East Northamptonshire Council East Northamptonshire House Cedar Drive THRAPSTON Northamptonshire NN14 4LZ

APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 10 June 2009 INDEX OF APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

Application Location Recom. Page

EN/08/01119/LDE Buildings OP0056 SP9871, Chelveston Refuse 2 Road, Stanwick

EN/09/00190/FUL Turners Yard, Oundle Grant 14

EN/09/00364/FUL Land Corner Of Coffee Tavern Lane And Refuse 17 Corner Of Rectory Road, Rushden

EN/09/00546/FUL Land Adjacent And Opposite New Lodge Grant 24 Farm, Slipton Lane, Sudborough

Development Control Committee 1 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 Committee Report Committee Date : 10 June 2009 Printed: 2 June 2009

Case Officer Anna Lee EN/08/01119/LDE

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Parish 29 May 2008 29 May 2008 24 July 2008 Stanwick

Applicant Mr Clayford

Agent Wilbraham Associates - Mark Flood

Location Buildings OP0056 SP9871 Chelveston Road Stanwick Northamptonshire

Proposal Certificate of lawfulness for siting of a mobile home for residential use.

The application is brought to Development Control Committee at the request of a Ward Member.

1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That the lawful development certificate be REFUSED.

2. The Proposal 2.1 This is an application for a lawful development certificate for the siting of an existing mobile home for residential use.

2.2 When submitted, the application was for the siting of the mobile home and for use of the land as a scrap yard. The application was however amended by a letter received on 8th December 2008 and the scrap yard use was removed as the applicant was unable to provide further information to substantiate the application for this element.

2.3 What Members need to consider is whether the existing residential mobile home is exempt from enforcement action and is therefore “lawful”. A breach of planning control becomes “immune” from planning enforcement if no action is taken within certain time limits.

2.4 In considering time limits, the four year rule gives immunity to one kind of change of use only and this is occupation as a single dwellinghouse. It does not apply where the residential occupation is of a mobile home or caravan as these structures are not classed as buildings and the 10 year rule would apply. The four year rule, however, may apply in cases where a mobile home has been altered to an extent that it has become a permanent structure. In this application, the mobile home is not a permanent structure. The agent has confirmed in an email dated 15th May 2009 that the mobile home stands on concrete blocks and is not permanently fixed to the ground. Furthermore, the mobile home, measuring approximately 7.5 metres in length by 2.8 metres in width, is a structure that has been brought onto the site and which can also be easily removed from the site.

2.5 The relevant period is therefore 10 years and continuous occupation over this period needs to have been demonstrated. The legislation is clear that the onus of proof of the mobile home as a dwelling is on the applicant and that the relevant test of the evidence is “the balance of probability”.

Development Control Committee 2 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The application site lies on the eastern side of Stanwick, approximately 50 metres outside the settlement boundary of the village, as defined in the Three Towns Plan.

3.2 The site is known as ‘The Dixie’ by locals and sits immediately south of the Chelveston Road. The site is surrounded by open countryside to the north, east and south, and residential properties lie adjacent to the site to the west. The site is relatively well screened from the road and the wider surrounding area.

3.3 A block plan has been submitted with the application (included in Appendix 1) to show the position of the various structures within the site. The mobile home the subject of this application is positioned in position D of the submitted plan and is situated next to the entrance of the site. A series of outbuildings is found in position C. The building marked A (positioned outside the red line of the site) is a large open-sided storage barn and building B is a large enclosed building constructed using corrugated-iron sheeting.

3.4 During the Officer’s site visit on 2nd July 2008, a large portacabin was found situated to the immediate west of building B within which there were rooms which appeared to be in use for residential occupation. At the time, it was claimed by the occupant that he had recently moved into this portacabin. In the agent’s letter dated 5th August 2008, the agent explains that the portacabin was brought onto the land by the applicant in February 2007 for storage and has been used as a shelter/sitting area, and confirms that the applicant’s main residence is in the mobile home labelled D. Two other caravans were found to the rear of the portacabin in an area covered by overgrown lawn.

3.5 Wood, tyres and metal were found ordered into piles on the site. Building A was mostly vacant and former farming materials which included a tractor were stored in building B. Other than the caravans, the only vehicle found on the site was the private vehicle of the occupant, Mr Morris.

4 Policy Considerations 4.1 Policy considerations are not relevant to the outcome of an application for a lawful development certificate. The sole consideration in the determination of this application is whether the applicant is able to demonstrate with evidence that the described usage has been on-going for a period of 10 years or more.

5 Planning History 5.1 An application was submitted for a dwellinghouse and garage under reference: EN/02/00714/OUT (see Appendixes 2-4).

5.1.1 This application was refused at Development Control Committee on 13.02.2003 for reasons of development outside the confines of the settlement, setting a precedent for other residential development and harm to the character of the area. The application was taken to appeal and was dismissed at an appeal on 09.09.2003.

5.1.2 The Officer Report and Inspector’s decision in the EN/02/00714/OUT application mentioned the presence of a mobile home on the site. A mobile home was identified on the submitted location plan (see Appendix 2). In addition, the Officer report of EN/02/00714/OUT stated:

5.1.3 “The applicant applied for consent in 1996 to permanently site a mobile home on the property. Although this was refused, the applicant has intermittently lived in the mobile home before and since that time and would appear to be still living there”, (paragraph 7.7).

5.1.4 “Although not a material planning consideration the applicant's agent has pointed out that the applicant has become increasingly troubled by ill health. He has stated that his current living conditions are totally unsuitable but he has no other assets or place to live. The applicant proposes to sell the site for a single dwelling and use the proceeds to find himself

Development Control Committee 3 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 suitable accommodation. Also, the applicant would appear to have no means of tidying the site”, (paragraph 7.9).

5.2 Another application was submitted in 1996 for a change of use of land for the siting of a permanent mobile home, under reference: 96/00628/OUT (see Appendixes 5-8). The location of the proposed mobile home was identified on the site plan submitted in this application (see Appendix 5). This application was refused on 17.12.1996 for similar reasons as ref: EN/02/00714/OUT.

5.2.1 In this application, a letter dated 16th September 1996 submitted by the agent mentioned that the site has been occupied by a number of mobile homes in the past (Appendix 7).

5.3 01/00072/PPU, Enforcement enquiry, Nature: ‘Untidy land and tipping’, case opened on 09.04.2001 and case closed on 11.01.2007. A letter dated October 2003 was sent to Mr Morris to ask Mr Morris to tidy the site.

5.4 96/00057/PPD, Enforcement enquiry, Nature: ‘Positioning of mobile home on agricultural land’, case opened on 10.05.1996 and case closed on 19.08.1996. There was an entry on the Council’s database which states that a mobile home was removed from the site.

5.5 An enforcement case was opened on 20.05.2009 in respect of the portacabin and caravans on the site ‘Possible unauthorised storage of portacabin, caravan and vehicles on land’ under ref: 09/00122/PPU and investigations are being carried out.

6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Seven letters were received from neighbours and other witnesses (Appendixes 18-24):

6.1.1 Owner of 6 Chelveston Road (with Statutory Declaration) - Confirms spending the last 17 months supervising the building of a bungalow on a site nearby and did not observe any scrap yard business or regular occupation of a caravan or mobile home. “Between November 2007 and March 2008 I regularly attended my property on a weekly basis at 6 Chelveston Road supervising the building of a retirement bungalow. During this time I did not observe or hear any activity to support the claim that the land know as Dixie was being used as a scrap yard or that there was any regular occupation of a caravan or mobile home. Prior to 2008 the land now known as 6 Chelveston Road was owned by my parents who lived for 18 years in the adjacent property (5 Chelveston Road) and prior to their death in 2005 I visited them regularly during the week and never witnessed any activity”.

6.1.2 The Folly (with Statutory Declaration) – The neighbour confirms that he lived adjacent to the site since September 2005 and “I pass by the site every day and see Mr Morris on occasion arriving at the site on his motorbike or in his car, we all as a family take walks past the site at weekends and we have never seen any evidence of a presence on the site, that would be evident of someone living there, no washing out, any vehicles park up there, and no lights on at night”. He confirms in the statutory declaration that “There has not been sustained residential occupation of a mobile home on the site known as ‘Dixie’”.

6.1.3 4 & 5 Chelveston Road (with Statutory Declaration) - The occupants have lived there in the last 36 years and had not seen any business activity and no residence in a mobile caravan or mobile home on the site. The neighbour confirms that “I have lived adjacent to the land known as ‘Dixie’ since 1972 and pass the site and entrance on a regular basis… There has not been sustained residential occupation of a mobile home or caravan on the site known as Dixie”.

