. Northamptonshire County Council, Highways –

• Proforma response • The existing vehicular crossing must be closed, the new vehicular crossing constructed and all highway surfaces affected by the proposed operations reinstated in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to an appropriate licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980 • To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway the driveway must be paved with a hard bound surface for a minimum of 5m from the rear of the highway boundary • A positive means of drainage must be installed to ensure that surface water from the driveway does not discharge onto the highway • To ensure that highway safety is maintained it is recommended that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document ‘Highway Authority Standing Advice’ be followed

3. 5 letters of objection –

• No objection to a replacement dwelling but it must be of the right scale similar in size and character to the existing bungalow with a modest enlargement • Proposed dwelling too large to be set in open countryside • No public transport provision, is this a sustainable location for such a large house • Out of character with other nearby properties, will create a ‘David and Goliath’ situation with adjacent properties • Due to its excessive size will result in loss of light and privacy to neighbours • Height and length of proposed main house is over powering • The new dwelling has approx 50 windows resulting in privacy issues • Disturbance from increased traffic and subsequent noise pollution • First impression is of a commercial building, nursing home, bed and breakfast or social care/rehabilitation housing based upon the number of bedrooms all with ensuite facilities together with a ground floor shower room 119

• To grant consent for a property of this size and design will irrevocably change the character of the area • note a large building is being located to the rear but nothing is shown on the plans, can only assume that it is meant for permanent residential occupation • appears that planning permission has not been sought for this secondary residential building • over looking from ‘log cabin’ and loss of privacy • if permission is granted the quality of life and peaceful surroundings of the existing home owners who are on the whole older and senior citizens will be blighted beyond adequate repair. • Will cause dramatic over shadowing of the occupants of n0 88 • Loss of view, outlook and light • Reduction in value of existing properties • Precedent could be set to replace other properties with incompatible industrial-sized structures.

4. Northamptonshire County Council, Archaeology - no objection to the proposal on archaeological grounds.

5. Isham Parish Council –

• Request a site viewing as we feel the ridge is too high in relation to other neighbouring properties. • The size if the property is not in keeping with the street scene and will destroy the total aspect of Orlingbury Road at this point.

ASSESSMENT: Main Issues and Material Planning Considerations:

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

Compliance with Policy The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on the 27th March 2012, it sets out the Government’s planning policies for England. As such the NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. Para 17 of the NPPF sets out the Core Planning Principles and recognises that planning should ‘take account of the different roles and character of different areas’ contributing to ‘conserving and enhancing the natural environment’. The NPPF goes onto state that development should contribute positively to making places better for people.

Para 64 states that ‘permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions

Whilst para 89 refers specifically to development in the Green Belt it could logically be argued that similar restraint principles should apply to development in the open countryside. For example the extension or alteration of a building should not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building whilst a new building should not be materially larger than the one it replaces.

120

This site is located within the open countryside in an area of ribbon development. As such there is a presumption that new development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled.

The Development Plan for the area currently comprises the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and saved policies of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

Policies 9, and 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy are also considered pertinent to the determination of this application.

Policy 9; Distribution and location of development together with Policy 1 focuses development on the settlements and directs that new development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled.

Policy 13: General Sustainable Development Principles requires new development to be of a high standard of design, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings, and not result in an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties or wider area; by reason of noise, loss of light or overlooking.

The application also needs to be assessed against Policy G6 Open Countryside of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan this policy seeks to restrict development in the open countryside to that which has a need to be there and seeks to ensure it has minimal impact

The policies in the Development Plan seek to restrict development in the open countryside unless it has a genuine need to be there.

The policy context against which this application is to be determined is one of control, minimising impact and improvement. The proposed development by virtue of its location, scale, design and massing is considered contrary to policies 9 and 13 of the NNCSS, Policy G6 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.

The occupiers of adjacent properties have objected to the scale and massing of the proposed building as it is perceived it would harm their outlook and sense of light. The proposal is therefore considered to be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by way of loss of light and being visually overbearing and obtrusive. It is therefore contrary to Policy 13 (l) of the NNCSS.

The relative massing, bulk and appearance of the proposed development is considered ‘out of kilter’ with the dwellings on either side and would introduce an additional property which is out of character as its appearance differs markedly to that of existing properties. Furthermore, the existing street scene would be significantly harmed by the height of the proposed roof.

The proposed development by virtue of its scale, design and massing is considered to be out character with and detrimental to the appearance of the surrounding area. 121

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

Conclusion Having considered the above planning matters it is considered that the position, massing, layout, appearance and scale of the development would result in a visually oppressive and overbearing structure which would cause an unacceptable impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring properties by way of loss of perceived levels of light and outlook. Furthermore it is considered that the development would not enhance the character and appearance of the area and would have a negative impact upon the street scene.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The proposed dwellinghouse by virtue of its location, scale, design and massing is considered contrary to Policies 9 and 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, Policy G6 of the Borough of Wellingborough and inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The proposed dwelling would by reason of its siting, layout, design, scale and massing be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings nos. 84 and 88 Orlingbury Road in relation to loss of light and visual outlook and overbearing impact contrary to Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. POLICY G6

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

1. IT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED OTHER THAN IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE;

2. IT INVOLVES NO MORE THAN A LIMITED NUMBER OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES AND THESE ARE SMALL SCALE;

3. IT INCLUDES LANDSCAPE SCREENING, AS APPROPRIATE, AND ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ARE DESIGNED, SITED AND OF MATERIALS TO MINIMISE ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE INTRINSIC CHARACTER OF THE COUNTRYSIDE;

4. IT WILL NEITHER INDIVIDUALLY NOR CUMULATIVELY WITH EXISTING OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, RESULT IN A LOCAL PROLIFERATION OF NEW BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES;

5. WHEN IT INVOLVES A USE WHICH IS PRINCIPALLY TO SERVE THE TOWN, IT IS LOCATED IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO EXISTING OR PROPOSED URBAN DEVELOPMENT; AND

6. IT WILL NOT RESULT IN THE URBAN GROWTH OF NORTHAMPTON TO ITS EAST OR WELLINGBOROUGH TO ITS WEST.

Policy 13

122

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

Meet needs a) Incorporate flexible designs for buildings and their settings, including access to amenity space, enabling them to be adapted to future needs and to take into account the needs of all users; b) Seek to design out antisocial behaviour, crime and reduce the fear of crime by applying the principles of the 'Secured by Design scheme'; c) Maintain and improve the provision of accessible local services and community services, whilst focusing uses that attract a lot of visitors within the town centres; d) Have a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards; e) Be designed to take full account of the transport user hierarchy of pedestrian- cyclist-public transport-private vehicle, and incorporate measures to contribute to an overall target of 20% modal shift in developments of over 200 dwellings and elsewhere 5% over the plan period; f) Not lead to the loss of community facilities, unless it can be demonstrated that they are no longer needed by the community they serve and are not needed for any other community use to that the facility is being relocated and improved to meet the needs of the new and existing community; g) Not lead to the loss of open space or recreation facilities, unless a site of equivalent quality and accessibility can be provided, services and made available to the community prior to use of the existing site ceasing.

Raise standards h) Be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respects and enhances the character of its surroundings and is in accordance with the Environmental Character of the area; i) Create a strong sense of place by strengthening the distinctive historic and cultural qualities and townscape of the towns and villages through its design, landscaping and use of public art; j) Be designed to promote healthier lifestyles and for people to be active outside their home and places of work; k) Allow for travel to home, shops, work and school on foot and by cycle and public transport.

m) Be constructed and operated using a minimum amount of non-renewable resources including where possible the reuse of existing structures and materials; n) Not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety; o) Conserve and enhance the landscape character, historic landscape designated built environmental assets and their settings, and biodiversity of the environment making reference to the Environmental Character Assessment and Green Infrastructure Strategy; p) Not sterilise known mineral reserves or degrade soil quality; q) Not cause a risk to (and where possible enhance) the quality of the underlying groundwater or surface water, or increase the risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere, and where possible incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and lead to a reduction in flood risk.

POLICY 9: DISTRIBUTION & LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT

Development will be distributed to strengthen the network of settlements as set out in Policy 1. New building development in the open countryside outside the Sustainable Urban Extensions will be strictly controlled.

Priority will be given to the reuse of suitable previously developed land and buildings within the urban areas, followed by other suitable land in urban areas. The planning authorities will prepare housing land availability assessments and implement brownfield development strategies to ensure that at least 30% of the overall housing requirements for North Northamptonshire are provided on previously developed land and buildings.

Preference will be given to locations that are accessible by a choice of means of travel. In particular the town centres will be strengthened as the focus of retail, employment, leisure and other uses attracting a lot of people. Area Action Plans will be prepared to enable the town centres of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough to accommodate significant new development.

Further development requirements will be focused on a small number of Sustainable Urban Extensions at Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough, comprising a mix of uses. Initial Sustainable Urban Extensions will take place to the north-east of Corby, east of Kettering and east of Wellingborough as generally shown on the Key Diagram. Once these developments are successfully established, further Sustainable Urban Extensions will be brought forward to the west of Corby and north-west of Wellingborough. Site- specific Development Plan Documents may identify opportunities for smaller scale Sustainable Urban Extensions at Smaller towns and Rural Service Centres.

124

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0016/F

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey building to be used at a preschool nursery - replacing the existing one. New vehicular access off Redhouse Road leading to car parking spaces with associated landscaping and outdoor play area.

LOCATION: Land adjacent to Day Nursery, 420 Kettering Road, Orlingbury, Kettering. NN14 1JF

APPLICANT: Mr Asit Badiani.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination because an objection has been lodged by Orlingbury Parish Council. Parish Council requests Site Viewing Group visit between 08.30 and 09.30 a.m.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described.

The site is a grassed area and a tarmaced car park that was constructed in 1985 when the site was redeveloped as a petrol filling station and a restaurant. On the highway boundary a hedgerow which contains a mature tree and on the rear boundary is a row of conifers. Abutting the site is a car repair enterprise and the existing children’s day nursery.

PERFORMANCE This application will be determined outside the eight week period due to the late Site Viewing Group visit request received from Orlingbury Parish Council and there not being a Planning Committee meeting scheduled for March 2013.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2004/0771 Change of use from car parking to car sales – refused WP/2006/0174 Internal alterations and change of use from restaurant premises to day nursery – conditionally approved WP/2007/0251/O Outline application for preschool nursery and three B1, B2 workshops – refused WP/2010/00052/O Erection of a new nursery building (to replace the existing one adjacent to the petrol station) formation of new access off Redhouse Road with associated parking provision. (Outline application to determine the appearance and layout of the building and access arrangement) – conditionally approved.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE WP/2013/0016/F

A 43A

Guide Post )

135.0m A

REDHOUSE Garage Nursery

ROAD

137.2m Def

)) Ketnor House

Ketnor Farm

1.22m RH

Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 WP/2013/0016/F - Land Adjacent to Day Nursery, 420 Kettering Road, Orlingbury ± GetMapping PLC 1999 125

National Planning Policy Framework North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): 1 (Strengthening the network of settlements) 6 (Infrastructure delivery and developer contributions) 8 (Delivering economic prosperity) 9 (Distribution and location of development) 11 (Distribution of jobs) 12 (Distribution of retail development) 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: G6 (Development within the open countryside) Supplementary Planning Documents: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Strategy, Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Guidance: Parking, Planning Out Crime Circular 03/99; Planning Requirement in Respect of the Use of Non-Mains Sewerage Incorporating Septic Tank in New Development

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Orlingbury Parish Council – does not object to or support the application. The Parish Council does however express concerns regarding commercial movement and whether the original access will be closed. The Parish Council goes on to say that it feels the application is an opportunity to improve the very busy junction and hopes that parking will be banned on the road because it is an accident black-spot.

The Parish Council requests that the site be the subject of a visit from the Site Viewing Group between the hours of 08:30 – 09:30.

2. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority – originally made the following comments:

“Although the Highways Agency has offered no objection to the proposed development it is pointed out that the Kettering to Northampton Road (A43) is a County Road being the responsibility of Northamptonshire County Council as Highway Authority.

Concern is raised with regard to the establishment of further development in the vicinity of a significant junction on theA43 Strategic Route having a known accident record. The proposal introduces a further point of access and has the potential for increasing vehicle movements at the junction with the A43.

It is appropriate for the application to be supported by a suitable Transport Assessment. Statement describing the impact of the proposed development on the local highway network and should assess its effect on the A43 crossroads junction and at the access into the site. The assessment should include a review of the adequacy of parking facilities to accommodate staff and visitors to the site and also consider the likelihood and nature of the future use of the premises that will be vacated due to the development.

To avoid confusion it is appropriate for the vehicular connection between the parking court associated with the nursery and the adjoining premises to be closed up.

The new vehicular access into the site of the application must meet Redhouse Road at right angles and the vehicular crossing must be constructed in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980.

To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway at least the first 5m of the driveway must be paved with hard bound materials.

126

Adequate means must be provided to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water from the driveway or site onto the highway.”

3. Highways Agency – comments that the proposed development is not expected to have a material impact on the A43 and has no objections to the application.

4. Environment Agency – has no objection to the application but recommends a condition be imposed regarding foul water drainage details.

5. Anglian Water Services Limited – no comment received.

6. Northamptonshire Police – has no serious concerns regarding the development but considers that the scheme would benefit from being constructed in accord with the Secured By Design Principles. The Police offer a raft of crime prevention advice which could be carried forward by way of informatives on any permission.

7. Oftsed Early Years – no comment received.

8. Daventry District Council – no comments.

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

10. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Protection – no comment received.

11. Neighbours/third parties – no comment received.

12. The applicant supplied a Transport/Traffic Statement on 20 February 2013 on which comments from the Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority are awaited.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are:

• Compliance with policy • Highway safety • Effect on neighbours amenities • Foul drainage • Biodiversity • Crime and disorder

Compliance with policy The NNCSS contains a suite of policies that could have an influence on the determination of the proposals. The policies are generally aimed at trying to steer proposed development in the rural areas towards villages that perform a sustainable local service centre role. The most specific policy is considered to be 11 (g) which states that ‘within the rural areas, new employment development will be directed to the rural and local service centres. The conversion of existing buildings and infrastructure for employment and tourism related development will be encouraged in locations within and adjoining settlements.

