Regulatory Committee Wednesday 22 June 2005 at 7.00Pm Council

. Swanspool House Wellingborough Borough Council of NN8 1BP

Wellingborough 14th June 2005

Regulatory Committee Wednesday 22nd June 2005 at 7.00pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence.

2. Declarations of Interest (if any).

Ι 3. Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 25/5/2005.

Ι 4. Applications for planning permission, building regulation approval etc.

Ι 5. Appeal Decisions: (a) Sywell Aerodrome;

(b) 115 Hinwick Road, Wollaston;

(d) 3 Orchard Close, Wollaston.

6. Any other business that the Chairman decides is urgent.

Ι Enclosed

Please note: Site Viewing Group for Tuesday 21st June 2005 will be Councillors Waters, Morrall, Smith and Ward.

Tony McArdle Chief Executive

Membership: Councillor Waters (Chairman), Councillor Morrall (Vice- Chairman), Councillors Beirne, Bell, Dholakia, Lawman, Mann, Old, Palmer, Patel, Ryan, Smith and Ward.

For further copies of agenda and reports contact Performance and Democratic Services 01933 231511. Borough Council of Wellingborough Regulatory Committee Wednesday 22nd June 2005 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

INDEX

Page No. SITE VIEWING GROUP

WP/2005/0307/F - 17 New Street, Earls Barton. 1 WP/2005/0326/F - HM Land Registry Title No. NN127678, land at Aggate Way, Earls Barton. 6

DISTRICT

WP/2004/0730/F Midland Road Bridge, Midland Road, Wellingborough. 9 WP/2005/0053/CL - Probation and After Care Service, 20 Oxford Street, Wellingborough. 48 WP/2005/0209/F - Land adj. Wallis Close, Park Farm Industrial Estate, Wellingborough. 52 WP/2005/0250/F - 105 Eastfield Road, Wellingborough. 57 WP/2005/0276/O - Land rear of the Post Office, Midland Road, Wellingborough. 60 WP/2005/0323/F - T S R Plastics, Finedon Sidings Industrial Estate, Furnace Lane, Finedon. 66

FOR INFORMATION

WP/2005/0179/C 21-23 Leyland Trading Estate, Irthlingborough Road, Wellingborough. 71

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 21st June 2005 at 10.20 a.m.)

Regulatory Committee 22/06/2005

Report of the Director of Environment and Economy

APPLICATION REF: WP/2005/0307/F

PROPOSAL: Erection of 3 detached houses in garden.

LOCATION: 17 New Street, Earls Barton, Northampton.

APPLICANT: MrJ Cooper.

This application has been referred to the Regulatory Committee for a decision pursuant to a request from a local Councillor.

PROPOSAL: As described above. The density of the scheme is 31 per hectare.

PLANNING HISTORY: BW/89/0002/O Site for single storey dwelling – conditionally approved.

PLANNING POLICY: Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan - G1, G4, G21, H1, H2, H12 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Parking, Planning Out Crime and Building Better Places. Northamptonshire County Structure Plan - GS5, H3 and H6. Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development. Planning Policy Guidance 3; Housing. Planning Policy Statement 23; Planning and Pollution Control.

CONSULTATIONS: 1. NCC Highways – no comment received at time of writing the report.

2. NCC Archaeology – no comment received.

3. Environmental Protection – considers that a condition should be imposed regarding the requirement for an additional Environmental Risk Assessment to be submitted prior to development taking place. The original ERA did not investigate the presence of Northamptonshire Sand Ironstone which can contain elevated levels of naturally occurring arsenic.

4. Earls Barton Parish Council – no comment received at time of writing the report.

3 32 7 23

21 30

8 Borough Council Of Wellingborough:2 Licence No.100018694. Published 08/06/2005 857 263800 263800

15 39

7 2 OURT

C 7

KE 8 1 4 R

0 CLA 8

4 3

2 1 8

1 4 85

7a 9

4 7

8 7

1 1 77 71 65 59 OAD GTON R DODDIN

3 47

3 45

5 637 8 637

89.0m 5 0

6 4

LB 8

Slope 4 6 2

TCB 0 4

3 0

85.3m 8 a

6 4a

3 0

2 1 8

3 4

a 4

Wks 0

d c

35 12 E W

23 16 T R 16

T 1 636 7 636

S 7 a

6 6 1 P R 1 IN

G 4

3 1 4

G 8

A 1 R D E El

N a 3

St 2

S Sub

2 2 5 0

0 3 1 11

MOUNT PLEASAN 263500 T 263500

485600 485800

2 857

2 21 1

1 Scale 1:1250 13 Y BUR

MIL

1 63 4 2

5. Neighbours – at the time of writing the report letters of objection/concern have been received from the residents of 18, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30 New Street and a summary of the writers’ comments is given below:

• Scheme is money making. • Loss of privacy. • Loss of light. • Existing parking and traffic difficulties that will be made worse by increase in traffic from three extras houses. Also the additional traffic would potentially cause greater danger at the junction of New Street and Doddington Road. • Danger for pedestrians. • Overdevelopment of the site. • Houses are not in character with this part of New Street and opinion that permission should only be granted for single storey dwellings. • Overbearing impact of dwellinghouses on occupiers of nearby bungalows which will be exacerbated by the rising ground level. • Efforts should be made to protect neighbouring trees. • Identification of location of public utility apparatus. • Loss of property value. • Land ownership issues. • Disruption from construction activities and traffic.

ASSESSMENT: Site description The site is the large garden area of an existing dwellinghouse that is located on a corner plot towards the end of a cul-de-sac. Growing on the site’s street frontages on the western and southern sides is a substantial hedge and this hedge continues on the eastern boundary. Beyond the eastern boundary there is another hedgeline evident on the other side of the adjoining alleyway and they both run in a northerly direction from New Street. Located in the corners of the site is a range of flat roofed garages, shed and greenhouses and growing in the garden is a variety of trees and shrubs. The housing development in this part of New Street is predominantly detached bungalows and chalet bungalows although there are terraces of dwellings nearer the junction with Doddington Road.

Main issues and material planning considerations

• Compliance with policy • Highways and traffic • Effect on the visual amenity of the area • Effect on neighbours amenities • Crime and disorder

Compliance with policy The site is brownfield in nature and palpably within the built up confines of a limited development village. The proposal therefore is considered to accord with elements of national guidance and development plan policies with regards to achieving new 3 housing development on previously developed sites within the recognised confines of villages in the rural area.

Highways and traffic This aspect of the development is difficult to assess due to the lack of a consultation response from the Highway Authority at the time of writing the report and the need to progress the application to the Regulatory Committee to meet Government performance targets and effect on the Planning Delivery Grant. It is considered however that the resulting increase in traffic using the New Street/Doddington Road junction will not be sufficient to warrant refusing the scheme on highway safety grounds. The comments regarding parking in New Street are noted but construction traffic is temporary and there are Police powers available to penalise drivers who block residents’ accesses or who park on the pavement.

Effect on visual amenity Plots 1 and 2 are positioned relatively close to the back edge of the footway and they will clearly have an effect on the visual amenity of the area. This arrangement however mirrors the situation on the other side of the road where a bungalow has been built proximate to the highway boundary. Many local residents feel that the scheme is out of character with the existing bungalow type development in New Street but it is clear however that the application site relates to the existing dwelling on the site which is a large detached dwellinghouse. It is considered that the proposed large dwellings will not adversely affect the amenity of the street scene to such an extent to warrant withholding planning permission.

Effect on neighbours’ amenities The most affected neighbours are those that reside at no. 15 New Street which borders to the north; no. 27 beyond the eastern boundary and the potential occupiers of a newly completed dwelling adjacent. It is considered that the occupiers of these dwellings will not have their standard of amenity diminished sufficiently to refuse the proposal for the following reasons:

• With regards privacy for the residents to the north it is considered that the distance of approximately 25m at its nearest point between the rear of plot no. 3 and the private rear area of no. 27 is acceptable and this opinion is reinforced due to the oblique nature of the overlooking that will occur. • Plot no. 3 does have windows at first floor level that face towards the east but they either serve bathroom accommodation or a landing area. It is considered that the existing and potential occupiers can have their standard of privacy protected by the imposition of an obscure glazing condition and the removal of permitted devolvement rights for the insertion of any additional windows at first floor level or above without the consent in writing of the local planning authority. • Plot no. 2 has a blank flank wall facing east and the removal of permitted development rights as detailed above is recommended. • With regards loss of light there may be some consequences on the standard that nearby neighbours currently enjoy. It is considered however that the sunlight reception is already affected by the presence of walls and hedges on the boundaries and trees within the sites. The effects of the proposal will also be mitigated by the distances between the respective dwellings. The net 4