6.1.4 1A Chelveston Road – The occupant has lived at the property since 2001, and confirms “I have lived in close proximity to the Dixie for seven years and have not been aware that a commercial venture was being operated on this site or that a caravan was being used as a permanent residence.”

Development Control Committee 4 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 6.1.5 2 Chelveston Road - The occupant has lived there since 1988 and confirms that “the land in question known to us as ‘Dixie’ has never been used as a scrapyard, it has always been used a woodyard and agricultural use…we have seen the land used as an illegal tip, and all sorts of rubbish dumped there, which has been reported to Thrapston and Peterborough”.

6.1.6 3 Chelveston Road - The occupant has lived at the property since 2000 and was aware of a fire on the site in April 2005. The occupant confirms that she had not seen any official business activity. “David Morris’s declaration states ‘In 1996 I brought a residential caravan on to the red-edged land’. Even though the application was refused for the siting of a permanent mobile home in 1996 an old caravan is unlawfully on the site.”

6.1.7 6 Brookside - Letter received raising an objection on planning related issues; that the development is out of keeping with the rural village, the site is unsuitable for the entry of large vehicles, road safety, and the setting of a precedent for other uses, such as light industrial and residential development. (Whilst these are material planning considerations, these are not considerations relevant to the determination of a lawful development certificate.)

6.2 Parish Council: Objection on the basis that the site is outside the confines of the village. “village residents for a number of years have not witnessed a scrap yard in operation on this site and believe that the appropriate licences for this trade have not been obtained. The site has been subject to illegal dumping, which other District Council officers have been aware of. Similarly it is the view of the Council that the mobile home on the site has not been used for residential purposes.”

6.3 Environmental Health: The following information has been supplied by the Environmental Protection Department at the Council:

- Environmental Protection Officer advises that historic maps show that the site has been in its current formation since pre 1964.

- A visit was made to the site by an Environment Protection Officer at the Council in July 2005, where it was noted that the site had a large accumulation of material visible “appearing mostly to be construction/scrapyard type waste, several caravans and motor vehicles”.

- Environmental Health (contamination): objection. “From our information and that supplied by the applicant the land has been used for many years as a scrap yard. Having visited the site some years ago there is significant risk that contamination is present”.

6.4 ENC Waste: No comments received.

6.5 Environment Agency:

- The Environment Agency has knowledge of the site from 2005, where they attended the site after a fire. - The Environment Agency Officer describes that there was a considerable amount of waste on the site, comprising mainly of household waste, waste from the refurbishment of bathrooms and other house refurbishments. - “There are still 4 redundant 4x4 vehicles on the site, which the current landowner says are for his use and are not waste”. - “the waste has been moved a small volume of scrap has been sorted from the waste and pit to one side. This has occurred this year”. - The Environment Agency has no record of legal waste management activities on this site i.e. no Waste Management Licence, Exemption or Permit. - Comments were made to say that Mr Morris lives on the site, but no time periods were given.

Development Control Committee 5 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 6.6 Revenues Department has provided the following information:

- No business rates were received for the site in the past. - Council Tax: confirmation received that payments were received from 2nd December 2002 up to 1st November 2006.

6.7 Solicitor to the Council:

“My view is that, taking all of the evidence that has now been accumulated into account, it is a very difficult decision to make as it is so finely balanced. The Council can ignore periods when the caravan might not have been occupied, but still come to the conclusion that the use was continuous. The Council would need to consider whether the intention to reside in the caravan had been abandoned, and if so, the Council could regard this as a break in the continuity requirements, which would mean that the 'clock' would have to start again. Therefore, the Council will need to look for continuous use of the caravan as a residence since 1998.

The applicants have submitted copies of council tax records. One form shows that the caravan was subject to council tax from April 2009, albeit no payment as required due to benefit considerations. This goes some way to support the applicant's case, but it is not conclusive in itself that he was residing in the caravan. A further council tax benefit decision applies for the year beginning 1 April 2008.

The applicant has submitted letters from a number of persons, providing details of the applicant's occupation of the caravan. These refer, in the most part, to continuous occupation from 1996 to the date of the application. Having regard to the number of persons here, the applicant's case is stronger than if we had received just one or two letters, in which case there might be some doubt as to whether those persons were influenced unduly by the applicant to make such statements. On the other hand, we do have a number of letters from local residents who cast doubt on the claims of occupation by the applicant. Of course, it is fair to say that these persons have their own agenda, but the members will need to attach such weight to their statements as they feel appropriate.”

7 Evidence submitted by the applicant

The following information has been submitted by the applicant:

7.1 Statutory Declarations (Appendixes 9-12):

7.1.1 One statutory declaration was submitted by the applicant Mr Clayford, who states that he purchased the site from Mr Morris in 2002, but he had known Mr Morris from 1991. He was involved in the business of scrapping vehicles and buying scrapped parts with Mr Morris when he was a car dealer of Winslow Ford from 1990 to 2003. The applicant states that he has witnessed many people doing business with Mr Morris and although he now owns the land, he has allowed Mr Morris to continue to trade on the land and to reside in the mobile caravan which was originally brought onto the land by Mr Morris in 1996.

7.1.2 A statutory declaration was received from Mr Morris. He states that he was born and brought up in Stanwick and after he left school he worked in agricultural contracting for farmers and stored equipment in buildings on the land known as Dixie. His father purchased the site in 1965 and who used the land partly as a scrap yard. The land has been in his family’s ownership from 1965 until 2002, when he sold the part of the land edged in red on plan A to Mr Clayford.

7.1.3 He confirms that the buildings were built before the Second World War “The long run of buildings (labelled C on attached plan A) were built as a pigsty and the buildings (labelled A and B) to keep cattle and agricultural implements”. He mentioned that a caravan was brought onto the land in 1949 and was lived in by various people who farmed the land. In 1973 a tea

Development Control Committee 6 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 hut was positioned where the current caravan D is now positioned. Following his eviction from his mother’s house in 1996, he states that he brought a mobile caravan onto the site (positioned marked D) in the same year and began to live in this caravan, “It was equipped with a wood burning stove, elsan toilet and kitchen”. He confirms that he has lived in this caravan for approximately 12 years and in 2006 he brought another caravan onto the land.

7.1.4 Two statutory declarations were received from witnesses who live in the local area and have known the applicant (Appendix 11, 12). These witnesses state:

7.1.5 G.D. Hazeldine of London Road, Raunds: Confirms that he is not related to Mr Morris and has known Mr Morris for 55 years. He confirms that the land today looks very much similar as it was in 1975 “with scrap vehicles, wood, agricultural implements, livestock, storage, etc”. He confirms that over the years he has seen Mr Morris doing business with various people and that various caravans/mobile homes have been on the land for approximately 20 years. “I can also confirm that I have seen him living in the mobile home at Chelveston Road and receiving his post there from time to time”.

7.1.6 D.G. Morris of High Street, Stanwick: Confirms that he is not related to Mr Morris and has known Mr Morris for about 40 years. He has lived in Stanwick for all of his life and confirms that “the land many years ago looked pretty much as it does today with agricultural implements, cars, wood”. He states that there have been various mobile homes/caravans located at Dixie over many years “certainly 25 plus years”. “During my lifetime I can confirm that David Morris has/does live at Dixie Chelveston Road Stanwick. I can also confirm I have seen him doing business, woodcutting, livestock, cars etc.”

7.2 Witness statements:

7.2.1 In addition, five witness statements were received (Appendix 13-17). Each of these statements were submitted with a location plan with the signature of the witness to confirm that their statement relate to the mobile home positioned in position D.

7.2.2 (1) Mr T.J. Morris at East Street, Stanwick – who is Mr Morris’s brother, states that he has lived in Stanwick for over 40 years. He confirms that Mr Morris lived in the mobile home from 1996 until the present day and that the mobile home has been on the land known as Dixie for nearly 30 years.

7.2.3 (2) Mr M.J. Patrick at Glebe Farm, Higham Ferrers – who is 58 years of age and has lived in Stanwick all his life. He confirms that “I sold to the Morris family the mobile home, (picture attached) at around the time of the Falklands War, circa 1981. This mobile home was positioned where a caravan was sited. I can confirm that David Morris has lived in this mobile home from 1996 until present day”.