Local Plan Policy G6 sets out a number of criteria which development in the open countryside should meet to be acceptable in terms of planning policy. In brief they relate to:

• development not capable of being accommodated elsewhere • limited number of buildings/structures that are small in scale 127

• landscaping to minimise visual impact • not result in a proliferation of new buildings • if intended to principally serve the town it should be located close to the urban development • will not result in the coalescence of Wellingborough and Northampton

It is thought that the development proposal generally complies with the NCSS policies and Policy G6 of the local plan for the following reasons:

• the development is a direct replacement for an existing building located on an adjacent plot which could be considered to be within the same curtilage. A condition can be imposed that would require the demolition of the existing building within a prescribed time of the new nursery building first being used to prevent further development in the open countryside • it is accepted that the buildings perhaps are not small in scale but they are, however, appropriate to the use of the site • it is acknowledged that the development will have an effect on the visual amenity of the open countryside. It is considered, however, that the effects will not be so serious to warrant refusal due to the close association of the proposed buildings with the existing structures on the application site and on adjoining sites. Also, the majority of the site boundary is planted with mature hedgerow plants that act as an effective screen • any future proposals for new buildings will be decided in accord with the development plan and in the light of any material considerations • the location of the site could result in it servicing the wider population of the borough, not just the town of Wellingborough, who travel to Kettering and Northampton to work and drop their children off on the way there • the development will not result in the coalescence of Wellingborough and Northampton • it is accepted that part of the site is currently is an area laid to grass but is clearly within the curtilage of the existing nursery and is considered not to be a greenfield site.

With regards to the National Planning Policy Framework it states at paragraph 28 that in rural areas planning policies should support economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity through well designed new buildings.

The comments of the County Highway Authority are awaited and will be reported to the Committee by way of the late letters list.

Effect on neighbours’ amenities It is anticipated that the relocated nursery will have no significant effect on the amenities which are currently enjoyed by the surrounding occupiers and land uses.

Foul drainage The application form indicates that the foul sewage from the development would be dealt with by a septic tank. Policy (q) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that development should not cause a risk to (and where possible enhance) the quality of the underlying groundwater or surface water. 128

The Environment Agency has been consulted with regards the non-mains drainage aspects of the proposal and it is content with the submitted details, subject to the imposition of a pre commencement condition.

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

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

The comments of the Police are noted and it is recommended that its views can be adequately passed onto the applicant by attaching informatives to any planning permission.

Conclusion Subject to no adverse comments being received from the Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority, it is considered that there are no sustainable reasons to justify refusal of the application.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Before development commences representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials. 3. Before development commences a landscape scheme shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 4. Before the development is first occupied the first 5m of the new access in the rear of the highway shall be hard surfaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 5. Before the development is first occupied provision shall be made to the satisfaction of the local planning authority for surface water from the new access not to be discharged onto the highway.

6. Before development commences details of the measures to be installed to prevent use of the existing vehicular access by those persons wishing to gain to access to the nursery shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The approved details shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the nursery is first brought into use and shall be maintained to its satisfaction thereafter. 7. Before development commences a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul 129

water drainage shall be submitted to the local planning for approval in writing. The approved works/scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans/specification before the development is first brought into use. 8. Within six months of the first use of the approved building as a nursery the existing nursery building shall be demolished and the ground surface of the site shall be laid to grass to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of visual amenity. 3. In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 4. In the interests of highway safety. 5. In the interests of highway safety and sustainable drainage. 6. In the interests of highway safety. 7. To prevent flooding, pollution and detriment to public amenity through provision of suitable water infrastructure. 8. In the interests of preventing a proliferation of buildings in the open countryside.

INFORMATIVES 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): 1 (Strengthening the network of settlements) 6 (Infrastructure delivery and developer contributions) 8 (Delivering economic prosperity) 9 (Distribution and location of development) 11 (Distribution of jobs) 12 (Distribution of retail development) 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: G6 (Development within the open countryside). 2. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and 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. 3. The applicant is informed that the proposal would benefit from being built in accordance with the principles of Secured by Design and the following measures are recommended: • External entrance doors should conform to PAS23/PAS24 or LPS 1175 SR2 with a single pane of laminate glass minimum of 6.4mm thick. This provides the applicant with a wider choice of timber doors that may not require additional locks and bolts • Main entrance door should feature access control system with the locked position being standard • It is also recommended that access control be considered for the doors leading into the toddler suite is provide if there are any periods of time when staff are not present while in use, otherwise doors conforming to PAS23/PAS24 will be acceptable • Doors leading into sensitive areas such as kitchen and office to conform to PAS23/PAS24 • Fire doors should be steel faced or constructed and certificated to LPS 1175 SR3 with 130

no glazing and no external door furniture and feature 3 point locking with split bar operation • All ground floor windows or should meet BS 7950 with single panes of laminated glazing to a minimum of 6.4mm thickness, again this provides the applicant with a wider choice of timber frame windows. • Steel bar gates should include hinges that prevent the gate from being lifted off and locked using a security rated close shackle padlock if integral locking within the gate is not provided. The gate should also be a the same height as the perimeter either side. Be careful to avoid gaps that could facilitate vehicular entry at either side of the gate, you may need to consider bollard protection. • Vehicle access/egress point should be further protected by a height restricting barrier to prevent unauthorised incursion • Internal doors to offices and any other vulnerable area should be lockable and meet PAS23/PAS24 requirements • Intruder alarm requirements for police response is welcome, just bear in mind need for secondary activation requirements for validation of genuine alarms, your provider should be able to advise accordingly • Lighting to parking and outside play areas should provide a uniform level of light • Access to play garden should ideally only be accessed from within the building, therefore the gates leading into parking area should be removed • Play garden should be enclosed with fencing, ideally to a height of 1.4m minimum using hoop top railings .i.e. tango rail. 4. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: Site location plan, 4049.07.03 and 4049.07.04 25 January 2013 5. 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, NN11AS prior to any construction/excavation works within the public highway. 6. The Public Health Act 1875 and the Town Improvement Clauses Act 1847 at S.64 Prior to occupation of the newly created premises(s), the street numbering for this development must be agreed with the Street Naming and Numbering Officer. When issued, the number allocated must be clearly displayed on the outside of the property. Application forms for Street Naming and Numbering are available at www.wellingborough.gov.uk 131

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0018/FCOU

PROPOSAL: Change of use from B2 to D2 - training centre to provide training facilities for children and adults to learn and participate in kickboxing, self defence and general physical training.

LOCATION: Unit A, 22 24 Denington Road, Wellingborough. NN8 2QH

APPLICANT: Mr Dwight Notice.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillor Griffiths who has also requested that the site be the subject of a visit from the Site Viewing Group.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described. The floor area of the unit is 690m2.

The application site is an empty industrial unit located on the Denington Industrial Estate with off street parking available.

There are parking restrictions in the highway on the Denington Estate; no parking is allowed 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Saturday.

A corrected site plan was received from the applicant on 5 March 2013.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/1995/0482 Change of use from light industrial to crèche facility and indoor entertainment centre for children – conditionally permitted. WP/1999/0249 Change of use from children’s playground to importation and distribution of printing machinery and associated consumables – conditionally permitted.

PERFORMANCE This application has not been determined within the eight week period due to a number of factors:

• the application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination and there was no Planning Committee meeting scheduled in March • the applicant originally supplied an inaccurate site plan which necessitated the need for additional mandatory publicity upon receipt of a corrected plan

32 WP/2013/0018/FCOU

45 45.8m

47 49

Denington Industrial

Estate

9 to 11 to 9 61

DENINGTON ROAD

46.7m

El Sub Sta

Phoenix Court 4

1 to 3 to 1 13

Tennis Court

22 to 24

47.4m

Victory House

ESS Colletts House DENINGTON ROAD Tanks

45.9m

CRANE CLOSE

Tank

Chy EVERITT CLOSE

Tanks

LB Tanks Unit 1 Unit

A Unit 2 Unit 32 to 42

Tanks

44.9m

Denington Industrial Planning & Local Estate Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 WP/2013/0018/FCOU - Unit A, 22-24 Denington Road, Wellingborough ± GetMapping PLC 1999 132

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 1 (Strengthening the network of Settlements) 8 (Delivering economic prosperity) 11 (Distribution of jobs) 13 (General sustainable development principles) and 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Supplementary Planning Document; Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design, Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime and Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northamptonshire County Council Highway Authority – considers that the applicant has not supplied sufficient information with regards to trip generation and parking strategy to enable a view to be formed on how the development would affect the local highway network.

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

3. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Protection – no comment received.

4. Borough Council of Wellingborough Policy and Regeneration – has supplied the following information:

• the application unit has been empty since 20 August 2012 • opinion that the building is still suitable for its current B2 use • at the end of 2012, the vacancy rate on the Denington Estate was 39.4% • there are no impending initiatives on the estate and none are being planned at present.

5. Sports Development Officer –

“I have viewed the above planning application and have no objection to this proposal but without having clear understanding of what is being delivered, target clientele and pricing structure, cannot at this stage evidence need.

In general terms the most recent set of results from the Sport England Active People Survey for the Borough, show a reduction in those taking part in sport at least once a week (1x30mins) this is in contrast to the figure for those that take part in sport 3 x 30mins per week, indicating that there may be a deficit in facility provision for more casual participation. Typically the report highlights increase in participation from activities with greater flexibilities such as jogging /running and cycling.

Moving forward in an uncertain future in terms of Local Authority funding for the provision of Sports and Recreation provision, it may be that in order to cater for demand more fully, fragmentation may occur with an increase in the plurality of those developing and contributing facilities.

It cannot be assumed however that overarching aims in terms of health and wellbeing will be met by this scattered approach to delivery or that the operation is sustainable.”

6. Northamptonshire Police – has no formal objection to the application.

7. Third parties – a comment has been received from BI Engineering. The company supports the application in principle but has concerns regarding possible insufficient car 133

parking availability on the site which may cause parking in the highway. The company goes on to say that access, especially for HGV’s, to premises on the estate has greatly improved since the introduction of parking restriction.

8. Councillor M Griffiths – requests that the application be referred to the Planning Committee and the Site viewing Group.

9. The applicant and the premises letting agent have supplied the following additional information in support of the application:

• the industrial unit has been vacant for some time and rent levels would be less than expected • the eaves height of the building provides access for vans of less than 2.5m high which compromises a traditional warehouse use • details of low level of enquiries and property viewings • the vacancy rate in the Denington Estate appears to be low, although in the letting agent’s experience, the demand for industrial units, as opposed to warehouse, in the area also appears to be minimal • survey reveals that there are over 30 empty industrial units within Wellingborough in addition to the application premises which would provide stock for the next five years at least • re-use of the building should not be thought of as a loss of an industrial building, but as use of a redundant building which would create an employment opportunity and which would otherwise go out of the area • approval of the proposal will result in the premises being maintained bringing about an increase in the quality of the employment site for the surrounding neighbours. • belief that the adjacent occupier has not raised any objection • acknowledgment of the Highway Authority concerns. The building has 41 car parking spaces in a secure yard and their use would be at times outside the estate busy business periods • classes are currently capped at 20 students and on average this would result in 15 cars in the car park • there would be little or no HGV or van traffic on estate roads • students from outside the area will continue to travel by car, new students from the Wellingborough area would also be likely to travel to the site by car • belief that at peak change-over times there would be sufficient car parking available on site • the intended opening times of the training centre would be 06:30 – 21:00 weekdays and 08:00 – 18:00 weekends and would be used by a variety of other classes e.g. yoga and Pilates together with other martial art clubs in the town • children’s classes would be from 18:00 to 20:00 • schools in Wellingborough will be approached so that local children have the opportunity to benefit from training and progressing in sport and fitness • the proposal is for a training centre, not a gym • details of one-to-one sessions together with an in-depth analysis of the ethos of the centre and the benefits associated with martial arts training

The applicant has also copied to the Council correspondence with the company which occupies the adjoining unit which indicates that it is, provided certain conditions are met, satisfied with the intended parking arrangements.

ASSESSMENT: 134

The material planning considerations are:

• Compliance with policy • Effect on visual amenity • Highway safety • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity • Effect on the Upper Nene Valley Special Protection Area

Compliance with policy With regards to the Core Spatial Strategy Policy 11 is germane to the determination of the application and it is reproduced below for ease of reference.

‘Policy 11: Distribution of Jobs b) Existing employment areas and allocated employment sites will be safeguarded for employment use, unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative use would: • not be detrimental to the overall supply and quality of employment land within the district, and/or • resolve existing conflicts between land uses.’

With regards to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the key provisions to consider are contained in paragraphs 24 – 27. The NPPF recognises that leisure is a main town centre use and a town centre impact assessment should be undertaken if the proposal involves more than 2,500m2 when there is no locally set floorspace threshold. This Council does not have a locally adopted floorspace threshold figure.

The application involves the loss of an industrial unit which is located on an established industrial estate, which upon the face of it, could be contrary to development plan policy. However, the policy does contain caveats with regards to land supply, quality and conflicting uses.

The applicant has supplied information regarding the amount of time the unit has been empty, the inherent reasons for this prolonged lack of use and other supporting detail which it is considered should be accorded significant weight.

The Sport Development Officer has not objected to the application, but seems to be uncertain as to whether the operation would be sustainable.

There looks to be a divergence of opinion between the applicant and the Council’s Policy and Regeneration team as to whether the building is still suitable for an industrial use. However, there is a consensus of opinion that there is a significant vacancy rate on the Denington Estate and it is suggested that the number of vacant premises is being influenced by the ongoing downturn in the economy.

There has not been any significant objection from any nearby properties to suggest that the proposal would create a use which would be in conflict with the nearby commercial uses.

Effect on visual amenity It is anticipated that use and maintenance of the building could be of benefit to the visual amenity of the estate.

Highway safety 135

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

The comments of the Highway Authority are noted, but it is suggested that the busiest time for the proposed use would most likely be during the early evening which would be at a time when the traffic on the estate would not be at its heaviest. In addition, there are parking restrictions in Denington Road and Northamptonshire County Council’s enforcing agents would be able to take against any drivers who might to choose to park their vehicles in an unauthorised highway location.

It is considered that in the absence of an outright objection from the Highway Authority and in the light of the subsequent information supplied by the application, it is doubtful that the proposed scheme would have any negative safety impact on the local highway network over and above what traffic could be generated by the existing use of the building.

Crime and disorder It is considered that an occupied building is less likely to attract vandalism than an empty property.

There are no pertinent crime and disorder issues to consider.

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

Conclusion The proposal could be construed as being contrary to Policy (11b) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, however, there are material considerations which should be accorded significant weight in favour of the application.

At present there is a significant vacancy rate on the Denington Estate and there are benefits associated with health and well being which could result from the proposed use. However, the Sport Development Officer has sounded a note of caution with regards to the possible viability of the use. Therefore, it is considered that a temporary permission would be an appropriate course of action. This would allow time to establish whether the business is viable and to ascertain if any recovery in the economy has any material effect on vacancy rates on the estate.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant a three year temporary permission with a condition.

1. This permission shall be limited to a period of time expiring on 3 April 2016. At or before the expiration of this period, the use shall cease and the use of the building shall revert to its former B2 use. 2. The premises shall be used for a sports hall and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class D1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

136

Reasons: 1. In order to maintain planning control of a none industrial use on a designated industrial estate. 2. In order to maintain planning control of a none industrial use on a designated industrial estate.