result will be a standard of light reception commensurate with an otherwise built up street frontage in a village location. • The proposal does represent a form of tandem development and Policy H1 of the local plan advises against this type of development that would result in a deterioration of residential amenity. It is thought however that in this case where the privacy distances between the proposed and existing dwellings and the access arrangements are satisfactory the policy cannot be reasonably used to withhold the grant of planning permission. • The residual amenity space of no. 27 will measure 18m wide by x 10m deep and the distance to the flank wall of plot no. 1 which has an obscure glazed first floor window is 11m. The amenity dimensions stated in the Building Better Places SPG are 12 meters between rear facing windows and ones in the flank wall of another and a minimum rear garden depth of 10.5m. It is considered that to refuse planning permission on the basis of inadequate amenity space for occupiers of the existing dwelling would be inappropriate.

Crime and disorder It is considered that there are no crime and disorder issues other than parking matters relevant to the determination of this application.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of five 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 and the development shall be carried out with the approved materials. 3. The first floor windows in the east elevation of plot no. 3 shall be obscure glazed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority and shall remain as obscure glazed. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order no window other than expressly permitted by this permission shall be inserted into the east elevation of plot no. 3 at first floor level or above without the consent in writing of the local planning authority. 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order no window shall be inserted into the east elevation of plot no. 2 at first floor level or above without the consent in writing of the local planning authority. 6. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a 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 5

by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 7. Before development is commenced an Environmental Risk Assessment to address the presence of Northamptonshire Sand Ironstone on the site shall be submitted to the local planning authority. The risk assessment will contain suggested remediation measures should the site be contaminated which will be agreed by the local planning authority. The agreed remediation measures shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the dwellings are first occupied.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 2. In the interests of visual amenity. 3. In the interests of privacy 4. In the interests of privacy. 5. In the interests of privacy 6. In the interests of visual amenity. 7. In the interests of remediating contamination of the site.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, 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: Northamptonshire County Structure Plan - GS5, H3 and H6 Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan - G1, G4, G21, H1, H2, H12 Supplementary Planning Guidance - Parking, Planning Out Crime and Building Better Places Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Guidance 3; Housing Planning Policy Statement 23; Planning and Pollution Control. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing number received on the date shown: Drawings received on: 18th May 2005 3. 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 Area Maintenance Engineer, Northamptonshire County Council - Atkins, Highways Depot, Harborough Road, Brixworth, Northamptonshire, NN6 9BX, tel. (01603) 883400 prior to any construction/excavation works within the public highway. 6

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 21st June 2005 at 10.50 a.m.)

Regulatory Committee 22/06/2005

Report of the Director of Environment and Economy

APPLICATION REF: WP/2005/0326/F

PROPOSAL: Proposed erection of equestrian/storage building with retrospective hardstanding area.

LOCATION: HM Land Registry Title No. NN127678, Land at Aggate Way, Earls Barton, Northampton.

APPLICANT: Mr T Pinney.

A site viewing has been requested by the local Councillor because the proposal relates to a breach of planning control in that the hard standing is being applied for retrospectively.

PROPOSAL: (As above). The site is set in a slight dip in relatively low lying open countryside to the west of Aggate Way beyond the village of Earl’s Barton. The field is well screened by surrounding tree belts to the north, west and south. There is a fairly new gate and boundary fencing at the access from the highway. The latter serves a gravel surfaced track/roadway that extends alongside the northern boundary of the site and the field to the east. The field is partitioned by ranch style fencing with gates. At present, close to where the stable/storage building is proposed, there are two caravans and several temporary type stable/field shelter structures. The proposed building is 14m square with a low pitched roof and it is to be placed in the south-east corner of the site. The bottom half is to be fair faced block work with the upper proportion to be of green coloured metal cladding and the roof to be of the same material. Inside it is to comprise two stables, a haystore and tackroom with a storage area of 196 square metres. The hardstanding area to the north of the site of the proposed building has already been provided and retrospective planning permission is now sought for this.

PLANNING HISTORY: WP/92/010 Change of use from agricultural land to use for horse grazing and stabling and livery (some commercial livery) – refused. WP/92/241 Change of use from agriculture to use for horse grazing and stabling -approved. WP/2001/0573 Change of use from agriculture to use for horse grazing and stabling - approved.