7.2.4 (3) Mr P.D. Riches at Hove Road, Rushden – He confirms that he has lived in Rushden all his life and has known Mr Morris for over 20 years. He has been in the motor business for 34 years in Rushden and confirms that he has done business with Mr Morris, and has delivered and collected vehicles from him at the Dixie. He also knows of Mr Morris living at the site in his mobile home.

7.2.5 (4) Mr P. Brown at East Street, Stanwick – is 61 years of age. He confirms that he has lived in Stanwick within 150 yards from the site and has known Mr Morris all his life. He confirms that Mr Morris had lived on the site from 1996 until present. During this period, he is aware that Mr Morris had stored and dismantled machinery and vehicles on the site.

7.2.6 (5) Mr V.V. Winslow at Wymington –is 83 years of age. He lived on Holy Well Farm adjacent to the site from 1999-2004 and confirms that Mr Morris lived in a mobile home on the site between these dates and was still living there when he left the village. During this period, he confirms that he was also aware that Mr Morris stored items such as cars, wood on the site and had dismantled machinery.

Development Control Committee 7 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 7.3 Valuation Office, Housing Benefit and Council Tax information

7.3.1 The following documents were submitted (these documents were also addressed to Mr Morris at the Dixie):

- Letter from Valuation Office dated 25.11.2002, advising that the mobile home had been added to the valuation list.

- Benefit decision letter sent by East Northamptonshire Council, dated 13.03.2008, detailing claims for April 2008 to April 2009. - Benefit decision letter sent by East Northamptonshire Council, dated 26.02.2007, detailing claims for April 2007 to April 2008. - Benefit decision letter sent by East Northamptonshire Council, dated 1.03.2006, detailing claims for April 2006 to April 2007. - Benefit decision letter sent by East Northamptonshire Council, dated 25.11.2005. - Benefit decision letter sent by East Northamptonshire Council, dated 26.2.2005. - Letter from Benefit Agency to Mr Morris at Dixie dated 7.03.2003.

- Council Tax Demand Notice for 2009/2010 dated 13.03.2009. - Council Tax Demand Notice for 2008/2009 dated 14.03.2008. - Council Tax Demand Notice for 2007/2008 dated 12.03.2007. - Council Tax Demand Notice for 2006/2007 dated 10.03.2006. - Council Tax Demand Notice for 2005/2006 dated 11.03.2005.

- Council Tax Adjustment Notice dated 28.11.2005.

7.4 Letters of bills and utility payments

- Anglian Water bill dated 23.12.2006 covering the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. The address of the premises supplied was known as ‘The Woodyard, Chelveston Road’

- Anglian Water bill dated 27.02.2005 covering the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. The address of the premises supplied was known as ‘The Woodyard, Chelveston Road’.

- Anglian Water bill dated 13.09.2004 covering the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005. The address of the premises supplied was known as ‘The Woodyard, Chelveston Road’.

- Anglian Water bill dated 20.08.2004 covering the period 17.02.2004 to 19.08.2004. The address of the premises supplied was known as ‘Trough, Chelveston Road’.

7.5 Other information submitted by the applicant:

7.5.1 Letter dated 19.07.1996 from Hodson Margetts Solicitors to Mr Morris to advise that he is no longer entitled to occupy the property of his deceased mother.

7.5.2 Officer case notes for an application submitted in November 1996 for “Change in use of land for the siting of a permanent mobile home” ref: EN/96/00628/OUT. The planning officer’s observations mentioned a mobile home and “the mix of scrub, scrap and scruffy buildings.”

7.5.3 Invoice letter from Winslow Ford to Mr Morris at Dixie dated 18.05.2002.

7.5.4 A letter from the Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer dated October 2003, notifying Mr Morris of a breach of planning control “The land contains a large amount of car related items as well as general household rubbish, wood etc.” and asked Mr Morris to clear the land of all “rubbish, Chattels, cars and related items”.

Development Control Committee 8 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 7.5.5 Notice from DVLA to Mr Morris to say that he is disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence. This letter was dated 16.03.2005.

7.5.6 Letter from Winslow Ford dated 18.04.2005, providing confirmation that the company has been trading with Mr Morris at the address since the early 1990s.

7.5.7 Aerial photos from 1999 and 2003 were submitted to demonstrate that a structure was positioned in location marked D, when these photos were taken. The original source to which the aerials photographs have been taken, however, are unknown.

7.5.8 Photographs dated February 2008 were also submitted showing piles of materials, including tires, wood orderly separated on the site.

7.5.9 Photographs of the mobile home, telegraph pole with light fitting, old and new electric generator, and mail box were received on 08.12.2008

7.5.10 Junk mail posted to Mr Morris, post stamp dated 10.11.2008.

7.5.11 Copy of Mr Morris’s current paper driving licence and photo card licence, with his address at The Dixie.

7.5.12 DVLA Road Tax Reminder for payment to be made by 28.02.2009.

7.5.13 Letter from The Pension Service dated 7th February 2009 of a Cold Weather Payment received 27.02.2009.

8 Evaluation 8.1 The Residential Use

8.1.1 It is understood that in 1996, Mr Morris was living in the local area of Stanwick. Mr Morris claims that he was evicted from his mother’s home in 1996 and this was supported by the solicitor letter dated 19.07.1996. The applicant Mr Clayford claims that the mobile caravan was brought onto the site by Mr Morris in 1996 and had been occupied by Mr Morris from 1996 up to the present time. The applicant, furthermore, states that following the sale of the land to Mr Clayford in 2002, he had allowed Mr Morris to continue to occupy the site in the mobile home.

8.2 Planning History

8.2.1 According to the Council’s enforcement records reference EN/96/00057/PPD one mobile home was removed from the site on 19.08.1996. An application was subsequently submitted under reference EN/96/00628/OUT on 23.09.1996 for the permanent siting of a mobile home. The mobile home shown on the location plan submitted for EN/96/628/OUT (see Appendix 5), however, is in a different position to that of the mobile home applied for in this application.

8.2.2 In this application (reference EN/08/01119/LDE), the applicant and the occupant claimed that the mobile home was brought onto the site in 1996. Given that any mobile home/caravan brought onto the land in the same year before 19.08.1996 would have been considered for enforcement action under reference EN/96/00057/PPD, the chances that the mobile home was brought onto the site and was continuously occupied before 19.08.1996 is considered to be unlikely. In addition, following the application for the permanent siting of a mobile home on the site (reference EN/96/00628/OUT) was refused on 17.12.1996, the Council would have noted should a new mobile home be brought onto the land before the end of 1996 and even shortly thereafter.

Development Control Committee 9 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 8.2.3 Under reference EN/02/00714/OUT, the location plan submitted by Twigg and Associated on behalf of the applicant (see Appendix 2) shows a mobile home in the same position. The report submitted by the agent for this application (shown in Appendix 4) also mentioned “although he had previously lived on the site periodically before this, Mr Morris, however, lived in the existing caravan since mid 1996”. Photographs on page 4 of this report, furthermore, would show a mobile home/caravan near the main entrance of the site in position D. The mobile home shown in these photographs would appear to be the same mobile home shown in this application

8.2.4 Whilst the information contained within ref: EN/02/00714/OUT (submitted on 05.08.2002) would confirm the presence of the mobile home in position D in August 2002, this information does not provide conclusive evidence of the date of when the mobile home was brought onto the site or support that this mobile home has been in continuous residential occupation since 1996.

8.3 Photographs

8.3.1 The applicant has submitted photographs taken in February 2008 of the site and the mobile home. However, these only show the condition of the site and the mobile home in 2008.

8.3.2 The photographs submitted in December 2008, show a light bulb attach to a telegraph pole that is overgrown by moss, and an external tap that is obscured by hedging and overgrown vegetation. Whilst these photographs would show that these facilities have been available on the site for some time, these facilities do not sufficiently demonstrate the residential occupation, as these could have been associated with the former agricultural use of the site. These structures, furthermore, appear to be in a poor condition, lack maintenance and do not appear to have been in frequent use.

8.3.3 The photographs submitted to show the old and new electric generators and the mail box, would only help to explain how Mr Morris obtained electricity on the site and how he received mail. Overall, the submitted photographic information does not sufficiently demonstrate that there was on-going residential occupation on this site.

8.4 Aerial Photos

8.4.1 The aerial photos of 1999 and 2003 submitted by the applicant would show that there was a structure located in the same position of the mobile home relating to this application (position D). However, it is difficult to identify the nature of this structure. In addition, this information was dated by the applicant/agent and the source of this information is unknown.