INFORMATIVE/S: 1. Pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development contravenes some policies in the development plan, but there are mitigating circumstances and material considerations, which in this instance are given greater weight than the development plan policies and as such, the proposed development, is on balance, considered acceptable and approved. The policies that have been considered in determining this application specifically include: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 1 (Strengthening the network of Settlements) 8 (Delivering economic prosperity) 11 (Distribution of jobs) 13 (General sustainable development principles) and 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction). 2. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and 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. 3. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the plan received on 5 March 2013. 137

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0033/F

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling, carport and garage. Construction of new dwelling and detached garage unit - amended garage plans.

LOCATION: 102 Orlingbury Road, Isham, Kettering. NN14 1HW

APPLICANT: Mr Spence.

A site viewing of this application has been requested by Isham Parish Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: This site lies in open countryside within an area of ribbon development, adjacent properties are a mixture of two storey dwellings and bungalows

The existing bungalow has been unsuccessfully altered in the past where an attempt has been made to create a room in the roof which has rendered the building structurally unsafe. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building, car port and garage

The existing dwelling has an existing floor area of 200 sq m and the car port and garage a floor area of 69 sq m ( 269 sq m in total) whilst the new dwelling has a floor area of 428 sq m and the proposed garage 124 sq m (552 sq m in total).

The applicant maintains that the first floor accommodation above the garage is to be used for storage as the ‘rooms in roof’ construction of the house means there is no eaves storage.

The proposed dwelling is of a contemporary modern design.

A mobile home has already been positioned on site but as there is no extant planning permission for the construction of a new dwelling the siting of the mobile home requires planning permission in its own right.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/1997/0377 Extend roof to make an open porch - approved WR/1967/0198 Bungalow and garage - approved with conditions WR/1965/0164 One dwelling - approved with conditions

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan WP/2013/0033/F

Isham 86

88 96a

Track

96 75.0m Pumping Station (disused)

102

106

Hambury Fold

Stables

78.0m

Policy G6 (The Open Countryside) Supplementary Planning Guidance: IV: Planning Out Crime

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Borough Council of Wellingborough, Design and Conservation Officer –

• Design okay • No comments otherwise.

2. Northamptonshire County Council, Highways –

• Proforma response • Access to the proposed dwelling will be by way of the existing vehicular crossing which should be reinstated, as made necessary by the proposed operations, in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to an appropriate licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980 • To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway the driveway must be paved with a hard bound surface for a minimum of 5m from the rear of the highway boundary • A positive means of drainage must be installed to ensure that surface water from the driveway does not discharge onto the highway • To ensure that highway safety is maintained it is recommended that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document ‘Highway Authority Standing Advice’ be followed

3. Northamptonshire County Council, Archaeology – no objections to the proposals on archaeological grounds.

4. 1 third party representation –

• Adjacent property doesn’t have a large garden but have previously enjoyed a private garden screened by trees and hedges. • The removal of a sycamore tree (which was agreed) has left a thin hedge with large gaps through which the two storey end gable of the garage will be an eyesore, amendments discuss with Applicant to soften this impact • Concerned that given the scale of the garage it could easily be turned into a significant house in its own right • Planning restrictions requested to prevent windows being installed in the SW elevation and to prevent the garage being used as a house • Work has already started and a mobile home has been installed • No mains sewer to dispose sewage to, problems with the existing septic tank but rain water has been diverted to it causing flooding • Significant Ash and other mature trees located on the western boundary have been removed changing the character of the view and having a significant effect on local wildlife • The boundary between no 102 and 104 is incorrect • The design of the dwelling is excellent • The garage is the area of most concern it is huge and causes a number of potential issues and is out of context with the bungalow • A 6ft fence erected completely around the property would go some way to screening the garage etc

139

5. Isham Parish Council - requests a site viewing.

ASSESSMENT: Main Issues and Material Planning Considerations:

• Compliance with policy • Crime and Disorder

This site is located within the open countryside in an area of ribbon development. As such there is a presumption that new development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled.

The Development Plan for the area currently comprises the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and saved policies of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

Policies 9, and 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy are also considered pertinent to the determination of this application.

Policy 9; Distribution and location of development together with Policy 1 focuses development on the settlements and directs that new development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled.

The policies in the Development Plan seek to restrict development in the open countryside unless it has a genuine need to be there.

The policy context against which this application is to be determined is one of control, minimising impact and improvement. The proposed development by virtue of its location, 140 scale, design and massing is considered contrary to Policies 9 and 13 of the NNCSS, Policy G6 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The proposed dwelling by virtue of its location, scale, design and massing is considered contrary to Policies 9 and 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, Policy 6 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.

POLICY G6

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

Policy 13

Meet needs a) Incorporate flexible designs for buildings and their settings, including access to amenity space, enabling them to be adapted to future needs and to take into account the needs of all users; b) Seek to design out antisocial behaviour, crime and reduce the fear of crime by applying the principles of the 'Secured by Design scheme'; c) Maintain and improve the provision of accessible local services and community services, whilst focusing uses that attract a lot of visitors within the town centres; d) Have a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards; 141 e) Be designed to take full account of the transport user hierarchy of pedestrian- cyclist-public transport-private vehicle, and incorporate measures to contribute to an overall target of 20% modal shift in developments of over 200 dwellings and elsewhere 5% over the plan period; f) Not lead to the loss of community facilities, unless it can be demonstrated that they are no longer needed by the community they serve and are not needed for any other community use to that the facility is being relocated and improved to meet the needs of the new and existing community; g) Not lead to the loss of open space or recreation facilities, unless a site of equivalent quality and accessibility can be provided, services and made available to the community prior to use of the existing site ceasing.

Protect assets l) Not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking; m) Be constructed and operated using a minimum amount of non-renewable resources including where possible the reuse of existing structures and materials; n) Not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety; o) Conserve and enhance the landscape character, historic landscape designated built environmental assets and their settings, and biodiversity of the environment making reference to the Environmental Character Assessment and Green Infrastructure Strategy; p) Not sterilise known mineral reserves or degrade soil quality; q) Not cause a risk to (and where possible enhance) the quality of the underlying groundwater or surface water, or increase the risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere, and where possible incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and lead to a reduction in flood risk.

POLICY 9: DISTRIBUTION & LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT

Priority will be given to the reuse of suitable previously developed land and buildings within the urban areas, followed by other suitable land in urban areas. The planning authorities will prepare housing land availability assessments and implement brownfield 142 development strategies to ensure that at least 30% of the overall housing requirements for North Northamptonshire are provided on previously developed land and buildings.

143

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0041/F

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single family dwellinghouse - Amendment to planning permission ref: WP/2011/0204/RM (retrospective).

LOCATION: 53a Westminster Road, Wellingborough. NN8 5YS

APPLICANT: Mr V Parmar.

This planning application comes before the planning committee for determination due to the level of third party objection.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: This site originally formed part of the side garden to 53 Westminster Road. It is located within a primarily residential area and positioned fronting a curve of Westminster Road close to the junction with Blenheim Road and Sparke Close

Outline planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling was granted in May 2008 (see WP/2008/0184) with the subsequent approval of reserved matters following in July 2011 (see WP/2011/0204).

It is fair to say that the residential development of this site was a contentious matter resulting in strong opposition from existing residents however before Committee reached their decision to allow development the site was visited by the Site Viewing Group.

A two storey detached dwelling has now been erected but has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, an unnecessary situation which was brought to our attention by local residents.

The differences between the development as built and as approved fall into two distinct areas, the first relates to the external appearance of the dwelling and the second to the boundary treatment/parking area.

The discrepancies primarily relate to

Front elevation • omission of the proposed white timber cladding around the first floor bathroom window • The proposed porch is now of a solid brick construction • The ground floor canopy to the office/prayer room has been carried across the porch • The front door is solid white UPVC not glass

Side (east) elevation WP/2013/0041/F 27

30 80

74 76 64

16 94.1m

62 93.9m Waterworks Lane

93.3m

8 17 11

7 27

20 CRAWLEY AVENUE

BLENHEIM ROAD 22

2 25

52 50 58 38 42

WESTMINSTER ROAD

33 60

2 62 2

SPARKE CLOSE

HULMEWAY

15 64 19

59 1 11 8

MARLBOROUGH AVENUE

21 2

12 23 72

2 10

TEWKESBURY CLOSE 27

1 20

61 29

7 74 11

63 76

KILBORN ROAD

Legend WP/2013/0041/F - 53a Westminster Road, Wellingborough 127 129 102 Description 133

75 101 Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Applicants Property This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 Application Site ± GetMapping PLC 1999 144

• Two windows have been added to the side elevation facing onto no 53 serving a new downstairs toilet (not shown on the original plan) and landing.

Rear elevation • Kitchen door omitted

Boundary treatment • Circa 1m high close boarded fence erected around front elevation • 2m high closed boarded fence to side elevation not erected in the correct position, inadequate visibility splays provided

Parking area • Not laid out in accordance with the approved plans • Surfaced in loose gravel not hardstanding • No positive drainage provided • Vehicle crossing not constructed to NCC standards

This retrospective application has been submitted in an attempt to regularise the situation.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/1997/0491 move existing fence out towards highway – approved. WP/2008/0184 Outline application for residential development of 1 dwelling approved with conditions. WP/2011/0096 Erection of 4 bed detached house on land rear of 53 Westminster Road including vehicular access – withdrawn. WP/2011/0136 Details submitted pursuant to condition 2 of planning permission WP/2008/0140/O relating to all the reserved matters viz access, layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping – withdrawn. WP/2011/0204 Reserved matters application re details submitted pursuant to condition 2 of outline planning permission WP/2008/0184/O relating to access, appearance, landscape, layout and scale - approved with conditions.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) Supplementary Planning Guidance: IV: Planning Out Crime

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

• Proforma response. • The proposals do not appear to include provision for off road parking except for the area of gravel towards the rear of the property. If it is intended this should be used for parking purposes the area must be re-orientated to permit a vehicle to enter and leave the highway at right angles. • A vehicular crossing must be constructed in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980. 145

• Pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2.4 m x 2.4 m above a height of 0.6m must be provided in both directions at the point of access. • To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway the driveway must be paved with a hard bound surface for a minimum of 5m from the rear of the highway boundary. • A positive means of drainage must be installed to ensure surface water from the driveway does not discharge onto the highway. • To ensure that highway safety is maintained it is recommended that the highway standards and planning conditions set out on the NCC document ‘Highway Authority Standing Advice’ be followed.

2. 8 letters of objection –

• The house has already been built so cannot see the point in sending out a letter afterwards. • Permission should never have been granted to build the house in the first place. • House should have been built in accordance with the approved plans if not, you can have architectural plans drawn up and anything could materialise as this detached property has proved. • Surprised no inspection was made during the building process which could have made a difference as the resulting house is not really in keeping with the area. Not acceptable or cost effective. • Direct breach of privacy as both windows face onto side first floor window of no. 55. • Fence extends right up to the light post is blocking the view when reversing vehicles which is not safe for road users. • Devaluation of property as a result of loss of privacy. • Fencing is an eyesore and not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Other properties have brick walls or hedges along the side neither of which would be out of place. • Main objection is to the fencing across the front of the property which taken in conjunction with the other fencing causes the property to resemble a mini prison. • Horizontal cladding is a feature of every property on the estate, so to deliberately omit it whilst building is simply ignoring the approved plan. • It would appear that the fencing has been revised due to problems with the levels within the site. • Fence should be re-erected in the right position and lowered. • The height of the fence would be copied by other residents around the estate, • The fence is an eyesore and dangerous, especially when reversing off the parking space. • Vehicles and pedestrians cannot be seen, especially vehicles coming around the sharp bend • Continual buses using Westminster Road and coming around the corner would not be seen by the reversing driver. • The pea gravel that has been provided on the parking space will be strewn across the pavement and highway. Potential for damage. This should have been hard standing with the necessary drainage. • Existing estate roads are crumbling through neglect and lack of maintenance, all need resurfacing. • Action needs to be taken to rectify all of the defects. • Puzzled as to why no ground floor toilet was included on the original plans, understand this is a requirement in all new properties. A toilet window is not a requirement as a mechanical ventilation system is required to provide ventilation. 146

• Questions the decision to put a window on the stairs, it should have been included on the original plans if it was a requirement. • Porch was originally glass with a flat roof, if a decision was taken to build it in brick with a tiled roof the architect should have been aware that such a change required planning permission. • Off road parking arrangements do not meet highway requirements/ standards

ASSESSMENT: Main Issues and Material Planning Considerations:

• Principle of development • Impact on neighbour’s amenities • Impact on the character and appearance of the area • Crime and disorder

The Principle of Development The principle of residential development on this site was established by the grant of outline planning permission WP/2008/0184 and reinforced through the approval of reserved matters application WP/2011/0204.

Whilst some local residents may still be of the opinion that planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling on this site should not have been granted the principle of development is not under consideration as part of this application.

Due to the proximity and orientation of the new dwelling to neighbours there was not and is not considered to be any adverse impact upon surrounding dwellings.

The additional W.C. and landing window are located in the eastern elevation and will only affect the host property, no. 53, given the proximity between the two properties their impact is considered to be acceptable.

The impact upon the amenity of neighbours arising from the changes to the dwelling ‘as built’ as opposed to ‘as approved’ are considered negligible however the changes to the position of the boundary fence and provision of the parking area are more significant. These matters are addressed below

In respect of the omission of the proposed white timber cladding around the first floor bathroom window the Applicant has pointed out that nos. 58 and 62 Westminster Road which are directly opposite the property do not have timber cladding nor do nos. 72 and 76. The omission of the white timber cladding is not considered material to the design of the dwelling.

147

The discrepancies between the entrance porch and canopy as approved and as built are considered relatively minor and do not materially or adversely affect the design of the new dwelling.

None of these discrepancies either singularly or collectively are considered to be of such significant material weight to render the design of the dwelling unacceptable. The design scale and position of the property was and are consistent with their surroundings. It is therefore considered that the dwelling does not harm the visual appearance or character of the area.

It has already been mentioned that the site lies within a predominantly residential area and as such the prevailing street scene is considered suburban in appearance with open frontages and grassed verges. Whilst it was accepted that in previously granting planning permission the built form would increase the original plans retained a good proportion of grassed verge (between 1m to 3m from the pavement) ensuring a degree of openness to the Westminster curve retaining a good sense of openness to the corner. It was intended to further emphasise this openness by carefully selecting boundary treatment and landscaping which were required to be submitted as part of the planning conditions.

However, despite approving details to discharge these planning conditions neither the boundary fence nor off road parking area have been provided in the approved position to the approved specification are thereby creating potential danger to existing road users.