8.4.2 Similarly, the aerial photo dated 1991 attached to the witness statements do not clearly show the mobile home. The location of the application site is furthermore difficult to identify in this photograph. The photograph was also hand dated and was from an unknown source.

8.5 Council tax information

8.5.1 The information submitted in support of the application includes a letter received from the valuation office to give notice of a new entry to the valuation list in November 2002. According to Council Tax records, the earliest payment made to the Council was in December 2002 and the last on 1st November 2006. Payments were therefore received by the Revenues Department at the Council relatively consistently throughout the four year period. This information would help to support that there has been continuous residential occupation at the site between November 2002 and November 2006.

Development Control Committee 10 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 8.5.2 In addition, Council Tax benefit decision letters and council tax demand letters sent to Mr Morris at the site covering the years 2005/2006, 2006/2007, 2007/2008, 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 would provide evidence to suggest that there was on-going residential usage of the site from November 2002 to date. This information covers a six/seven year period from November 2002.

8.5.3 In order to meet the 10 year rule, information is required to cover the period from May 1998 to May 2008. However, no Council Tax information has been submitted to support the residential usage of the site for the period from May 1998 to November 2002, to fully cover the ten year period.

8.6 Statutory Declarations submitted by the applicant

8.6.1 Whilst the statutory declarations submitted by the applicant and the occupant would indicate that the mobile home was brought onto the site in 1996 and had been resided in for the last 12 years; careful consideration would need to be given to the statutory declarations submitted by the applicant and the present occupant, as both parties would appear to have interest in the land. (See page 3 of Appendix 4).

8.6.2 In terms of the statutory statements submitted by the other two witnesses, these do not confirm that Mr Morris had been living in the mobile home that was the one brought onto the land in 1996. The witnesses, on the other hand, refer to another mobile home which was brought onto the land approximately, 20, 25 years ago. In particular, one witness aged 73 stated “During my lifetime, I can confirm that David Morris has/does live at Dixie Chelveston Road Stanwick. I can confirm I have seen him doing business, woodcutting, livestock, cars etc”, (statement of D.G. Morris). As Mr Morris has claimed that he has lived up until 1996 with his mother in Stanwick, one of these statutory declarations do not appear to correlate with the statements made by Mr Morris, the applicant and the statements made by other witnesses.

8.6.3 The statutory declaration made by the other witness furthermore stated: “I can also confirm that I have seen him living in the mobile home at Chelveston Road and receiving post there from time to time”, (statement of G.D. Hazeldine). The agent’s report of EN/02/00714/FUL mentioned that Mr Morris was troubled by ill health “His current living conditions are totally unsuitable but he has no other assets or place to live. Mr Morris wishes to sell the site to enable him to obtain a small property in the locality more suitable to his personal needs”. This, information, furthermore raises questions as to whether Mr Morris had continuously lived on the site.

8.6.4 Whilst in four of the other five submitted witness statements, witnesses were able to consistently confirm that they were aware that Mr Morris had lived in the mobile home marked position D from 1996, the contents contained in three of these statements raises questions on the level of knowledge of the witnesses. One statement confirmed that the mobile home has been on the site for nearly 30 years (statement of T.J. Morris). This information contradicts the information given by the applicant and Mr Morris that the mobile home was brought on to the site in 1996.

8.6.5 One other witness (statement of P.D. Riches) confirmed that he has known Mr Morris for over 20 years and that for as long as he has known Mr Morris, Mr Morris had lived at Dixie in his mobile home. Again, it is clear that if the mobile home was brought onto the land in 1996, then Mr Morris would only have lived in this for 12 years and not 20 years. The statement submitted by V. Winslow, furthermore, only supports the residential use of the site from 1999 to 2004, as the witness only lived on the adjacent site during this period.

Development Control Committee 11 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 8.7 Statutory Declarations submitted by neighbours

8.7.1 The statements and statutory declarations submitted by neighbours state that they had not observed residential occupancy of a caravan or mobile home, that any residential use was not continuous and that they have seen Mr Morris arriving at the site on occasions. Five of these statements were made by neighbouring occupants who live within close distance to the site and one statement was submitted by the owner of a property close to the application site, to which he regularly visited.

8.7.2 Whilst these witnesses may also have their own interests, the number of letters from local residents would cast doubt on the claims of occupation made by the applicant and Mr Morris. It is considered that the applicant would need to provide further evidence in the form of factual evidence to counterweigh the information provided by these neighbouring witnesses and to substantiate the residential claim of the site.

8.7.3 In the consideration of this application, the statutory declarations submitted by the applicant, Mr Morris and the other witnesses would therefore need to be carefully considered against the statements given by other neighbour witnesses. A copy of the letters received from local witnesses both in support and against the application have therefore been attached to the appendix of this report for Member consideration.

8.8 Utility Bills

8.8.1 For the 10 year period which the applicant claims that there was on-going residential occupation of the mobile home, one would assume that the occupant would have required services in terms of heating, lighting and water to meet his daily living needs on the site, and that some evidence would normally be available.

8.8.2 The water bills submitted in support of the application named the address of the premises supplied as ‘The Woodyard, Chelveston Road’. The applicant mentioned that Mr Morris also ran his business on the site. Whilst it is possible that the occupant may have shared the water supplies of the business/agricultural use while residing at the site, it could be observed that the cumulative water amounts used for the business and residence were very low. The cost of the bill covering 17th February 2004-19th August 2004 (a six month period) was £47.69; the bill covering 1st April 2004-31st March 2005 (a reminder bill covering a 12 month period) was £60.00; the bill for the period from 1st April 2005-31st March 2006 (a 12 month period) was £80.00; and the bill for 1st April 2006- 31st March 2007 (a 12 month period) was £20.00.

8.8.3 These payment invoices are not conclusive in themselves in terms of determining whether Mr Morris had residentially occupied the site during this period. On the other hand, this information raises doubt as to whether Mr Morris had continually residentially occupied the site over the 10 year period. The latest payment bill dated 23.12.2006 covering the period from 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2007 was addressed to a different address at Desborough, Kettering. Furthermore, it was advised by the agent that no further information was available for the period before 2004 and no recent utility payment bills (from March 2007) are available.

8.9 Posted mail

8.9.1 Posted mail which Mr Morris received at the site may also help to demonstrate that Mr Morris had been residing at the site. The letter dated the furthest back was dated May 2002 and this is the invoice from Winslow Ford to Mr Morris. The most recent letters include the benefit decision and Council Tax demand letters sent to Mr Morris for the year 2009/2010 dated 13.03.2009. Other letters addressed to Mr Morris on the site was previously listed under sections 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 of this report. Whilst a DVLA reminder notice dated 28.02.2009 was recently sent to Mr Morris at the site, it is recognised that Mr Morris may also have letters associated with his businesses sent to him at the site.

Development Control Committee 12 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 8.9.2 Noting the needs of Mr Morris, it was requested that further personal letters addressed to Mr Morris at the Dixie i.e. in the form of mobile phone bills, doctors letters be submitted to demonstrate that Mr Morris had received personal post in the last few recent years. This is apart from vehicle related letters which may have been associated with his personal business and housing benefit letters which may have been associated with his council tax. The applicant, however, was unable to provide any further information.

8.10 Other information/other matters

8.10.1 It was asked how Mr Morris lived at the site, including the services which are available and how Mr Morris met his daily living needs. The agent explains that there was a three phase electricity supply to building B. Although this was disconnected some years ago, this supply and meter box is still in existence and photos have been submitted to show a water tap and light fitting on a telegraph pole. Today, it is understood that Mr Morris obtains electricity from a 3 kilovolt generator positioned in building B, where a cable runs from the building to the mobile home. Furthermore, it is understood that Mr Morris holds a driving licence, owns a car and obtains his everyday shopping supplies by either driving or walking to the shops in Stanwick and the towns nearby.

8.10.2 A letter was sent to Mr Morris to notify him that he was disqualified from holding a driving licence on 16.03.2005. A formal licence was not reissued until March 2006. As the site could be accessed from the centre of Stanwick, where there are also frequent bus services to Raunds and Rushden, it is unlikely that not having a driving licence during this period would have prevented Mr Morris from living at the mobile home on the site.

9 Conclusion and recommendation

9.1 The Council would need to consider the application on the basis of a balance of probability in light of the all the information.