It is accepted that the new dwelling has been constructed at a level lower than that of the existing pavement, this difference in level has been approved and was considered necessary to ensure the ridge height of the new building was compatible with and respected that of adjacent properties. This has led to a situation where from a public safety point of view some form of front boundary treatment is required but the close boarded wooden fence which has been erected is hardly considered sympathetic to the street scene in this predominantly open plan estate.

To the side boundary a 2m high close boarded fence has been erected and whilst in principle a fence of this height and design in this type of location is considered acceptable in this instance it has been erected too close to the highway boundary and significantly reduces visibility for existing road users as well as occupiers of the new dwelling. Similar highway safety concerns are expressed by local residents.

Northamptonshire County Council Highways confirm that the vehicular crossing and parking area have not been provided to their required standards.

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

Conclusion In conclusion the preference would have been for this development to have been carried out in accordance with the approved plans however, this has not happened and consideration must now be given to the merits or otherwise of the retrospective application.

Whilst the ‘amendments’ to the design of the dwelling are considered relatively minor and acceptable in principle the ‘amendments’ to the boundary fence and parking area are considered to have to the potential to adversely affect highway safety.

148

It is recommended that this application be approved subject to highway and landscaping conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plan no consent is granted or implied for the design, position or specification of the front and side boundary fence or rear parking area. Within 21 days of the date of this permission revised details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by thel ocal planning authority, the approved details shall be implemented within six weeks of the date of this consent and maintained as such thereafter. 2. A vehiclular crossing must be constructed in accordance with the specification of NorthamptonshireCounty Council and all highway surfaces affected by the works must be reinstated in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980. 3. Pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2.4m x 2.4m above a height of 0.6m must be provided in both directions at the point of access. 4. To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway the driveway must be paved with a hard bound surface for a minimum of 5m to the rear of the highway boundary. A positive means of drainage must be installed to ensure that surface water from the driveway does not discharge onto the highway.

Reasons: 1. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of highway safety. 2. In the interests of highway safety. 3. In the interests of highway safety. 4. In the interests of highway safety.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policy: Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. 2. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and 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. 3. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: Location Plan and A040-7 13th February 2013 4. To ensure that highway safety is maintained it is recommended that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the Northamptonshire County Council document 'Highway Authority Standing Advice' be followed. 149

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0057/F

PROPOSAL: Ground floor side extension. Remove roof and raise by 1200mm to create first floor extension. Garage: Remove flat roof and fit pitched, tiled roof - amended plans recd 06/03/2013.

LOCATION: 47 Overstone Road, Sywell, Northampton. NN6 0AW

APPLICANT: Mr Mark Parry, Parish Joinery.

This planning application comes before the planning committee for determination due to the level of third party objection. Councillor Bass is an immediate neighbour.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: This application relates to a detached bungalow constructed in the 1950’s. It is of a relatively plain and simple design.

The development description provided by the Applicant is very misleading and refers to relatively modest extensions/alterations to this 2 bed detached bungalow whereas in reality the original plans created a 6 bed three storey dwelling. They have since been amended to create a two storey four bed dwelling

The application has been amended twice more by the Applicant since submission. The main considerations are considered to be the impact of the height, scale and massing of the proposed extension upon the amenities of adjacent bungalows and upon the street scene.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WR/1954/0062 Bungalow - approved with conditions WR/1955/0024 Bungalow and garage - approved with conditions

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) Supplementary Planning Guidance: IV: Planning Out Crime

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. 3 third party representations –

• A number of technical errors with the application • The roof will be raised 5m not 1.2m as stated, this is because of errors and missing information

WP/2013/0057/F 27

16 Recreation Ground El Sub Sta

26 LB

7 GP

PIE CORNER 14

45 8

50 A

OVERSTONE ROAD 52 10

ECTON LANE

118.9m

14 51

114.0m

65 Pp

61 63 32

110.0m

32a 34 Sywell C of E VA Primary School

• Existing eaves are no more than 2.45m above ground level not 2.9 as stated as a consequence the 1.7m of new brickwork takes the new eaves height to 4.1m. On top of this the new roof from eaves to apex measures approx 5m • The applicant states ‘to create first floor extension’ but is requesting an additional two floors making a three not a two storey house • The additional height and its context have not been shown on the street scene so that the relative proportionality of the surrounding buildings can be compared • New first floor window on west side will look directly into neighbours living room and bedroom, should be located on east side where it will only overlook the garage and gardens • The boundary is not as the applicant states • Existing boundary trees not accurately shown • Trees should be TPO’d • No objection in principle to the bungalow being modernised and indeed made into a ‘dormer’ type but strongly oppose the additional floor • Applicant did not have the courtesy to contact the neighbours before submitting their application or seek the views of Planning Officers • Loss of daylight and sunlight • Adjacent garden is wet and needs sun to dry out • Surface area of proposed roof is much greater than now, where is all the rainwater to go • Removal of trees means that there is more water to soak away and could drain into adjacent property exacerbating the existing problem • Light analysis should be carried out to determine the detrimental effect this development will have on adjacent properties • Size will be out of context with adjacent properties in particular the height will be over bearing • Appears to be a moderate alteration upon first reading but the plans show something else entirely, the measurements are incorrect and this development of a single storey bungalow into a three storey six bedroom house seems totally inappropriate to the plot size • Design echoes a Scandinavian appearance which seems totally out of character to neighbouring properties • Trend to turn 2/3 bed properties into 5/6 executive dwellings has serious implications for the village community when there will be less and less affordable housing for singles, young families and those retiring or downsizing

Amended plans 6th March – 9 third party representations –

• Would prefer to see a drawing of the street scene in order to gauge the relative height of the development with adjacent properties • Still have concerns regarding loss of light, is it possible to have a light analysis completed to determine if neighbours garden will be affected by the height of this development • Concern regarding loss of light into bathroom window • Many of the former single storey properties along Overstone Road and Sywell Road have had bedrooms added to the roof space without a significant increase in the height or any increase at all • Concern about the change of dormer window which will overlook the entire garden of no 45 Overstone Road, Applicant advised of concerns • The street scene on the 3rd set of plans shows that no 47 is set slightly to the rear of no 45, the proposed dormer window for the smallest bedroom 4, will be overlooking 151

the garden of no 45 and very intrusive. This could be avoided if roof velux were used instead • Earlier comments reiterated • The roof pitch does not need to be 40 degrees and a lower pitch angle would reduce the overall height • Concerns about the type of window which will face neighbouring property would prefer frosted velux type • Nos. 8 and 6 Ecton Lane were not consulted on this application although the planned dormer window will overlook the rear of their properties • Adjacent property has similar dormer style bedroom in the roof space whilst the height to eaves is the same as that proposed the height to the apex is 2.4m lower that that proposed • The proposed height is far too high and can be avoided by making it lower and accommodating all the objectors wishes and still achieve a good first floor living space • No. 47 sits higher than adjacent property so the impact of the height is significant

2. Northamptonshire County Council, Highways –

• To ensure that highway safety is maintained it is recommended that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the Northamptonshire County Council document ‘Highway Authority Standing Advice’ be followed. • Above comment still pertinent to amended plans

3. Parish Council - have no objections to this application but believe that consideration should be given to changing the upper dormer window overlooking the neighbouring garden.

ASSESSMENT: Main Issues and Material Planning Considerations:

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

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

For the reasons set out below the proposed development is considered contrary to Policy 13 of the NNCSS.

152

This detached bungalow is the central plot of three bungalows fronting onto Overstone Road. The existing building has an eaves height of 2.6m and a ridge height of 5.5m. The plans as originally submitted proposed raising the eaves and ridge height to 4.1m and 9.1m respectively and provide two further floors of residential accommodation.

It should be noted that the dimensions written on the submitted plan differ from the drawings when measured.

The latest amendments propose to increase the eaves and ridge height to 4.1m and 8.4m respectively. The first floor layout in the amended plans is the same as that originally proposed although the staircase to the second floor has been omitted that is not to say that it could not be reinstated should planning permission be forthcoming.

The detached bungalows either site have ridge heights of circa 5.5m.

One of the objectors points out that his property has also been developed into a dormer bungalow and first floor accommodation similar to that proposed has been achieved within a ridge height of 6.7m.

In support of his application the Agent points out that in terms of right to light good practice the proposed extension does not affect no. 49 Overstone Road and has minimal affect on no. 45. This does not ameliorate the over bearing impact that the height and massing of the extension will have on the adjacent buildings.

He states that the internal footprint of the existing bungalow is 122.5 sq m and the increased footprint will be 19.8 sq m, a total increase in footprint of 24%. However the increase in floor area is significantly greater increasing from 122.5 sq m to 284.6 sq m (this figure excludes any additional accommodation created in the roof space).

The Agent maintains that the increase in ridge height is approx 3.0m above no. 45 and 2.4m above no. 49. No reference is made to the 1.5m increase in eaves height.

No. 47 faces gable end onto the road and to increase the eaves and ridge height to the height proposed alters the scale and massing of the building to such an extent that it has a dominant and overbearing impact on the adjacent bungalows to the detriment the amenities enjoyed by occupants.

The Agent considers there to be little change to the elevation that fronts the highway stating that the front of the dwelling is set back approx 17.5m from the highway boundary.

The scale, massing, height and design of the proposed extension are incongruous to the form and character of its surroundings. To increase the height of the gable in the manner proposed creates a very poor street scene with a dominant gable onto the road. 153

The proposed development is considered contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the NNCSS.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The scale, massing, height and design of the proposed extension are incongruous to the form and character of its surroundings. To increase the height of the gable in the manner proposed creates a very poor street scene. The proposed extension is therefore considered contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. 2. The scale, massing, height and design of the proposed extension would result in a visually oppressive and over bearing structure which would result in an unacceptable impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring properties by way of loss of perceived levels of light and outlook contrary to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Policy 13

Raise standards 154 h) Be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respects and enhances the character of its surroundings and is in accordance with the Environmental Character of the area; i) Create a strong sense of place by strengthening the distinctive historic and cultural qualities and townscape of the towns and villages through its design, landscaping and use of public art; j) Be designed to promote healthier lifestyles and for people to be active outside their home and places of work; k) Allow for travel to home, shops, work and school on foot and by cycle and public transport.

155

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0080/C

PROPOSAL: Expansion of school to form entry, including extension over existing ground floor classroom block resulting in an additional three classrooms, DT specialist classroom, toilets and ancillary spaces.

LOCATION: Victoria Primary School, Finedon Road, Wellingborough. NN8 4NT

APPLICANT: Northamptonshire County Council.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for comment because it is a County Council application.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described as above.

This is an application being dealt with by the County Council and the site is located between Leys Road and Finedon Road in the Castle Ward of Wellingborough.

Victoria Primary School is an existing local authority-run school, located approximately 1 mile north east of Wellingborough town centre, in a predominantly residential neighbourhood. It shares a site with Rowan Gate Primary School, and Highfields Nursery. It currently accommodates approximately 330 pupils aged 5-11. Each year group is comprised of an approximate average of 45 pupils. Based on a typical national standard class size of 30 children, it is therefore classed as a ‘1.5 form entry’ school.

Victoria Primary School’s existing buildings were mostly built in the 1970s in a neighbourhood predominantly comprised of semi-detached and terraced housing. Since that time, various additions to the school have been built, with the last notable expansion being complete in approximately 2007. This comprised a new main hall, and a teaching block containing six full- size classrooms.

The site is bordered on two sides by housing, with an existing pathway leading into and through the site from its southern boundary. To the west is a scrapyard, and to the north is Finedon Road, along with the main site entrance and sole point of vehicle access. The buildings within the confines of the site Victoria Primary School (VPS) shares with Rowan Gate Primary School and Highfields Nursery are mostly single storey, with the exception of the 2007 extension, which is two storey.

The building housing Rowan Gate Primary School was originally built in the 1970s, thought to coincide with the construction of the VPS buildings. It is similar in form and architectural A

JERSEY CLOSE 18 WP/2013/0080/C 92

33 8 5 82.3m 29

CF 86

Flats 1 to 8 2 1 ) ) Def FINEDON ROAD 6 4

14 CR 4 )

Ward Bdy ) 24 3

82.9m 1

Flats 1 to 8

Rowan Gate 5

26 Primary School 10 to 1 Flats

PALING CLOSE

41 11 66

Flats 1 to10 1 Flats 47

Delafield

39 Flats 1 to 8 to 1 Flats

35 21 Highfield Nursery

School Games Court 33

Victoria Primary School

ALBERT ROAD

29 Scrap Yard

22 31

6 4a

32 41 11

148

148a 38

148b

148c ) 4 ) 49 3

CW 1 129

144

))

48 WB 2a ) ) CF Def 59 ) ) ) 6 ) 3 10

9 Leys

60 Court 74 to 80 to 74

8 132 4

55 117

Legend 2 5

71 82 1

Planning & Local WP/2013/0080/C84 - Victoria Primary School, Finedon Road, Wellingborough Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Description Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. This map is accurate Applicants Property 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 Application Site ± GetMapping PLC 1999 156 massing and shares the same red brick wall finishes. Highfields Nursery is a more recent building, also finished with red brick walls, but with shallow-pitched roofs of white-painted metal profile sheets and profile grey tiles.

There are eleven schools in Wellingborough that are part of the admissions process for Reception-aged children. The applicant has identified that the countywide scenario of a 10% rise in applications for Reception places is having an impact in Wellingborough and there are no surplus places in the town at all.

The County Council is currently considering a number of proposals to provide approximately four forms of entry (120 places) of additional capacity in Wellingborough town: Croyland has already increased, plans have progressed for Victoria and Ruskin, and feasibility studies are just starting for Diamond and Redwell. There is also pressure on places in the wider area, so transporting pupils to other schools is neither feasible nor desirable. The statutory consultation processes regarding an increase in the published admission number at Victoria from 45 to 60 pupils per year group concluded with Cabinet approval for the expansion on 15th January 2013.

The feasibility study of how to extend Victoria Primary has considered five options, the favoured one being to build a first floor extension above the existing Year 1 and 2 classrooms and connecting through to the existing first floor. This minimises the impact on site from additional floor area, an important consideration when there is limited space. The site is shared with Rowan Gate Special School and the Highfield Nursery School/Children’s Centre and all three Headteachers and Chairs of Governors have been involved in stakeholder meetings about the impact of the proposed expansion. These meetings have considered site aspects that affect all three schools, including vehicular and pedestrian movements, location for temporary mobile classrooms, contractor’s compound and access and final layout of parking, playgrounds and external areas.