9.2 Overall, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the residential usage of the site and occupation of the mobile home from May 1998 to 2002. Whilst factual evidence in the form of Council Tax records, property valuation details, planning history records may demonstrate the presence of the mobile home from 2002 to 2008, lack of evidence in the form of utility bills, personal payment bills and other information (other than council tax information and other information which may be associated with the business of the occupant), has been submitted to substantiate the residential occupation during this period.

9.3 Furthermore, in light of doubt raised on the submitted information, the information held by the Council and provided by other neighbouring parties, it is considered that insufficient evidence has been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that the mobile home has been continuously residentially occupied from May 1998 to May 2008, and to counterweight the evidence put forward by other parties.

9.4 Circular 10/97 (paragraph.8.15) advises that there is no reason to refuse an application if the Local Planning Authority have no evidence of their own, or from others, to contradict or otherwise make the applicant’s version of the events less probable. In this application, it is considered that there is sufficient information to contradict or otherwise make the applicant’s version of the events less probable.

9.5 Based on the above considerations, it is recommended that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

Conditions/Reasons

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate on a balance of probability that the mobile home has been residentially occupied for an on-going period of 10 years or more.

Development Control Committee 13 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 Committee Report Committee Date : 10 June 2009 Printed: 29 May 2009

Case Officer Mr Rhys Bradshaw EN/09/00190/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Parish 9 February 2009 20 February 2009 17 April 2009 Oundle

Applicant Mr N Wilson

Agent Hamilton Booker Associates

Location Turners Yard Oundle Northamptonshire

Proposal Alternative parking layout to serve 15 West Street and three adjoining dwellings (converted barns)

This application is brought before the Development Control Committee at the request of a local Ward Member. The reasons for the Member call-in will be reported on the update sheet.

1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

2. The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes an alternative parking layout to an approved barn conversion scheme (EN/04/00561/FUL) to provide three dwellings.

3. The Site and Surroundings 3.1 No. 15 West Street is a house and shop fronting West Street. The range of two storey outbuildings to the rear have been converted into residential units under the previous approval. This is a single aspect building facing west across Turners Yard towards the rear courtyard of adjoining property.

3.2 The site is within the conservation area.

4 Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Guidance PPS1 - Sustainable Development PPG13 – Transport

4.2 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008 Policy 13

5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 EN/04/00561/FUL - Conversion of existing outbuildings to 3 dwellings. Approved

Development Control Committee 14 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Oundle Town Council: Objection. We are concerned at the effect on public and private rights of way and consider that the scheme proposed may adversely impact upon access and egress to other private properties.

6.2 NCC Highways: No objection. I am aware of the on-going dispute regarding the legal status of Turners Yard and these comments are made without prejudice to the resolution of that dispute. The reduced width would still allow pedestrian and vehicle movement in the long term without any undue loss of turning space due to the proposed alternative parking bays. I note that bays 2 and 3 would be in excess of the standard width of 2.4m, being some 3mand 3.5m respectively to aid and facilitate turning manoeuvrability to the rear of the spaces due to the limited space available.

6.3 NCC Rights of Way: No comments.

6.4 Neighbours: one objection letter received summarised by the following points: • Drawing TYP/1 does not show the gate and stone pillar, which part occupies space identified as parking space 1. Presumably these are to be removed as they are not shown on the plan. Cars will be unable to fully occupy this space. • Vehicles parked in space 1 will not be able to enter and leave in a forward gear. Even if provided turning head is used, vehicles will still need to reverse over a significant section of the public highway. This is compounded by the applicant’s continued blockage and obstruction of my private right of way and the public highway onto West Street. • Object to proposed parking space 1 on the grounds of safety. It poses a danger both to other vehicles and pedestrians

7 Evaluation 7.1 The main considerations in the determination of this proposal are its visual impact, impact on neighbouring amenities and impact on highway safety.

7.2 Visual Impact 7.2.1 As there will be no increase in the number of vehicles parked within this development, it is not considered that the proposed layout would have a detrimental impact on the character of Turners Yard. Given the location of the site, the impact on the character of the conservation area is also considered acceptable.

7.3 Impact on neighbouring amenities 7.3.1 Whilst neighbour comments are noted, the submitted layout plan demonstrates that vehicles will not block private accesses. A condition will be imposed to ensure that the spaces are retained for the use of the occupiers of the individual dwellings on Turners Yard.

7.4 Highway matters 7.4.1 The Highway Authority has no objection to the amended parking layout and has commented that the vehicles will be able to leave the site in a forward gear. Concerns regarding the use of parking space 1 are also noted; however, the submitted drawing demonstrates that this vehicle will also be able to turn, albeit in a limited space, without impeding on the private accesses of surrounding occupiers. The plans show the pillar and gate removed and therefore this aspect will form part of the application and should therefore be implemented concurrently with the new scheme.

7.4.2 It should also be noted that whilst the turning of vehicles is within a restricted area and, as such, will require some movements, the access is not a ‘through road’ and the layout will therefore not effect the free flow of traffic.

Development Control Committee 15 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 8 Other Issues 8.1 Crime and Disorder – There are no crime and disorder issues relevant to this application.

8.2 Access for the Disabled – No disabled issues are considered relevant to the determination of this application. In any case, this is a matter for Building Regulations.

Conditions/Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Statutory requirement under provision of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The car parking spaces and turning area shown on drawing TYP/1 shall be provided and reserved for the use of the future occupiers of the dwellings prior to occupation and retained in perpetuity thereafter. Reason: To retain adequate parking provision and manoeuvring on site.

Development Control Committee 16 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 Committee Report Committee Date : 10 June 2009 Printed: 2 June 2009

Case Officer Mr Rhys Bradshaw EN/09/00364/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Parish 16 March 2009 20 March 2009 15 May 2009 Rushden

Applicant Mr G Garcha

Agent Architectural Solutions

Location Land Corner Of Coffee Tavern Lane And Corner Of Rectory Road Rushden Northamptonshire

Proposal Residential development to provide nine apartments

This application is brought before the Development Control Committee because of the recent planning history for the site and due to the objection raised by Rushden Town Council.

1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That permission is delegated to the Head of Planning Services to REFUSE the application following expiry of the consultation period with the reasons set out in the report and any additional reasons following receipt of comments from consultees (the expiry date being midnight on June 10th 2009)

2. The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes a residential development of 9no 1-bed flats on vacant land on the corner of Coffee Tavern Lane and the Rectory Road one-way system.

2.2 The site would accommodate a 3.5 storey ‘T’ shaped block with four storeys of internal accommodation. The main block of the proposal is now set parallel with the street. A previous scheme (08/00938), allowed at appeal, was set at an angle with a stairwell adjacent to the highway.

2.3 To the rear of the site, an additional block would provide two flats with an area of hard standing that would accommodate 4no car parking spaces and some bin and cycle storage.

3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 There are no buildings on the site currently. The site is derelict in nature and appearance and currently detracts from the streetscene.

3.2 The land is located within the proposed town centre boundary and as such nearby uses are mainly retail in nature but also include flats above shops and A2 uses. On the opposite side of Rectory Road is a residential care home complex.

3.3 The site does not fall within the Conservation Area but abuts its boundary and is wholly within the built up area of Rushden.

4 Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Guidance PPS1– Sustainable Development

Development Control Committee 17 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 PPS3 – Housing PPS6 – Town Centres PPG13 – Transport PPG23 – Planning and Pollution Control PPG24 – Planning and Noise

4.2 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 7 - Delivering Housing 9 - Distribution & location of development 10 - Distribution of housing 13 - General sustainable development principles 14 - Energy efficiency and sustainable construction 15 - Sustainable housing provision 16-Sustainable Housing Provision

4.3 Three Towns Plan Preferred Options

4.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Out Crime; Parking

5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 04/00815/OUT – Erection of 2 dwelling houses – withdrawn

5.2 04/02462/OUT – Two storey block of four flats (all matters reserved) – refused 2/2/05 Reason for refusal: failure to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact on the safety or capacity of the local highway network

5.3 06/01081/OUT – Two storey block of four flats (all matters reserved) – refused 10/7/06 Reason for refusal: failure to demonstrate that it would not be a cramped and confined from of development

5.4 06/02419/FUL – Residential development comprising two semi-detached houses and four off road parking spaces - permitted 24/1/07

5.5 07/01932/FUL – Residential development comprising 11no 1-bed apartments – refused 13/2/08. Reasons for refusal: • Design, bulk and massing • Opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour • Poor housing mix • Noise – failure to provide noise assessment to show that the flats will not be adversely affected by traffic noise • Lack of parking, servicing and amenity space

5.6 08/00934 - Residential development comprising of seven one-bedroom apartments with amenity, secure cycle parking and bin storage and associated works (Resubmission of 07/01932/FUL) – refused. Reasons for refusal: • Unsatisfactory design • Limited parking • Failure to provide a satisfactory mix of dwelling types and sizes. This application was allowed at appeal and the decision notice is attached to this report.