The project is centred on the enlargement of the school to ‘2 form entry’, i.e., 2 forms (classes) of 30 pupils = 60 pupils per year group. Based on 7 year groups, this gives an enlarged capacity of 7 x 60 pupils = 420 pupils total. To limit the footprint of the new building it is proposed to build a new block directly over/on top of an existing single storey classroom block. This extension is to house 3 new classrooms, a DT/specialist room, toilets and associated ancillary spaces (stores, etc.), along with a staircore to link to ground floor level and a link bridge to connect to the existing adjacent classroom block at first floor level. The project also entails various sections of external works, most of which are of a relatively small scale.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: BW/1975/0293 Proposed new schools and caretaker's house - DEEM AAPROVE WP/1995/0561 Upgrading of car parking/turning facilities, related to proposed extension of Eastfield Special School and proposed extension to Highfield Nursery School – AC WP/2003/0120 Erection of a single storey library and reception area - AGREED WP/2004/0440 Erection of covered play area, external store and ramp for disabled access - AGREED WP/2006/0102 Erection of a 2 storey 6 classroom extension and new school hall, artificial multi use games area and additional car parking - AC WP/2009/0202 Ground floor pitched roof extension. Materials to match existing - COUNTYMATTER WP/2010/0075 Site boundary sign for the 4 schools - AC WU/1972/0346 Replacement of 3 schools and site for special school - DEEM AAPROVE

157

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) Policy 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction)

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

No representations were received at the time of writing this report.

ASSESSMENT: The proposed new buildings and refurbishment works will represent a valued investment in local (educational) services which is considered to be a sustainable development approach and of benefit to the local community. The development is not perceived as being detrimental to the general character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be contrary to policy and represents a sustainable approach as some of the buildings are being refurbished rather than being re-built and the new buildings are being located on an existing school site based within the heart of the local community whom are most likely to use the facility.

Conclusion The scheme is seen as a welcome investment in educational facilities and childcare provision for the local community and the Borough.

RECOMMENDATION: That the County Council be advised that no objections are raised to this proposal.

158

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0081/FM

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing sheltered housing apartment/bedsit block (units 1-33) and erection of new residential development, plus associated access, car parking and landscaping. Proposed new development to consist of 14 apartments, 4 houses and 2 bungalows, plus the external refurbishment of 4 existing bungalows.

LOCATION: Meadowlands, Hardwick Road, Little Harrowden, Wellingborough. NN9 5BY

APPLICANT: Wellingborough Homes.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: Meadowlands is a 1970’s purpose built sheltered housing development located at the junction of Hardwick Road and Wellingborough Road. The accommodation consists of 37 residential units (24 x 1 bed bedsits/studios, 8 x 1 bed flats/maisonettes, 1 x 2 bed warden flat/maisonette and 4 x 2 bed bungalows). The accommodation is quite institutionalised and dated and the prevalence of 1 bed bedsits/studios, which do not meet local housing demand is making it very difficult to let.

The proposal is to demolish the existing apartment block and in its place erect a new two storey building to provide 10 x 1 bed flats/maisonettes and 4 x 2 bed flats/maisonettes. In addition 4 x 2 bed semi detached houses, 2 x 2 bed bungalows are proposed. There is a net loss of 13 units. The 4 bungalows will be refurbished. All of the units will be for social rent. It is envisaged that many of the existing residents will return to site upon completion of the development.

On site parking is very restricted with 7 spaces provided off Hardwick Road. It is proposed to increase the number of parking spaces to 24 equivalent to 75% provision.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WR/1973/0277 Erection of aged persons dwelling with communal facilities and wardens accommodation - approved with conditions BW/1979/0529 4 OAP bungalows - approved with conditions

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4 Villages SMITHS YARD

WP/2013/0081/FM 20

17 MAIN STREET 12 20

West Farm 87.8m

18 Works 32 84.4m

2 49

B 574

1 3

2 WELLINGBOROUGH 15

89.3m

1 to 33

6 ROAD 9

11 Meadowlands 22

WESTFIELDS 13

1 23

89.3m 31

ROOKERY 2 A 5 VIEW

HARDWICK ROAD

Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 WP/2013/0039/FM - Meadowlands, Hardwick Road, Little Harrowden ± GetMapping PLC 1999 159

Supplementary Planning Guidance: IV: Planning Out Crime

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Little Harrowden Parish Council - no objection.

2. Borough Council of Wellingborough, Design and Conservation Officer –

• Suggested plots 3, 4, 5 and 6 have a higher and wider central gable. This would be more balance architecturally, reduce the amount of frontage down-pipes and create visual interest as a feature at the end of the access road, working with the centrally positioned tree. • The Council disapproves of Juliette balconies. Proper functioning balconies should be considered instead • The main street access door to the flats fronting Wellingborough Road should be made more architecturally/visually prominent. • A manual for streets-type access road should be considered, including a raised table at the point of access to maintain existing footway grade and the shared- surface concept • The access road is very conventionally shown at right angles to Hardwick Road • There is the opportunity to introduce curvature to add visual interest, possibly working with additional structural landscaping features • Conditions should be attached to the consent covering boundary screening and surface finish for pathways and other circulation space to ensure water- permeability.

3. Natural England –

• The proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is the proposal EIA development • Not clear from the information provided what the impact on protected species will be, reference given to standing advice given

4. Northamptonshire Police, Crime Prevention –

• No formal objection • Notes the applicants intention to apply the principles of Secured by Design, which if implemented will reduce the likelihood of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour occurring • Applicant has clearly taken account of pre-application discussions, which are evident from changes in the layout • Doors to conform to PAS24:2012 • All ground floor windows to comply with BS7950 • Front gardens should also have features that differentiate between public and private space • All ground floor glazing will need to feature laminate glass • The apartment block will also need access control to both external doors with audio-visual capability operated from each apartment • Consideration of how apartment block mail and deliveries will be handled needs to be advised.

5. Northamptonshire County Council, Archaeology – 160

• No objection to the proposal on archaeological grounds • while there is evidence for archaeological activity to the north and north-east of the application site, on balance it is considered that the existing development of the site will have caused truncation to the site and therefore the potential for archaeology to survive is low

ASSESSMENT: Main Issues and Material Planning Considerations:

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

Compliance with Policy Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan states that planning permission will be granted within the ‘Restricted Infill Villages’ for development providing it is within the Village Policy Lines and will not, either individually or cumulatively with other proposals have an adverse impact on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs.

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

The site is located within the confines of the village of Little Harrowden, its development in not considered to adversely affect the character or setting of the village and as such is considered to be in conformity with Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and NPPF.

Given the orientation and location of adjacent development no adverse impact upon the amenities of neighbours is anticipated arising from this development which is considered to be in compliance with Policy 13 (l) of the NNCSS.

The existing development is very open in character with little defensible or private space, a grass verge separates the site from the highway boundary along Wellingborough Road and Hardwick Roads. It has a dated and institutional feel which does little to enhance the surrounding area

The proposed development brings a contemporary modern feel to this part of the village yet at the same time respects the existing scale and material palette.

161

The proposed development is considered to be in compliance with Policy 13 (h) of the NNCSS.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. 3. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 4. A scheme for screen fencing/walling shall be agreed with the local planning authority before the start of construction. The agreed scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the houses are occupied. 5. The areas shown for parking and turning on the approved plans shall be laid out and surfaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the premises are occupied and shall be permanently set aside and reserved for the purpose. 6. Details of all hard-surfaced materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before development commences. The approved materials shall not be removed or replaced without the prior written agreement of the local planning authority. 7. No development shall commence until measures for the protection of trees in accordance with BS5837 have been implemented. These measures shall remain in place until the completion of the development. No vehicles, plant or materials shall be driven or placed within the areas providing tree protection. 8. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans full details of the existing and proposed levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before development commences. There shall be no variation in the agreed levels without the written approval of the local planning authority.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. In the interests of visual amenity. 4. In the interests of amenity and privacy. 162

5. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway/s. 6. In the interests of amenity 7. To protect the trees which are to be retained on the site in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 8. In the interest of visual amenity and the amenity of adjacent residents.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. 2. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and 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. 3. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: Location Plan, W191 - SOO2, W191 - PO2B, W191 - PO3A, W191 - PO4A and W191 - PO5 13th February 2013 4. It is recommended that in order to reduce the likelihood of crime, disorder and anti social behaviour occurring, the principles of 'Secured by Design' are incorporated in the development. 163

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0105/F

PROPOSAL: Erection of a pair of semi detached bungalows in place of the proposed approved bungalow at the rear of the site and reconfiguration of the parking spaces.

LOCATION: 21a Allen Road, Finedon, Wellingborough. NN9 5EN

APPLICANT: Carn Homes Limited.

Objection from Finedon Parish Council.

BACKGROUND AND THE PROPOSAL: In February last year, permission was granted under Ref: WP/2011/0595/F for the following the demolition of existing detached dwelling and erection of 2 pairs of semi-detached houses and one detached bungalow.

The approved development is currently being implemented and approval is now sought to build a pair of semi-detached bungalows in place of the approved bungalow at the rear of the site. The proposal as a consequence also involves the reconfiguration of the car parking spaces at the rear of the site. This has resulted in an increase in parking provision from 10 that was approved under WP/2011/0595/F. The applicant claims that the development is currently being marketed and the proposed changes are brought about as a result of strong demand for this type of properties in the area. The application is accompanied by a letter from the Estates’ Agent marketing the properties.

A previous application for this site (Ref: WP/2009/0004/F) sought approval for 6 dwellings described as follows: The demolition of a detached two storey house and the erection of 1 detached bungalow and 1 apartment block (consisting of 3 two bedroom houses, 1 two bedroom maisonette and 1 ground floor one bedroom flat). The application was initially refused by the Committee, but allowed at appeal by an Inspector in October 2009.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS: The site lies within the Finedon Village Policy area. To the south of the site on the opposite side of Allen Road, is a row of Edwardian houses. The side of the road on which our site is positioned was historically made up of a similar type of dwelling; however the construction of Rock Road and Eastfield Crescent altered this arrangement. Typically the dwellings within the area are semi-detached.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National Planning Policy Framework North Northants Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlements 2

WP/2013/0105/F37 40

82.3m 57

EASTFIELD 38

1 61

32 30 CRESCENT 35 1a

a to c

18 14

16 EASTFIELD 22

12 10

39 8 6 CRESCENT 37 12

76 11 A

1 2

Units 1 to 4 17 14c

Garage 66

1 2

18a ROCK ROAD

13 4 14 14a

14b 56 2b

15a 27

21 19 15b

23 ALLEN ROAD

15d 46 31 15 21b 44c 16

1a 1 to 44 4 1b ALLEN Regency Court

5 COURT 21

17 32 1 15a 3 15

21 22

11a

15 12 12 20 to 27 IRTHLINGBOROUGH ROAD 5 Jubilee Court 11 1

27 2

26 2

27a 1

12 13

17 27c 27d

19 1

29 28

Legend UNION STREET

7 35 WP/2013/0105/F - 21a Allen Road, Finedon Garage Description 5 Planning & TCBLocal 35a Development © Crown Copyright Builder's and database right 2013. Yard Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Applicants Property This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 Application Site ± GetMapping PLC 1999 164

Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Development Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4 – Villages

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Finedon Parish Council - the Councillors of Finedon Parish Council have objections to planning application WP/2013/0105/F Erection of a pair of semi detached bungalows in place of the proposed approved bungalow at the rear of the site and reconfiguration of the parking spaces. They object to the application due to over development of the site and concerns about the parking on the site.

2. NCC Highways - as it comprises a shared private drive the means of access into the site must be laid out as a shared private drive no less than 4.5m wide for the first 10 in rear of the highway boundary. Pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2.4m x 2.4m (2m x 2m where turning facilities are provided within the site) above a height of 0.6m and vehicle to vehicle visibility of 2m x 43m must be provided in both directions at the point of access onto Allen Road.

The vehicular crossing must be constructed in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and provided with a demarcation at the edge of the carriageway to West Street comprising granite setts or similar with an up-stand of 25mm. And all highway surfaces affected by the works must be reinstated in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980.

To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway the driveway must be paved with a hard bound surface for a minimum of 5m in rear of the highway boundary. A positive means of drainage must be installed to ensure that surface water from the driveway does not discharge onto the highway.

3. Anglian Water - no comments.

4. Design and Conservation Officer – no comments.

ASSESSMENT: The principle of the development is established following the previous appeal decision and the subsequent approval (WP/2011/0595). The proposed pair of semi detached bungalows is similar to the approved bungalow in terms of site coverage and their heights are the same. The proposed pair is now centrally sited in the middle of the rear plot whereas the approved bungalow is sited close the eastern boundary adjacent to No 23 Allen Road.

The proposal would increase the density of the development, but given that there is no material increase in the bulk and mass of the resulting building, the proposed changes could be considered in a favourable light. The applicant claims that the proposal is in response to a strong demand for smaller bungalows in the area, following extensive marketing exercise.

Having regard to the relative siting of the approved and proposed buildings, it is considered that there would be no material difference in terms of the impact on the occupiers of no. 23 Allen Road. The height of the approved and proposed buildings is the same and the proposed building would have a noticeably lower bulk in view of the reduction in length as seen from the garden of no. 23. In relation to the existing dwellings fronting Rock Road, tree planting is proposed at their common boundary with the application site, to prevent mutual overlooking, thereby safeguarding respective amenities. 165

There are now 12 car parking spaces for 6 dwellings on the site in comparison to 10 spaces in the approved development for 5 dwellings. This equates to 200% provision. The County Council Highways have not raised any objections to the reconfiguration of the parking provision within the development. The access arrangement remains the same and is unaltered.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be begun no later than three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Notwithstanding any materials specified in the application form and/or the drawings, particulars and samples of the materials to be used on all external surfaces of the buildings, including fenestration, windows, doors, eaves and verges shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the commencement of the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3. The proposed tree planting/landscape scheme shall be implemented during the next planting season after the completion of the building operations on site or within any such longer period as may be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Such planting shall be maintained, including the replacement of dead, dying or defective trees, shrubs or ground cover plants for a period of 5 years. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other Order revoking or re-enacting the Order), no buildings, extensions or alterations permitted by Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be carried out to the 2 dwellinghouses hereby approved without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. 5. No windows or other openings shall be inserted on the flank elevations of the approved bungalows without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. 6. The car parking spaces shown on the approved drawings shall be laid out and provided before the occupation of the dwellings and shall thereafter be kept free from obstruction and shall be retained for parking purposes for the occupiers of the development and their visitors. 7. As it comprises a shared private drive the means of access into the site must be laid out as a shared private drive no less than 4.5m wide for the first 10 in rear of the highway boundary. Pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2.4m x 2.4m (2m x 2m where turning facilities are provided within the site) above a height of 0.6m and vehicle to vehicle visibility of 2m x 43m must be provided in both directions at the point of access onto Allen Road. 8. The vehicular crossing must be constructed in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and provided with a demarcation at the edge of the carriageway to West Street comprising granite setts or similar with an up-stand of 25mm. And all highway surfaces affected by the works must be reinstated in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980. 9. To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway the driveway must be paved with a hard bound surface for a minimum of 5m in rear of the highway boundary. A positive means of drainage must be installed to ensure that surface water from the driveway does not discharge onto the highway.

166

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: North Northants Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 - Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 9 - Distribution and Location of Development Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G4 – Villages 2. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and 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. 3. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawings received on the date shown: Drawing: Date Received: 001 20/02/2013

167

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0132/C

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 to alter the design of the building and condition 12 to allow public and bank holiday working hours on planning permission 11/00088/WAS for the erection of a new building, plant and machinery and installation of a biomass fuelled power plant.

LOCATION: (Larner Pallets) 3 4 Bevan Close, Wellingborough. NN8 4BL

APPLICANT: Mr David McEwan, Larner Timber Recycling Limited.

The proposal is a County matter and the application is referred to the Planning Committee as a consultee. The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the application’s existence and to provide the Members with the opportunity to minute any concerns they may have that can then be reported to NCC via the official minutes of the Planning Committee.

NOTE: Four previous planning applications (which include the erection of a biomass energy plant, modifications to the scheme and for an extension in time) at this site have previously been presented to this Committee on the following dates (planning history provided further down in report):

• WP/2008/0320/C – 19 November 2008 • WP/2009/0365/C – 13 January 2010 • WP/2011/0440/C – 2 November 2011 • WP/2012/0008/C – 8 February 2012

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above.

The application site is an existing wood waste recycling centre located in the heart of the Finedon Road Industrial Estate, immediately due west of Bevan Close and due north of Rixon Road (Hemmingwell Ward). To the rear of the site is a corridor of land that is designated in the local plan as G19 and L5 - Environmentally Important Open Space and Important Amenity Area.

WP/2013/0132/C 168

This application by Larner Recycling Limited relates to their earlier consented scheme to install a Biomass Energy plant powered by steam produced from natural and reclaimed timber (“the Plant”) of up to 4.5MW capacity at Finedon Road Industrial Estate, Wellingborough. The plant will be fuelled by reclaimed wood from the existing operations on site.

This application is being submitted because of changes in both building and infrastructure requirements and power output from the proposed plant previously granted approval on 14 December 2009 under planning reference 09/00057/WAS. A proposal for a 3MW gasification plant has also been permitted on the site and is currently the subject of an application to extend the time period for its implementation. The gasification proposal received planning consent on 15 September 2008 under planning reference 08/00049/WAS.

The benefits of the proposal purported by the applicant are:

i. Reduction in waste to landfill. ii. Additional outlet for recycled wood as the board mill market fluctuates wildly. iii. Renewable energy source. iv. Contributes to reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. v. Supply of energy to the grid equivalent to the annual usage of over 10,900 households (average annual household consumption in the UK is 3,300kWh).

This is a planning application to vary Conditions 2 (scope of the planning permission) and 12 (hours of working) of Planning Permission 11/00088/WAS (WP/2012/0008/C) and the nature of the variations are presented below:-

Condition 2

The proposed changes denoted on the Rolton Group drawing number 12-0361/ A01, A10, A11, A12, A13, A15, A16, A20 and A25 are as direct result of design development with the specialist supplier process engineer and general design development following input from Building control and design team members.

The major changes to the elevations are summarised as follows

View looking North East 1) The addition of low level lourves 2) The addition of 2 number fire exit doors 3) The increase in the eaves height.

View looking South West 1) The addition of high level lourves 2) The addition of 1 number fire exit doors 3) The increase in the eaves height 4) The removal of the external staircase. 5) The addition an additional sectional door 6) The addition of external plant area and associated Armco barriers 7) The addition of an opening sided canopy

169

View looking South East 1) The addition of high level lourves 2) The addition of 1 number fire exit doors 3) The increase in the eaves height 4) The addition of an opening sided canopy, with associated skips. 5) The removal of 1 number external tanks.

View looking North West 1) The addition of high level lourves 2) The increase in the eaves height 3) The removal of 3 number external tanks.

In addition there are a number of relatively minor internal changes (rotation of plant, addition of doors, additional platforms etc.) to the internal layout to suit the specialist requirements.

The majority of the items are as a direct result of design development, confirmation of height to achieve operational/maintenance and health and safety requirements and further information supplied by the specialist advising the applicant. However, the applicant concludes that the building and its intended function remain principally the same in terms of plan dimension, apex height (but eaves height changes) etc. In addition the building is to be situated within an industrial area with similar buildings and therefore there should be limited visual impact.

Condition 12

Within the original design and access statement the receipt of fuel and all other external operations, was proposed to be as follows

Mondays to Fridays 07.00 and 19.00 Saturdays 07.00 and 19.00 Sundays 08.00 and 16.00 Bank/Public Holidays 08.00 and 16.00

Planning condition 12 restricted the deliveries to between the hours of 07.30 and 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays, with no receipt of fuel or other external operations on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays.

The applicant considers that should planning condition 12 be maintained then the plant will not have sufficient fuel stored within the building to generate electricity over a extended weekend. They therefore request that the wording is revised to remove the words “Public or Bank Holidays”. The revision, to this condition, is to ensure that the applicant has sufficient fuel within the building without the need to increase the building footprint or requiring external storage. They respectfully request for the condition to be changed to the following wording:-

“Except in emergencies (which shall be notified to the Waste Planning Authority as soon as practicable) or unless otherwise approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, the receipt of fuel and all other external operations, excluding the operation of generator plant, shall be restricted to between the hours of 07.30 and 18.00 Mondays to 170

Fridays and 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays, with no receipt of fuel or other external operations on Sundays”

The applicant wishes the decision makers to bear in mind the location of the proposed facility, i.e. within an industrial area, and they do not feel that this modification to the delivery times will have any significant effect on the general public or local amenities

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: BW/1974/0460 Erection of ready-mixed concrete plant and ancillary equipment - PERMITTED WP/1996/0276 Construction of mixing and packaging plant, flour mill and storage silos, warehousing, new access and associated facilities - WITHDRAWN WP/1999/0026 New factory unit - AC WP/2000/0365 Change of use - waste land to wood waste recycling centre - COUNTYMATTER WP/2008/0320 Erection of new industrial building and installation of 3MW biomass gasification plant to generate electricity from reclaimed timber - AGREED (08/00049/WAS - County Council determination - Approved). WP/2009/0365 Erection of new industrial building and installation of 3MW biomass fuelled power plant - COUNTYMATTER (09/00057/WAS - County Council Determination - Approved). WP/2011/0440 Replacement of extant planning permission 08/00049/WAS to extend the time limit for implementation. COUNTYMATTER (11/00064/EXT - County Council determination – Approved). WP/2012/0008 Erection of a new industrial building, plant and machinery and installation of a biomass fuelled power plant. COUNTYMATTER

(11/00088/WAS – County Council determination – Approved). WR/1966/0180 Roads and sewers Phase III - AC WU/0067/0027 Illuminated signs (three) - AC

NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: National and Regional Policy As this application is being determined by Northamptonshire County Council (NNC), then compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS8) and the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) 2008 policies rests with NCC.

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008 –

• Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlements; • Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Development; • Policy 11 – Distribution of Jobs; • Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles; • Policy 14 – Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction.

171

Local Policy The relevant local planning policies with which this consultation response report concerns itself with are detailed below.

Wellingborough Local Plan (including Alteration 2004) 1999 - policies: • G2 – Flood Protection; • G19 – Environmentally Important Open Space; • L5 – Retention of Important Amenity Areas.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: Wellingborough Borough Council is a consultee only on this matter and therefore no consultations have been carried out on this application by the Borough. Assurances have been given by the County Council that they have undertaken all necessary consultations with the appropriate persons/bodies on all relevant planning matters – these consultations include Wellingborough Council’s Environmental Health department. No representations were received by Wellingborough Council at the time of writing this report.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are: • Compliance with policy; • Other material planning matters.

Compliance with policy It is considered that the principle of the development which proposes to generate electricity from a biomass plant and utilise wood feedstock currently generated on the site is sound and in accord with development plan policy and paragraphs 95 and 96 of the NPPF. The proposals to vary Conditions 2 and 12 relate to this development and are regarded as being part and parcel of the principle of development. Other aspects of the scheme are, however, highlighted below.

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

• Pollution control (including dust, noise); • Hours of working; • Effect on residential amenities; • Effect on visual amenity; • Highway safety and parking; • Crime and disorder; • Biodiversity.

Conclusion Subject to NCC satisfying themselves that the proposed changes would not adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring properties, highway safety and the Environmentally Important Open Space/Important Amenity Area and the Conditions to be varied are 172

worded appropriately to this effect, there are considered to be no substantive reasons to object to the grant of planning permission for the development as proposed.

RECOMMENDATION: Offer no objection to the proposal subject to NCC satisfying themselves that the proposed changes would not adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring properties, highway safety and the Environmentally Important Open Space/Important Amenity Area and the Conditions to be varied are worded appropriately to this effect.

173

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

OTHER BOROUGH

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2013/0071/OB

PROPOSAL: Erection of 1 no. wind turbine with ancillary control house and transformer compound - re-consultation - additional information.

LOCATION: Land North of Broughton Road, Pytchley.

APPLICANT: Glanmoor Investments Limited.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: Proposal is for a 70m (to tip) turbine east of the A43 road just past the turn to Pytchley.

Noise assessments have been submitted.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that no objection is raised.

WP/2013/0071/OB 174

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

FOR INFORMATION

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0495/C

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

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

APPLICANT: Mr John Gough, Mick George Limited.

NOTE: Approved by Northamptonshire County Council on 24th January 2013 subject to the following condition/s:-

1. Commencement The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of three months from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Waste Planning Authority within seven days of such commencement.

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

2. Scope of the Permission Except as otherwise required by conditions attached to this planning permission the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved documents: Application forms dated 25 October 2012 Site Location Plan, Drawing No. G14/1201 Site Plan, Drawing No. G14/1202 dated 28 September 2012 Detailed Site Plan, Drawing No. G14/1203 dated 28 September 2012 Planning Statement dated October 2012 Supporting Statement V2 dated October 2012 Amenity Management System 2012 Flood Risk Assessment dated October 2012 Transport Statement dated 25 October 2012 Odour Assessment dated December 2012 Noise Assessment dated 20 December 2012

WP/2012/0495/C 175

Reason: To specify the approved documents and secure the mitigation measures set out in the application in the interests of amenity and the environment having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

3. End Date The import and processing of municipal solid waste hereby permitted shall cease by 1 February 2014. All other waste operations hereby permitted shall cease by 31 December 2025.

Reason: To enable the Waste Planning Authority to review the position at the end of each of the periods stated and In the interests of amenity protection having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010). The precautionary trial period for the import of municipal solid waste is recognition that the import of significant quantities of this material to a three sided building has the potential to increase odour impacts and that this should be monitored in the short term before any longer term proposal is considered.

4. Waste Types The development hereby permitted shall be restricted to the import, sorting, temporary storage and transfer of municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and construction and demolition waste. No hazardous waste (excluding waste electrical and electronic equipment) or radioactive waste shall be imported to the site.

Reason: To restrict the waste types to those specified in the application in the interests of amenity and the environment having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

5. Waste Throughputs The amount of imported waste shall not exceed 200,000 tonnes per annum.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection and highway safety having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

6. Operation Limits All sorting of waste shall be undertaken within the existing three sided building permitted under planning permission 08/00007/WAS.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection having regard to Policy CS 14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

7. Operation Limits Only inert material shall be stored outside the existing three sided building permitted under planning permission 08/00007/WAS with stockpile heights not to exceed four metres in height.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

176

8. Operation Limits No crushing and/or screening of stone, concrete, brick rubble or hardcore shall take place on the site.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

9. Hours of Working The development hereby permitted shall be carried out during the following times:

07.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Sundays, including Public Holidays

Operations on Sundays and Public Holidays shall be restricted to the delivery of up to 20 loads per day with no sorting or processing

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

10. Access All vehicular access and egress to and from the site shall be as shown on the Detailed Site Plan, Drawing No. 814/1203, dated 28 September 2012. No other access shall be used by vehicles entering or exiting the site.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection and highway safety having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

11. HGV Movements The total number of HGV movements associated with the operational phase of the development hereby permitted shall not exceed the following limits:

200 movements [100 in and 100 out] per day (Mondays to Saturdays) 40 movements [20 in and 20 out] per day (Sundays and Public Holidays)

No HGV movements shall take place outside the hours of operation authorised in condition 9 of this permission.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection and highway safety having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

12. Highway Safety All HGVs arriving at and leaving the site shall be cleansed of mud and other debris to ensure that there is no nuisance dust and no mud or debris deposited on the public highway.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection and highway safety having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

177

13. Sheeting Vehicles All HGVs arriving at and leaving the site shall be sheeted to prevent material spillage or wind blow.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection and highway safety having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

14. Odour Mitigation Measures Odour shall be managed in accordance with the measures set out in Section 7 of the submitted Odour Assessment dated December 2012.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

15. Odour Monitoring Within three months of the date of this permission the operator shall submit in writing to the Waste Planning Authority for approval a scheme for odour monitoring. The scheme shall include a programme for olfactometry testing between April 2013 and September 2013 to assess the actual odour impacts of the import and sorting of municipal solid waste. The scheme shall also include proposals for removing, reducing or mitigating any identified adverse effects resulting from the importing and sorting of municipal solid waste. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection and in particular the proposed import of municipal solid waste having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

16. Noise No vehicles or mobile plant used exclusively on site shall be operated unless they have been fitted with white noise alarms to ensure that, when reversing, they do not emit a warning noise that would have an adverse impact on residential amenity.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

17. Noise No vehicle, plant, equipment or machinery used exclusively on site shall be operated at the site unless it has been fitted with and uses an effective silencer. All vehicles, plant, equipment and machinery shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specification.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

18. Lighting Any external lighting shall be downward facing to minimise the risk of light spillage beyond the operational areas. Except as required for security reasons, the lighting shall be switched off outside the permitted working hours at the site. 178

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

19. Complaints In the event that complaints regarding odour, noise, lighting and/or dust (including bioaerosols) are received by the Waste Planning Authority from any sensitive receptor, and thereafter notified to the operator, an assessment of the complaint shall be undertaken by the operator. A report on the findings, with proposals for removing, reducing or mitigating identified adverse effects resulting from the operation, and a programme for the implementation of remedial measures and works to be undertaken shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority no later than five working days from the receipt of the complaint, unless a later date is otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity protection having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

20. Surface Water Surface water drainage shall be in accordance with the scheme permitted under planning permission NO/06/1570C (Letter dated 21 May 2007 and accompanying document entitled "Supporting Information - Planning Condition 10 - Drainage", reference 82S16 dated May 2007, Revision 1.0).