6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbours: no comments received.

6.2 Rushden Town Council: object. • The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site. • There is a lack of sufficient parking • The design is out of character with the area and visually intrusive

Development Control Committee 18 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 • There is already an overprovision of this type of accommodation in the town.

6.3 NCC Highway Authority: No objection subject to conditions. • Please note that Rectory Road and Coffee Tavern Lane form part of the one way highway network and Traffic Regulation Orders, preventing any waiting throughout the 24 hour period, thereby reducing any on-street parking availability to “nil provision”. • The Newton Road long stay car park has a maximum stay of 24 hours and a no return within 1 hour. This would not be acceptable as a permanent car parking facility to this proposal. • The Orchard Place car park with a 2 hour maximum waiting limit between 7.30am – 5pm Monday to Saturday, where a vehicle may not return within 1 hour. This facility would be unsuitable to sustain this proposal. • The private car park adjacent to George Street is to serve the business use only and does not form part of any public car parking availability.

6.4 Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor: no comments.

6.5 ENC Environmental Health (noise): • I have no objection to fixed panes being applied to the Rectory Road facade of the development. This would mean there are two windows to the bedrooms, but only those to the side should be openable, those on the 'front' facade must be fixed panes only. It would be beneficial for these panes to be at least double glazed to mitigate the possibility of noise intrusion. • Alternative ventilation should be applied to the side opening windows and doors. Details should be submitted and approved prior to development. • As the roof area can be an acoustic weak point in any development, details of the roofing materials and construction should be submitted for approval prior to commencement of the development to ensure that internal noise standards are compliant with BS8233. • Prior to first occupation of the building, tests shall be performed to ensure that the internal levels specified are compliant with BS8233. • Appropriate acoustic fencing must be erected and maintained at a height of 2 metres at ground level to ensure that noise is mitigated from Rectory Road to those flats on the ground floor.

6.6 ENC Environmental Health (contamination): No objection subject to the imposition of conditions to investigate and remediate contamination as necessary.

6.7 ENC Housing Strategy: No comments

6.8 ENC Waste Management: • The Council operates a sack based refuse collection and wheeled bins are not emptied by our contractors. • The developer has not considered additional storage for recycling.

7 Evaluation 7.1.1 The main considerations in the determination of this proposal are the principle of development; density; housing mix; design quality and visual impact; impact on neighbouring amenities; highways issues and other considerations.

7.1.2 The previous appeal decision is an important material consideration, and must be taken into account. If the decision is ignored then the Council could be considered to be acting unreasonably at any future appeal and might therefore be liable for costs. However, it was an appeal that officers were surprised to see allowed. It is therefore essential to consider very carefully the similarities between this proposal and the appeal proposal and the precise wording of the Inspector’s decision letter, and whether there is any additional information or evidence that could possibly justify a different decision.

Development Control Committee 19 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 7.1.3 Members should be aware that if this application is refused it would still be possible for the applicant to build the scheme which was granted on appeal.

7.2 Principle of development 7.2.1 The principle of residential use of this site was established by the granting of planning permission EN/06/02419/FUL in January 2007 (for two semi-detached houses and four off road parking spaces) and the recent appeal decision for seven one bedroom flats (EN/08/00934/FUL).

7.2.2 The proposal is to develop land which is considered to be previously developed and is well within the built confines of the town.

7.2.3 Whilst the site is within the town centre boundary and adjacent to the defined shopping frontage, the development of this site for housing purposes is not considered to represent any significant threat to the vitality or viability of the town centre.

7.2.4 The site is not specifically identified for any form of development in the Three Towns Preferred Options Paper (September 2006) or the Rushden and Higham Ferrers Masterplan (February 2005).

7.2.5 The Inspector, in relation to the previous appeal, appears to have been influenced by the untidy nature of the site, in considering its suitability for development.

7.3 Density 7.3.1 The proposed 9no dwellings on a site area of 0.034 hectares would equate to a net site density of roughly 264 dwellings per hectare. In comparison, the density of the scheme allowed on appeal was 205 dwellings per hectare. There is no upper limit on density within national guidance but PPS3 states that a minimum of the 30 dwellings per hectare should be sought.

7.3.2 Whilst this is obviously a very high density, Members will be aware that ‘density’, in pure numerical terms, is not in itself an appropriate measure of the acceptability or otherwise of a residential scheme. This is particularly so on a small site such as this, on the periphery of the town centre close to a range of facilities: this could be considered to be one such location where a much higher density of development could be supported. It is the way that the proposed density manifests itself on the site, in terms of its particular design and layout, that is the true measure of the acceptability of any scheme. These matters will be considered in the sections below.

7.4 Housing Mix

7.4.1 The appeal proposal was refused on the basis of housing mix. The Inspector gave little weight to saved Policy H4 in the local plan as the proposed development fell below the threshold of 10 dwellings in this policy. He commented that he had no knowledge of the status of the Housing Market Assessment ( HMA), but that it would still accept about 25% of 1 and 3 bedroomed homes. He also observed that he had not seen any evidence that there was a surplus of one bedroomed accommodation in the town. But, that local planning policy supports the use of living accommodation above shops, and that this is very likely to be 1 or 2 bedroomed accommodation.

7.4.2 PPG3 and Policy 15 in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy encourage a mix of dwellings. There is thus some policy basis for arguments related to housing mix in addition to Policy H4 in the local plan.

7.4.3 The HMA forms part of the evidence base of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and is a material consideration. It was concluded to be sound. If this application were to be refused further evidence could therefore be provided in respect of the status of this document.

Development Control Committee 20 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 7.4.4 Your officers do not have any specific information regarding whether there is a surplus of 1 bedroomed accommodation in Rushden, but it is an issue that Members have raised on numerous occasions. It would however be possible to extract information fairly readily from estate agent information on the internet. RSLs are no longer happy to provide 1 bedroomed accommodation in Rushden to meet affordable housing needs.

7.4.5 The Inspector, in his decision letter, refers to the policy encouragement of living above shops and the likelihood that such accommodation would be 1 or 2 bedroomed as providing justification for the appeal proposal. A scheme such as this is usually for a change of use of an existing building and is therefore more constrained. With the additional evidence that could be provided in relation to mix, less weight could be given to this argument.

7.4.6 For the reasons set out above it is therefore recommended that the application be refused on the grounds of housing mix.

7.5 Design Quality and Visual impact 7.5.1 The existing derelict state of this site and lack of any defined use is considered to detract from the visual appearance of the area, lending a somewhat unused and run-down character to a corner site fronting the one-way system. The redevelopment of this site, if done correctly, therefore has the potential to create visual and environmental improvement.

7.5.2 The scheme proposes a 3.5 storey ‘T’ shaped block of flats with a uniform roof level. The height is comparable to that of the approved scheme. The building granted on appeal was set at an angle to Rectory Lane. The development considered here presents more of a frontage to both Rectory Lane and Coffee Tavern Lane. The Council previously had criticisms of the design, considering it bland, blocky and unimaginative. The current scheme is an improvement on this, taking on a more residential appearance with gable and balcony details to add some visual interest. It is therefore considered that this scheme would have a better relationship with the adjacent Conservation Area, and this is an important material consideration.

7.5.3 Despite the design forming a refusal reason previously, the Inspector concluded that it would not be harmful to the street scene. As the design in this proposal represents an improvement it would not be possible to substantiate a reason for refusal on this ground.

7.5.4 The amount of external amenity space that would be provided for the flats is limited given the number of properties that would be expected to share it. A fairly similar amount however is provided in the scheme which was granted on appeal. However, in the recent appeal decision in relation to 1 Essex Road ( see appeal report for summary), the Inspector commented that good design ought to have regard to at least a basic level of provision of private outdoor space. In the light of the previous decision it might be difficult to put forward an argument related to the amount of amenity space, however having regard to the Essex Road decision, there would appear to be scope to use this as a reason for refusal and avoid a claim for costs.

7.6 Impact on neighbouring amenities 7.6.1 There are no immediate residential properties that this development would affect, and therefore the application is considered acceptable in this respect.