Reason: To minimise flood risk in accordance with Policy CS14 of MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

21. Catchment Area Ninety five percent of all commercial and industrial and construction and demolition waste to be imported to the site shall originate from locations within a 12 mile radius of the site. All municipal solid waste imported to the site shall originate from within Northampton Borough, Daventry District, South Northamptonshire or the Borough of Wellingborough.

Reason: To ensure that waste materials are dealt with as close to their source as possible in the interest of self sufficiency and sustainability having regard to Policy CS9 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010) and Policy CMD1 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Control and Management of Development DPD (June 2011).

22. Monitoring The operating company shall submit an annual report in writing to the Waste Planning Authority within one month of the first anniversary of operations commencing and at 12 monthly intervals thereafter. The report shall include detailed information on the types, quantities and sources of all waste materials brought on to the site and taken off the site, including records of vehicle movements demonstrating compliance with condition 11. The annual report shall also incorporate records that demonstrate compliance with the annual throughput condition (condition 5) and the catchment area condition (condition 21). The information required by this condition shall also be supplied at any other 179

time on request by the Waste Planning Authority. All such information will be treated on a confidential basis.

Reason: To enable the Waste Planning Authority to monitor progress towards achieving the principles in Policy CS1 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010) and Policies CMD1 and CMD14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Control and Management of Development DPD (June 2011) and to ensure that waste materials are dealt with close to their source in accordance with Policy CS9 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

REASONS FOR APPROVAL This application is to extend the life of the site to 31 December 2025, add an additional point of access to the site, increase the hours of operation, alter the type and volume of waste throughputs and regularise the position of the existing waste transfer building. The applicant proposes to import up to 200,000 tonnes per annum of commercial and industrial waste, construction and demolition waste, and municipal solid waste with average HGV movements of 200 trips per day (100 in and 100 out) Mondays to Saturdays and up to 40 movements (20 in and 20 out on Sundays and Public Holidays. Waste would be sorted in the existing building on site before being transported off site for further treatment.

Concerns were raised from the Environmental Health Officer at NBC around odour and noise but these matters have been addressed by condition. In particular concerns around potential odour from the site have been addressed through a one year precautionary trial period for the processing of municipal solid waste on the site and a required monitoring programme. Should the applicant wish to continue processing municipal solid waste beyond 1 February 2014 an application will be required to vary condition 3 under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act. It is important to note that the Environment Agency does not object to these proposals and that further controls will be in place under the pollution control regime.

One representation was received raising concerns about the potential impact of the increase in vehicles on the already busy intersection of Lower Ecton Lane and Crow Lane. The Highway Authority has no objection to these proposals and subject to recommended conditions it is considered that there are no traffic or access reasons to refuse the application.

The proposals have also been assessed against the local development plan, in particular Policies CS1, CS2 and CS14 of the Northamptonshire Core Strategy DPD (May 2010) and Policies CMD1, CMD3, CMD10 and CMD14 of the Northamptonshire Control and Management of Development DPD (July 2011). It is considered that the development is acceptable in principle having regard to the local development plan policies and that there are no traffic and access or amenity grounds for the Waste Planning Authority to refuse the application. On balance it is considered that planning permission should be granted, subject to the recommended conditions of consent.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER STATEMENT In determining this planning application the Waste Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner. Concerns and issues raised during consultation on the submitted application have been considered by the Waste Planning 180

Authority, discussed with consultees and the applicant/agent and are addressed by conditions where appropriate.

The approach to this application has been taken in accordance with the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

181

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

FOR INFORMATION

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0556/C

PROPOSAL: Expansion of school to a form entry which will include 4 new classrooms, toilet facilities, break out and teaching spaces and associated internal alterations to existing school buildings.

LOCATION: Ruskin Infant School, Ruskin Avenue, Wellingborough. NN8 3EG

APPLICANT: Mr Alex Martin, Lend Lease.

NOTE: Approved by Northamptonshire County Council on 12th February 2013 subject to the following condition/s:-

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

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

2. Scope of Permission Except as otherwise required by conditions attached to this planning permission the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved documents and plans:

• Application forms dated 12 October 2012 • Location Plan drawing no. 4007/008 Rev P3 • Proposed Site Plan drawing no. 4007/002 P12 • Proposed Building Plan drawing no. 4007/001 Rev P11 • Proposed Site Access Plan drawing no. 4007/006 Rev P3 • Proposed Elevations drawing no. 4007/005 Rev P6 • Planning Support Statement dated October 2012 • Design and Access Statement dated November 2012 • Construction Site Access Proposals dated 25 October 2012

WP/2012/0556/C

33 43

53 71

69 78 31

Wr T 1 48

Wr T 27

MASEFIELD CLOSE 68

El Sub Sta

58 Wr T 41

SHAKESPEAREROAD 34 to 29 35 to 40 to 35

Tank 48

Wr T

23 Post

44 Ruskin Junior School School 15 House 26

RUSKIN AVENUE

19 36

121

32 22

119

Ruskin Infant School 14 26

SHAKESPEARE ROAD

111

118

35 108

112 106 84 26

POPE ROAD 103 36 2

89.6m 72 19 68 11

48 1 96

STANWELL WAY 139

101

to 21 135

88.1m 66 125

95 86

99 48

97 113 to 123 to 113 TCB 85.0m

101 to 111 to 101

65 61 82.9m

SHELLEY ROAD

A 59

Planning & Local Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,500 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 WP/2012/0556/C - Ruskin Infant School, Ruskin Avenue, Wellingborough ± GetMapping PLC 1999 182

Reason: To specify the approved documents in the interests of amenity and the environment having regard to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

3. Construction Management Plan Prior to the commencement of any part of the development hereby permitted, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The Construction Management Plan shall include and specify the provision to be made for the following:

i. Overall strategy for managing environmental impacts during construction; ii. Proposals for informing neighbouring properties of the construction programme, including contact details for the site manager on site. iii. Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; iv. Measures to control noise emanating from the site during construction; v. Construction Plant Directional signage (on and off site); vi. Provision for emergency vehicles; vii. Provision for all site operatives, visitors and construction vehicles loading and unloading plant and materials; viii. Provision for all site operatives, visitors and construction vehicles for parking and turning within the site during the construction period; ix. Details of measures to prevent mud and other such material migrating onto the highway from construction vehicles; x. Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; and xi. Waste audit and scheme for waste minimisation and recycling/disposing of waste resulting from construction works including confirmation of any material exports, routing and deposition sites.

The 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 the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

4. Vehicle Routing and Construction Access All construction vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be routed via Queensway, Burns Road and the proposed access off Shakespeare Road as shown on Proposed Site Access Plan drawing no. 4007/006 Rev P3. No construction vehicles shall use any other access route to the site.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

5. Hours of Working -Construction Except as required by condition 6 of this permission, all construction works (including deliveries) shall be confined to the hours of 7.30am to 5.30pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays, Public or 8ank Holidays.

183

Reason: In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

6. Hours of Working -Construction Delivery Construction vehicles shall not enter or leave the site between 8.15am to 9.30am and 2.45pm to 3.45pm Mondays to Fridays during term time.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

7. Arboricultural Method Statement/Tree Protection Scheme No development shall take place, nor equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought on to the site for the purpose of development, until a scheme for the protection of trees, scrub and hedgerows in accordance with section 6.1 of 8S5837 to be retained within the vicinity of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

(a) A plan that shows the position, crown spread and root protection area in accordance with section 5.5 of 8S5837 of every retained tree on site and on neighbouring or nearby ground to the site in relation to the approved plans and particulars. The positions of all trees to be removed shall be indicated on the plan. (b) Details and positions of the Ground Protection Zones and Construction Exclusion Zones in accordance with section 7 of 8S5837. (c) A schedule of tree works for all the retained trees specifying pruning and other remedial or preventative work. All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with 8S3998:2010, 'Recommendations for Tree Work'. (d) Details of any changes in levels or the position of any proposed excavations within 5 metres of the Root Protection Area of any retained tree, including those on neighbouring or nearby ground in accordance with section 5.5 of 8S5837.

The method of tree protection shall be carried out in accordance with approved details and retained until construction work has been completed.

Reason: To ensure that retained trees are protected from damage in the interests of amenity and biodiversity having regard to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

8. Site Supervision No development shall take place, nor equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought on to the site for the purpose of development, until a scheme of supervision for the arboricultural protection measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be appropriate to the scale and duration of the development hereby permitted and shall include details of:

(a) An induction and personnel awareness of arboricultural matters; (b) identification of individual responsibilities and key personnel; 184

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure that retained trees are protected from damage in the interests of amenity and biodiversity having regard to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

9. Landscaping Prior to occupation of the development a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted in writing to the County Planning Authority for approval. The scheme shall include proposals for suitable native species and shall be generally in accordance with the Proposed Site Plan drawing no. 4007/002 P12. The approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented within the first available planting season following approval and maintained thereafter in accordance with condition 10 of this permission.

Reason: To ensure that retained trees are protected from damage in the interests of amenity and biodiversity having regard to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

10. Landscape Maintenance Trees, shrubs and hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme shall be maintained and any plants which within 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: To ensure the enhancement of the site and to safeguard the visual amenities of the vicinity having regard to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

11. Protection of Breeding Birds Operations that involve the destruction and removal of trees, hedgerows and shrubs shall not be undertaken during the months of March to September inclusive, unless an ecologist report is submitted to demonstrate that breeding birds will not be affected and this has been approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that breeding birds are not adversely affected in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

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

185

Reason: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded, in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

13. Lighting No external lighting shall be erected or installed until a scheme has been submitted in writing and approved by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a layout plant with beam orientation and schedule of equipment in the design (Iuminaire type; mounting height; aiming angles and lurninaire profiles). The approved scheme shall be installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

14. Materials The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those detailed in the application, and shall be in accordance with details/samples of materials which shall be submitted for approval to the County Planning Authority in writing, prior to works commencing on the site.

Reason: In the interest of the appearance of the school and the visual amenities of the area having regard to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

15. Fencing The proposed fencing hereby approved shall match the existing fencing on site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the appearance of the school and the visual amenities of the area having regard to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

16. Highway Safety All vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be cleansed of mud and other debris to ensure that there is no nuisance dust and no mud or debris deposited on the public highway.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory access and avoid any adverse impacts on the highway network and highway safety in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

17. Travel Plan The submitted Travel Plan dated September 2012 shall be implemented and subsequently reviewed on an annual basis and updated where appropriate with updates submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing.

Reason: To reduce the number of car borne journeys related to the development and to encourage the use of means of transport other than the private car in 186

accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

18. Removal of Construction Access Within one month of the completion of the development hereby permitted, the construction access road as shown on Proposed Site Access Plan drawing no. 4007/006 Rev P3 shall be reinstated. The existing playing fields shall be reinstated to a standard at least the equivalent of the remainder of the school playing field area and the existing gates reinstalled.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regard to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008) and to ensure the compound is restored to a condition fit for use as playing field.

19. Removal of Construction Access Within three months of the completion of the development hereby permitted, the temporary access from Shakespeare Road shall be closed and all highway surfaces reinstated in accordance with the specifications of the County Planning Authority in consultation with Northamptonshire County Council Highways.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and residential amenity having regard to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008). 20. Removal of Construction Compound Within one month of the completion of the development hereby permitted, the construction compound as shown on Proposed Site Access Plan drawing no. 4007/006 Rev P3 shall be removed. The hard play area shall be reinstated to a standard at least the equivalent of the remainder of the school hard play area.

21. Removal of mobile classroom The relocated mobile classroom as shown on Proposed Site Plan drawing no. 4007/002 P12 shall be removed from site by 30 September 2015 and the land reinstated as playing field, to a standard at least the equivalent of the remainder of the school playing field area, by 31 October 2015.

Reason: In the interest of the appearance of the school and the residential amenity of the area having regard to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

REASONS FOR APPROVAL It is proposed to expand Ruskin Infant School from a 2 form to 3 form entry schools in order to accommodate the increasing number of primary-aged children in Wellingborough. The works proposed include the creation of four new classrooms, internal alterations and the removal of two mobile classrooms. Temporary access from Shakespeare Road is required to facilitate these works.

187

The proposed works, in conjunction with the recommended conditions of consent are considered to be acceptable and would adequately reflect the character and appearance of the local area and minimise amenity impacts on neighbouring properties and control highway and access matters. As such it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008) and should be approved subject to the recommended conditions.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER STATEMENT In determining this planning application the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner by assessing the proposals against relevant Development Plan policies, all material considerations and consultation responses. This approach has been in accordance with the requirement set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

INFORMATIVE 1. No works within the existing adopted highway may commence without the express written permission of the Highway Authority. Planning permission does not give or infer such permission. 2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the recommendations in the consultation response from Northamptonshire Police. 3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the comments of the Highway Authority with regard to the suggested timing and detail of the first review of the submitted Travel Plan.

188

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

FOR INFORMATION

Planning Committee 03/04/2013

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

APPLICATION REF: WP/2012/0569/C

PROPOSAL: Proposed re-cladding of 2 storey science block.

LOCATION: Wollaston School, 100 Irchester Road, Wollaston, Wellingborough. NN29 7PH

APPLICANT: Mr Paul Cartmell, NNC Wollaston.

NOTE: Approved by Northamptonshire County Council on 31st January 2013 subject to the following condition/s:-

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

Reason: To conform with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act2004.

(a) Application Forms dated 9 November 2012; (b) MatchBox Architects Northampton note Ref 0051 dated 9 November 2012; (c) Conservation Constructions Bat Survey Report dated 14 December 2012; (d) Site Location Plan Ref: 0051 000 Rev P1; (e) Site Block Plan Ref: 0051 001 Rev P1; (f) Existing Ground & First Floor Plans Ref: 0051 010 Rev P1; (g) Existing Elevation Ref: 0051 030 Rev P1; and (h) Proposed Elevation Ref: 0051 300 Rev P1.

Reason: To specify the approved documents in the interests of amenity with regard to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

WP/2012/0569/C

IRCHESTER ROAD

Long Plantation

94.5m

Path (um)

93.6m

Water Tower

Track

Silo 4 2 Tower Farm

Tower 92.0m 1

Court 5 Tower Cottage 32

FRANCIS DICKINS CLOSE 29 Wollaston School

2 15

B 569

3 1

81 5 7

The Vicarage 79

GP El Sub Sta

IRCHESTER ROAD 86 L Twrs

90.3m

84 Tennis Court

82 1 The School House 80

L Twrs

Works Wollaston School 2

L Twrs

101 4 Tennis Court 83

87 93 13 EASTFIELD ROAD 6

El Sub Sta

92 L Twrs

104

3 2

25 26 8

HEATHERS

6 7

10 22 THE 11

Works Club 12 25

12 14

16 12a 15

16a 18

17 14

19 35 34 Wollaston

32 20

39 37

WINDMILL CLOSE 37a

15 10

7 HOOKHAMS PATH

6 5 42

63 32

2 62 1 El Sub Sta

1 LB 56 POPLAR PLACE

PARK STREET

38 Drain

36 38

22 30

42 44 32

46 50

54 18

149 23

161 163 28 139 30 Drain 86.2m

HINWICK ROAD

175 64

74.5m HINWICK ROAD

185

187 201

195 Drain

77.3m

1to 4 20 to 18 1to 3 190

WILLIAM'S WAY 17

196 16 76.7m

5 Industrial Estate 6 ESS

6 Shepherds Hill Farm 15

7 to 10 to 7 Elizabeth House 14 12 Legend

76.4m 11 Planning & Local WP/2012/0569/C - Wollaston School, 100 Irchester Road, Wollaston Development © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Description Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. This map is accurate Applicant's Property 1:4,000 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 Application Site 189

REASONS FOR APPROVAL The proposals are for the re-cladding and replacement doors and windows to Wollaston School's science block. It is considered that the proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the amenities or ecology of the local area. The application is therefore considered acceptable having regard to Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).

190 3rd April 2013

AGRICULTURAL DETERMINATION NOTICE

Application No. Applicants Location of Proposal Decision Name Description of Proposal

WP/2013/00103/AG Mr A Brown Brown Bred Pigs Limited, Agreed Cringle House Farm, Grendon Road, Wollaston. 50KW ground mounted solar system.

191

3rd April 2013

PLANNING COMMITTEE

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

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

WP/2012/0352/F Mr Se Tong Lam 31-32 Cambridge Street, AC Wellingborough. Security shutters.

WP/2012/0381/RMM Mr Paul Boatman Land North of Finedon Road, APPROVED Bovis Homes Limited Route 9 Finedon Road, Wellingborough. Route 9 (Station Island North) on land south of Finedon Road, linking Finedon Road with Mill Road and the new Route 4 (part of the Stanton Cross consent).

WP/2012/0471/F Mr Robert Nash Basement 11B Strode Road, APPROVED Wellingborough. Conversion of existing basement to a 1 bedroom self-contained flat - Re- submission following lapsed approval WP/2008/0113/F.

WP/2012/0529/F Mr R Bourne Boot Inn, 35 High Street, AC E B Services Wollaston. Increase the height of the existing boundary wall; erection of canopy.

WP/2012/0530/LB Mr R Bourne Boot Inn, 35 High Street, AC E B Services Wollaston. Increase the height of the existing boundary wall; erection of canopy (Application for a Listed Building Consent).

192

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

WP/2012/0564/TX Thistledown Barn Limited Thistledown Barn, 204 Holcot AC Lane, Sywell. Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission, in order to extend the time limit for implementation for WP/2009/0470/F - Proposal to expand the Use Class B1 premises at Thistledown Barn via a two-storey side extension, single-storey building to contain 56 kW biomass boiler, extension to former stables to create storage space and cycle store and erection of 11kW 17 metre Gaia 133 wind turbine.

WP/2012/0567/F Mr P Patel 48 Ashby Close, AC Wellingborough. Erection of first floor extension.

WP/2012/0572/F Mr Tony Francis and 23 Whytewell Road, AC Mrs S Parkin Wellingborough. Erection of a single storey extension and replacement carport to side/rear of property.

WP/2012/0579/LB Mr Dennis Hall 2 Duck End, Wollaston. AC Replace existing glazing panels in the windows (6 of) to the front elevation with double glazed panels (Application for a Listed Building Consent).

WP/2012/0588/FCOU Mr S Chowdhury 22a Market Street, REFUSED Wellingborough. Change of use of ground floor from shop (A1) to Coffee Shop (A3).

WP/2012/0589/F Mr Alan Henderson 33 Brickhill Road, AC Wellingborough. Extension to form attic dormer room with ensuite - amended plans. 193

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

WP/2012/0590/LB Mr Harvey Sansome 23 Hickmire, Wollaston. AC Installation of x2 conservation rooflights as per expired Listed Building Consent WP/2006/0550/LB. Only amendment is to move x1 rooflight along the roof to proposed position on drawing 1.

WP/2012/0591/NMA Mr Neil McDonald 6 Vicarage Lane, AC Stonewell Design & Build Mears Ashby. Limited Non material amendment to approval ref: WP/2012/0425/F - To convert the approved garage into a larger kitchen with breakfast area. The garage door is to be replaced with a window to match the window above.

WP/2013/0003/F Mr Terry Kendall-Torry Sandown Lodge, AC 22 Burton Road, Finedon. Extension to existing garage.

WP/2013/0004/F Mr Peter Jakeways Northampton Road Post APPROVED Northampton Road Post Office, Office 196 - 198 Northampton Road, Wellingborough. Single storey, pitched roof, front extension to shop.

WP/2013/0006/F Mr John Grove 53 61 Whitworths Sports AC Whitworths Sports Club Club, London Road, Wellingborough. Erection of a new single storey clubhouse on sports grounds. Additional Information.

WP/2013/0008/F Mr R Varani 18 New Street, Earls Barton. AC Erection of single storey side extension and front porch extensions.

194

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

WP/2013/0009/AV Dunelm Dunelm, 20 London Road, AC Wellingborough. 2 no. new internally illuminated flexface signs. Retention of 1 no. internally illuminated flexface sign.

WP/2013/0013/F Mr and Mrs C Todd 10b Berry Green Road, REFUSED Finedon. Erection of a two storey side extension.

WP/2013/0014/F Mr Heath Garrioch 10 Theatre and Arts Centre, AC The Castle (Wellingborough) The Castle, Castle Way, Limited Wellingborough. Installation of 1.2m satellite dish at the rear of the Castle. Fixing point of dish will be at a height of approximately 5m. This will allow live and recorded transmissions from The Royal Opera House, National Theatre, sporting and other cultural events.

WP/2013/0019/O The Diocese of Peterborough Land adjacent Mackworth AC and The Finedon Education Drive, Finedon. Trust Outline application with all matters reserved except access for the construction of two detached, two storey houses and associated works. Amended description and amended/additional plans.

WP/2013/0024/F Mr Christopher Goddard 5 Avenue Close, Finedon. AC Proposed extension to garage.

WP/2013/0027/CA Mr Martin Beattie The Old Butchers Yard, REFUSED Life Space Developments 2 High Street, Earls Barton. Limited Proposed demolition of dance studio and dilapidated outbuildings in connection with residential redevelopment (Application for a Conservation Area Consent).

195

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

WP/2013/0028/F Mr Jon Furnues Telephone Kiosk, REFUSED BT Payphones Opposite 4 Cannon Street, Wellingborough. Replacement and upgrade of existing public telephone kiosk with kiosk combining public telephone service and ATM service - re-submission.

WP/2013/0029/F Mr George Thompson 139 Manor House, APPROVED Main Road, Wilby. Rear extension to form kitchen/family room. Minor internal alterations to sitting room i.e. removal of a central pier, provide new floor construction.

WP/2013/0030/LB Mr George Thompson Manor House, AC 139 Main Road, Wilby. Rear extension to form kitchen/family room. Minor internal alterations to sitting room ie removal of a central pier, provide new floor construction (Application for a Listed Building Consent).

WP/2013/0032/F Mr Richard Calder 95-97 Wellingborough Road, APPROVED Havwoods Limited Earls Barton. Removal of an existing 'lean- to' glazed covered entrance to the associated commercial brick built unit facing Wellingborough Road and replacing it with a new glazed structure of similar footprint area and height.

WP/2013/0034/FCOU Miss Lauren Jackson First & Second Floor, APPROVED Fit4Her 50 Market Street, Wellingborough. Change of use of the 1st and 2nd floors from offices to D2 leisure (no external alterations).

WP/2013/0037/F Mr C Hart 29 Grange Road, PENDING Wellingborough. Erection of a 2-storey side extension - re-submission. 196

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

WP/2013/0053/NMA Mr M Freeman 18 Overstone Road, Sywell. APPROVED Non-material amendment to WP/2012/0317/F (Erection of a 2-storey side and a single storey rear extension) - change roof to rear extension single storey from flat profile with a glazed atrium structure to a single plane pitch roof with 4 velux rooflights. Remove bay window structure from front of building and replace with a flat profile.

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.

197

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 14/03/2013

Application No. Name & Address Description

FP/2012/3618/ Mr P Sisman Extension. Hatton Park Road APPROVED C Wellingborough

FP/2012/4141/ Mr J Trotman New dwelling. A Trotman Construction Limited APPROVED Finedon Road Irthlingborough

PS/2012/4288/ Aylesbury Vale District Council Rear extension. High Street APPROVED Aylesbury

FP/2012/4358/ East Northamptonshire Council Two storey rear extension. Cedar Drive APPROVED C Thrapston

FP/2013/0174/ Northamptonshire County Council Extensions and alterations. Guildhall Road APPROVED Northampton 198

Application No. Name & Address Description

FP/2013/0225/ Wellingborough Masonic Hall Construct new opening to enable a House Committee new disabled access. APPROVED Mackworth Drive Finedon

FP/2013/0233/ Mr S Coe Two storey side extension. 15 Appleby Close APPROVED Wellingborough Northants

FP/2013/0237/ Mr Ramesh Patel Single storey rear extension to 120 Highfield Road create a new store room, bedroom APPROVED C Wellingborough and en-suite. Northants

FP/2013/0425/ Wrenn School Window replacement project. London Road APPROVED Wellingborough

BN/2013/0439/ Mr Robert Evans Knocking wall through between Beech Drive dining room and kitchen. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

DI/2013/0441/ Mrs Rukeya Begum Bathroom conversion into a level Winstanley Road access shower room. ACCEPTED Wellingborough 199

Application No. Name & Address Description

DI/2013/0442/ Mr Brian Smith Bathroom conversion into level Mulso Road access shower room. ACCEPTED Finedon Wellingborough

DI/2013/0443/ Mr T McGinty Disabled adaptation (wet room). Valley Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2013/0444/ Mr David Leadbitter Extension to ground floor lounge. Northampton Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2013/0449/ Mr Bernard Brooks Wall and chimney breast removal. West Way ACCEPTED Earls Barton Wellingborough

BN/2013/0451/ Mr Steven Moore Upgrade insulation on existing Wilby Lane extension and porch, remove ACCEPTED Great Doddington structural wall. RSJ fitted. Wellingborough

FP/2013/0452/ Mrs H Cockbill Two storey side extension. Abbots Way APPROVED C Wellingborough 200

Application No. Name & Address Description

BN/2013/0516/ Mr John Douglas Install new bathroom. Hatton Park Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough

PS/2013/0559/ Kettering Borough Council Single storey rear and side Bowling Green Road extension. APPROVED Kettering

BN/2013/0617/ Mr Tim Harte Removal of wall between kitchen, Northampton Road dining room and utility room. ACCEPTED Earls Barton Northampton

FP/2013/0618/ Mrs Claire Pipkin Demolition of existing garage and Ash Close construction of two storey APPROVED Irchester extension. Wellingborough

FP/2013/0633/ Blackrock Studwork partitions to separate Throgmorton Avenue office space to ground and first APPROVED C London floor.

BN/2013/0634/ Mrs Kate Horspool Garage conversion which will Shoemakers Close incorporate the following: - Removal ACCEPTED Earls Barton of existing garage door which will Wellingborough be replaced by brick built wall with window. Brick doorway up which presently leads to garden. New door to be placed from garage into living quarters which will include steps leading from living room into the garage. 201

Application No. Name & Address Description

PS/2013/0635/ Coventry City Council Removal of structural walls at Much Park Street ground level. APPROVED Coventry

DI/2013/0636/ Mrs Mandy Chambers Bathroom conversion into a level Buckingham Close access shower room. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

DI/2013/0637/ Mr Cyril Wheeler Bathroom conversion into a level Saxon Rise access shower room. ACCEPTED Irchester Wellingborough

PS/2013/0638/ Birmingham City Council Conversion of office space to 4no. 1 Lancaster Circus flats. APPROVED C Queensway Birmingham

BN/2013/0639/ Mr Sylvester Jurek-George New garage and extension to side Stanwell Way of property. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2013/0640/ Mr Craig Casciani To convert one side of an Cotswold Drive integrated double garage into an ACCEPTED Wellingborough approximate 2.4m x 5m living space with front and side window aspects. 202

Application No. Name & Address Description

BN/2013/0707/ Mr C Goddard Garage extension. Avenue Close ACCEPTED Finedon Wellingborough

BN/2013/0791/ Mr Gary Mitchell Remove chimney in kitchen. Lea Way ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2013/0792/ Mr David Watford Minor works to change first floor Grove Way bathroom and enlarge kitchen on ACCEPTED Finedon ground floor. Wellingborough

BN/2013/0795/ Mr Tony Weekes Loft conversion - one bedroom Gold Street (en-suite). ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2013/0801/ Mr Adrian Brent Hammond Garage conversion. Palmer Close ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2013/0802/ Mr and Mrs Chirgwin Formation of stud walls in existing Stanwell Way bedroom to create an additional ACCEPTED Wellingborough bedroom and lobby area. New bedroom to have a UPVC window installed on the side elevation of the property. 203

Application No. Name & Address Description

BN/2013/0827/ Mr James McCormick Remove existing roof tiles and relay The Pastures new vapour barrier/insulation/ ACCEPTED Wellingborough batten/and relay tiles and installation of PV panels.

FP/2013/0828/ Yvonne Real 1 no. steel beam added to support Wellingborough Norse Limited existing timber beam. APPROVED C Sanders Road Wellingborough

DI/2013/0830/ Mrs Powis Disabled adaptation (wet room). Regent Street ACCEPTED Finedon Wellingborough

BN/2013/0883/ Mr Robert Weall Replacement of windows and doors Senwick Drive with UPVC double glazed. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

DI/2013/0884/ Mrs Karen Earth Bathroom conversion to a level Buttermere access shower room. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2013/0885/ Mr Matthew Bell Convert bedroom to bedroom and Gold Street ensuite. ACCEPTED Wellingborough 204

Application No. Name & Address Description

BN/2013/0886/ Mr Paul Sisman Inserting new steel lintels to rear Hatton Park Road elevation and between lounge and ACCEPTED Wellingborough kitchen.

BN/2013/0887/ Mrs Eloise Carlotta Taylor Structural opening for new window Roche Way to kitchen. Block up existing ACCEPTED Wellingborough window to kitchen. Thermal upgrade to external walls.

BN/2013/0890/ Mr M J Lloyd Garage conversion. Mulberry Close ACCEPTED Wellingborough 205

Received Appeals

Appeal Site Ref. No. Date Status Received

22a Market Street, WP/2012/0588/FCOU 13 March 2013 No statement to Wellingborough. be sent

Change of use of ground floor from shop (A1) to Coffee Shop (A3)