7.6.2 Members may recall approving a mixed use scheme to the North of the site on the plot of a former industrial unit. Whilst this consent has not been implemented to date this permission is still extant. It is not considered that the current proposed development would inherently affect the amenities of the future occupiers of this site, or indeed vice-versa.

Development Control Committee 21 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 7.7 Highways matters 7.7.1 The Inspector concluded in the previous decision that one bedroom apartments are not going to be occupied by families and current national policy is to restrict parking in order to encourage the use of public transport in appropriate cases. He commented that “this is just such a situation” and that “four spaces should be adequate”.

7.7.2 The Inspector also concluded that whilst delivery vehicles would be unable to manoeuvre or turn within the available space on the site, this is not a particularly unusual occurrence in a town centre. They would at least, he concluded, be able to reverse into the site and not have to park on Coffee Tavern Lane whilst servicing the site. Similarly, he was also satisfied that “there would be no material harm to highway safety in the terms envisaged in Structure Plan Policy T3 or Core Spatial Strategy Policy 14, subject to certain planning conditions.”

7.7.3 The issue of poor public transport in Rushden has been raised on a number of occasions in DC Committee meetings and the Ward Member put together a detailed statement, in relation to this, for the current appeal at Portland Road. A copy of this is attached to this report for Members information. Further evidence could therefore be provided at an appeal in relation to public transport. This scheme is also for 9 flats with only 4 parking spaces, whilst the previous scheme allowed on appeal was for 7 spaces.

7.8 Noise 7.8.1 The site is adjacent to Rectory Road, one of the town’s main transportation routes, so there is clear potential for road traffic noise to create a disturbance to future occupiers of the flats.

7.8.2 No noise assessment was submitted as part of this application. However, previous noise reports submitted alongside previous applications for this site suggest that the noise level would fall within category C (of the NEC range set out in PPG24) where planning permission should not usually be given. Whilst the Council’s Environmental Services Team originally objected to the proposals, revisions have been submitted which show a rearrangement of the accommodation resulting in non-habitable rooms (kitchens) on the Rectory Road frontage to minimise the impact from noise as a result of the close proximity to the highway. Bedrooms on this side of the building are dual aspect with fixed windows on the main elevation and opening windows on the side elevations. This solution is acceptable to the Environmental Protection Officer. To satisfy Environmental Health a 2 metre noise barrier would be required on the Rectory Road frontage and this would be harmful to visual amenity. In addition, it would result in a poor living environment to the future occupiers of the ground floor flats.

8 Other issues 8.1 Access for Disabled – The units will comply with Part M of the Building Regulations and the ground floor flats have level access and can be converted to ambulant mobility units if required.

8.2 Contamination – Environmental Health are satisfied that this matter could be dealt with by conditions.

8.3 Refuse storage – The proposed bin storage area is situated adjacent to parking space 2. It will be very difficult to access if a car is parked in space 2

8.4 Cycle storage – A storage area is indicated on the proposed site plan. It would be very difficult to access if a car is parked in space 2 07/G56/101D. The approved scheme showed a wider gap between the bin and cycle storage and parking.

Development Control Committee 22 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 9 Recommendation 9.1 It is recommended that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons.

Conditions/Reasons

1. The proposed development is cramped with an inadequate amount of amenity space, an inadequate amount of parking, and a lack of space between parking space 2 and the bin and cycle storage. The scheme is therefore a poor design, which would not accord with national government advice contained in PPS3 and would be contrary to Policy 13 in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

2. A two metre high fence would be required to mitigate the noise from Rectory Road. This would be harmful to visual amenity and the living conditions of the future occupiers of the ground floor units The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 13 in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

3. The proposed development does not provide a satisfactory mix of dwellings to reflect local need, as established by the Housing Market Assessment, which forms part of the evidence base to the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and was judged to be sound. There is currently on oversupply of one bedroomed flats in Rushden. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 15 in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and national government advice in PPG3.

4. The scheme includes only 4 parking spaces which would be insufficient to serve the needs of the occupiers of the flats. Whilst it is national policy to restrict parking space to encourage residents to use modes of transport other than the private motor car, there needs to be flexibility to reflect local circumstances. Rushden is a small town with an inadequate bus service to surrounding larger settlements. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 13 in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Development Control Committee 23 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 Committee Report Committee Date : 10 June 2009 Printed: 29 May 2009

Case Officer Stephanie Thompson EN/09/00546/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Parish 15 April 2009 23 April 2009 18 June 2009 Sudborough

Applicant Mr N Cornwall

Agent Wythe Holland Partnership

Location Land Adjacent And Opposite New Lodge Farm Slipton Lane Sudborough Northamptonshire

Proposal Change of use of the land for equestrian breeding/training purposes and the erection of 1 equestrian barn, 1 dual purpose agricultural/equestrian barns, horse walker, lunge pit, menage, landscaping and associated access

This application is brought to Development Control Committee due to the sensitive nature of the proposal within the open countryside.

1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That permission is GRANTED subject to conditions

2. The Proposal 2.1 This application proposes the change of use of the land for equestrian breeding/training purposes and the erection of 1 equestrian barn, 1 dual purpose agricultural / equestrian barn, horse walker, lunge pit, ménage and associated access.

2.2 The two barns would be sited running parallel to Slipton Lane, set back approximately 22m. Barn 1 would provide 165 square metres of floorspace and would have a height of 5.8m. Barn 2 would provide 405 square metres of floorspace and would have a height of 6.5m. Barn 1 is sited 15m north of barn 2. The lunge pit and demountable horse walker is to be positioned to the rear of the barns and will be both 20m in diameter. The lunge pit fencing is approximately 2.5m high and the walker is approximately 2m high. The proposed ménage is to the rear of the horse walker and would comprise of an area of 60m x 40m bounded by 1.5m post and rail fence.

2.3 Both buildings will be constructed in a steel frame on a concrete base. However barn 1 would have timber cladding and the roof is proposed to be metal sheeting in green or grey. Four windows are proposed on both side elevations and double opening timber doors on both the front and rear elevation. The barn would be for the storage of feed and machinery and as such has no internal partitions. Barn 2 would be clad in paint grade blockwork to enable the walls to be painted in a suitable colour. The roof will be the same material as barn 1. Barn 2 also proposes double opening doors on the front and rear elevation and a total of 12 roof lights are proposed, divisions would be erected internally to enable pens to be created. Barn 2 is proposed to be used as shelter for sheep and mares with their foals and yearlings, this therefore provides the justification for use of masonry rather than timber. The rooflights are to provide daylight to the whole barn, including the central passageway. Rooflights have been used rather than windows in the side elevation so not to injure the horses.

Development Control Committee 24 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 2.4 The site is accessed via a new entrance off Slipton Lane which is proposed to the north of the site and is opposite an existing access. An access gate would be set back 10.5m to enable a car and horse box to pull onto the access, without obstructing Slipton Lane.

3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The site is located outside of the settlement boundary as proposed in the Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan, Submission Document. The field to which the barns will relate to is 93 acres and the land has been used for the grazing and rearing of sheep and horses for over 30 years on a non-intensive basis. Existing trees and hedging runs adjacent to Slipton Road and there are 2 clusters of trees to the east. The level of the land rises when looking south.

3.2 To the north west of the site exists a mixed row of dwellings that face the site. Directly to the north of the proposed barns, on the other side of Slipton Lane is a large 2-storey dwelling which has not yet been completed. This house is on a higher level than the site of the barns.

4 Policy Considerations

4.1 Planning Policy Guidance PPS1: Sustainable Development PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

4.2 East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 2: Promoting Better Design

4.4 East Northamptonshire District Local Plan AG5: Stables, Riding Schools and Horticultural Establishments

4.5 Joint Core Spatial Strategy for North Northamptonshire 9: Distribution and Location of Development 13: General Sustainable Development Principles 14: Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction

4.6 Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan, Submission Document Policy 12: Important Open Land within Towns and Villages

5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 07/02287/FUL - Erection of agricultural building for storage of livestock, feed and machinery – Application withdrawn.

5.2 07/02287/FUL - Erection of agricultural building for storage of livestock, feed and machinery – Application granted 11 February 2008. This building has been approved which is approximately 620 south west of the proposed barns.

6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Sudborough Parish Council - No objections

6.2 Neighbours: Seven letters received Comments / objections summarised as follows: • Address is misleading, the proposal is located some distance from New Lodge Farm. • Application is misleading in that it is clear from correspondence that this application is the first phase of a much larger and substantial development and will provide leverage for any subsequent development if approved.

Development Control Committee 25 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 • The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the open countryside and set an undesired precedent. The proposal will be clearly visible from various points in the village also concern raised with regard to the subsequent increase in traffic on Slipton Lane. The impact of large heavy horse vehicles and extra traffic will cause disruption to the local roads.

Vehicles parked on the site and floodlights will make the site highly visible The floor area of the large barn is similar to the village church. Any hedge planting would only partly screen the development.

A development brief would be helpful and an alternative location on land within the applicant's control would be more appropriate. The site is located outside of the settlement boundary and would therefore contravene national policy with no justification turning the site to brownfield from greenfield. Protection of the countryside around Sudborough is vital to maintain the character. The applicant has alluded to employment, however employment should only be permitted within settlement boundaries, in addition we were not aware that unemployment was an issue. The proposal is not farm diversification as there are no existing buildings.

6.2 Environmental Health – No objection subject to a condition being attached to ensure that horse manure is not burned on site and is disposed of in an appropriate manner.

6.3 NCC Highways – No objection to amended plan, subject to conditions being attached.

6.4 Site Notice posted: no comments received.

7 Evaluation 7.1 The key considerations that are relevant to the determination of this application are: principle of the proposed development; impact on the landscape; highway issues, residential amenity and any other material considerations.

7.2 Principle of proposed development

7.2.1 The applicant breeds flat race horses, and at the moment has approximately 40 horses ranging from Broodmares, foals, yearlings, some two and three year olds. At the beginning of the breeding season which is approximately February to April, a Broodmare is covered with a Stallion, the gestation period is approximately 11 months. The applicant has a site at Newmarket as well as the site in Sudborough and at the moment the mare is moved to Newmarket a month before she will have her foal and will then stay until the foal is 6 months old. The foal is then weaned and the mare is brought back to Sudborough. The foal remains at Newmarket and is either sold or trained by the applicant for races. The application is therefore to consolidate the two sites to reduce the moving of horses and to enable the applicant to carry out all the operations on one site.

7.2.2 Planning policy, both at the national and local level, recognises equine activity in the open countryside as a useful form of farm diversification and can play an important role in the rural economy. Policy AG5 of the Local Plan supports proposals for stables, riding schools and horticulture but advises that establishments should normally be located within existing settlements or sites associated with existing farm buildings.

7.2.3 This site does not accommodate any existing farm buildings and whilst it is outside of the settlement boundary, it does abut the boundary. Settlement boundaries have been defined by including land which incorporates existing groups of dwellings of more than 10, the curtilage of dwellings unless there is capacity to extend the built form, sites with planning permission and proposed allocations. Therefore this proposed site would not have been included in a settlement boundary as it does not meet the criteria. However, the site is on the

Development Control Committee 26 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 edge of the boundary and it is accepted that such a use requires a countryside location given the nature of the business use.

7.2.4 Concern has been raised by the local community regarding the future aspirations of the applicant. This proposal does not include residential accommodation. The supporting information that has been submitted details that the site is currently kept secure with a heavy duty chain and padlock. There is also a resident in Sudborough who monitors the horses at regular intervals. However, the applicant has advised that an application will be made for residential accommodation in the future. This however is a not a matter for this application and should an application be received, it will be considered on its own merits and in line with the guidance within PPS7.

7.2.5 However, officers are satisfied that the site can be secured and in addition the applicant has advised, as mentioned above, that there is a method in place to monitor the horses at regular intervals. The applicant has not indicated that the CCTV or flood lighting is required, but it should be noted that planning permission will be required for such external fittings. Members should be aware that whilst an application for a temporary dwelling may be forthcoming, the same levels of assessment will be made as those which are made to agricultural dwellings.

7.3 Impact on the Landscape

7.3.1 The barns are located within the open countryside and will be visually prominent from the settlement and Slipton Lane. It is considered that the siting of the barns is acceptable given that they are adjacent to the road and near to existing residential properties rather more central in the field where the barns would be far more prominent. In addition the external materials that have been indicated will result in the barns appearing as rural structures.

7.3.2 The associated structures i.e. lunge pit, horse walker and ménage will be visually prominent, however they are sited within proximity to the barns and as such will have less of an intrusive impact than if they were more centrally located in the field. The lunge pit and horse walker are each bounded by a galvanized metal and rubber lined circular fence, and the finish can be secured by condition. The ménage is bounded by a traditional post and rail fence measuring 1.5m in height. These structures are not uncommon with such a proposed use and require countryside locations.

7.3.3 The topography of the site is varied and the level of the land rises towards the south.

7.3.4 In addition the impact is lessened given the existing trees and hedging on the boundary with Slipton Lane and the cluster of trees to the east.

7.3.4 The application also proposes a new native hedge along the north eastern boundary of the application site which to help screen the impact of the barns and associated structures and the details of such and the implementation can be secured by condition.

7.4 Highway Issues

7.4.1 A field gate does exist within the site area edged in blue although there are no defined access tracks. A new gated access is proposed opposite the dwelling under construction on Slipton Lane. The new access will therefore provide a direct access to the barns and as such reduce the area of hardstanding required. The access gate is positioned approximately 10m back to allow a car and box to turn into the site without blocking Slipton Lane.

Development Control Committee 27 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 7.4.2 Details of vehicular movements to and from the site have been supplied by the applicant. Two members of staff would be employed. It has also been confirmed that 3 to 4 cars will visit the site per day. Then an estimated 3 to 4 horse boxes every 2 months.

7.4.3 The location of the proposed access point has been amended following concerns that sufficient vehicular visibility splays could not be achieved. Accordingly the position of the access road has been moved further south to improve vehicular visibility. Highways have therefore raised no objection on the basis that the vehicular visibility is conditioned and that the access shall be a minimum width of 6m. The visibility splays will require some trimming of the hedging and bushes alongside Slipton Lane, but it will not result in the removal of any of the vegetation except for the access road.

7.5 Residential Amenity

7.5.1 It is considered that the proposal will not result in a detrimental impact to residential amenity given the distance from residential properties being in excess of 80m.

8 Other issues 8.1 Crime and Disorder – The site would accommodate expensive livestock, as such the local planning authority need to ensure that the site is adequately secure so not to pose a crime risk. Officers are satisfied that the site is located close enough to Sudborough to benefit from natural surveillance given that it is not within a secluded site. In addition the security measures that have been outlined in paragraph 7.2.3 and 7.2.4 are acceptable.

8.2 Access for Disabled – there are no issues from this application.

8.3 The site is located in Flood Zone 1 and is classed as less vulnerable development, accordingly a Flood Risk Assessment is not required and development is appropriate.

9 Recommendation 9.1 That the application be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions/Reasons

1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To ensure compliance with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved particulars of the materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall be submitted in writing to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved particulars and retained in perpetuity thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area.

3. Prior to commencement of development full details of both hard and soft landscape works will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Subsequently, these works shall be carried out as approved. Reason: The landscaping of this site is required in order to protect and enhance the existing visual character of the area and to reduce the visual and environmental impacts of the development hereby permitted.

4. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. All planting seeding or turfing and soil preparation comprised in the above details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings, the completion of the development, or in agreed phases

Development Control Committee 28 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009 whichever is the sooner, and any plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation. All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the guidance contained in British Standards, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure proper implementation of the agreed landscape details in the interest of the amenity value of the development.

5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the location, height, design and materials of all boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved details shall be erected and retained in perpetuity thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and that it contributes to the visual character and amenity of the area.

6. Before any work is commenced on the development the subject of this permission, details of the provision to be made for the on-site storage and disposal of animal waste shall have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, and the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard public health.

7. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the commencement of development the following access details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:- 1.Sight lines shall be provided to give visibility along the road over a distance of at least 160.0m in both directions, from a point measured 2.4m back along the centre line of the proposed vehicle access. These dimensions to be measured from and along the nearer edge of carriageway. 2.Hard surface materials to form the heavy duty vehicle access. 3.Means of drainage, to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water onto the highway. 4.Maximum gradient (1 in 15) from the highway boundary. The subsequent submitted details shall illustrate a heavy duty vehicle access, which is to the local highway authority’s adoptable standard. The hard surfacing shall be completed in accordance with the approved details in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. Development shall be constructed in strict accordance with the approved details and approved vision splays retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Development Control Committee 29 of 29 Date printed 10 June 2009