V 6

4 V

V 28 Water

V 0

VVV V 28a

Water V V V 29

94.8m BoroughP CouncilVV Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 08/06/2005 26

13 V D 1 Water

842 843 844 845 846 847 848 8800 B 4 W

V 6

5 WAY Water BM 94.40m 7 EST

3 3 W

0001 2 3900 2

4 8800 4

0001 2700 B

3 264000 264000 9

2 1

2 7

H 3

A D R

Water 8

1 R

L O A W P N E I Foot Bridge C

6 4

D 1

3 0

639 639 3

1 1

1 D 8 LB 2 A 4 O 3 R

2 N 2 O T P M 2 A H T R

O 1

N 4 1

D A Orchard O

R 1 House D S

E P D L Campbell

Square q

l 4

Water P b

C 2

638 638 20 28 32 24 The Boot 36 90.5m (PH) W B 573 Earls Barton Earls B 573 TREET

WEST S

3 1

m 3 1

9.24 a

8 3 BM 3

3 5

3 9

4 7 4 3 3 7 2 Slope 9

El Sub Sta 31 1

5 P A

1 8 R a K 10

2 2 1 4

0070 L PARK LAN O E S 1

A 3 R

85.0m K

2 1

S 2

0070 637 637 1

E 3

E 6

T Slope 5

1 23

1 1

7 7

Y A 18

W 31 E 1

T 6

1 1 2

4 A 7

Water G 9 V G 2 80.2m A 2 Path (Vum) Slope Foot Bridge V V 24

3 4

ta S 14

D V 2

b 0 u

V Water S 9 15 21 23 l 9 5

E 6

2 V 3459 V LON DON

V END

3 4

E 3 636 ID 636 2 S 7

V Posts NNY

SU 6

LO W 2

Slope 1 N V 1

D P 1 D 9 O

Farm EN N

7 D 2

V 7 1 Cottage

V 0 1 1

Slope BM 76.10m

V V V

635 635 Water 5948

0044

Water Y 6842 V 4940 El Sub Sta 634 634 64.3m VWater

Water

5133

633 V V 633 V WaterPond

V 60.0m

V D 632 VVV 632

Water

631 631

57.0m

0004

3 V 7 0006 5

0004

004 0004 630 4100 7800 630 0006

3 V 7

V B

V Pond

Water Y

D 55.2m 629 629

A Water D

a V r

T T

r a

262800 V 262800 V 484100 484900 076 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 0076 53.3m Pens

V Scale 1:5000 DP

Pond Water D 7

PLANNING POLICY: Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan – G1, G6 and G22. County Structure Plan – GS2, GS5 and RE3. PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

CONSULTATIONS: 1. Ecton Planning Committee – no objection.

2. County Highway Authority – the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document ‘Minor Planning Applications that have an effect on the highway’ be applied to this application.

3. Central Networks – have no objection to the application but as there is apparatus of this company adjacent to the site, notes of guidance are supplied to be forwarded to the applicants who should also be made aware of their responsibilities in respect of Health and Safety.

ASSESSMENT: The main issues that need to be considered in the determination of this application are:

(i) Policy considerations (ii) Visual impact (iii) Highway safety

(i) PPS 7 states that horse riding and other equestrian activities are popular forms of recreation in the countryside that can fit in well with farming activities and help diversify rural economies. The Local Plan, by virtue of Policy G6, allows for development in the open countryside provided it cannot be accommodated elsewhere, it involves a limited number of buildings and these are of small scale, buildings are sited to minimise impact and are screened by landscaping. Planning permission has already been granted for the use of this land for horse grazing and stabling (WP/2001/0573/F). The current proposal relates to a larger building and hardstanding.

(ii) With the imposition of a landscaping condition and compliance with the same there will be no adverse impact from this proposal given the nature of the surrounding landscape.

(iii) There is not considered to be any road safety issue arising from this proposal and there is no objection from the County Highway Authority.

There are no valid reasons or material planning considerations why planning permission should not be granted to this scheme subject to the conditions set out.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. In the interests of visual amenity.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 22 June 2005

Report of Director of Environment and Economy

APPLICATION REF: WP/2004/0730/F

PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE CARRIAGEWAY ROAD FROM THE EASTERN END OF MIDLAND ROAD (B572) ACROSS THE RAILWAY AND RIVER ISE. THE ROAD WILL EVENTUALLY SERVE AS A PRIMARY ACCESS ROUTE TO THE PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EAST OF WELLINGBOROUGH.

LOCATION: MIDLAND ROAD BRIDGE, MIDLAND ROAD, WELLINGBOROUGH

APPLICANT: BOVIS HOMES LIMITED

1. Description of Site and Surrounding Area

The application site is located on the eastern edge of Wellingborough in Northamptonshire, encompasses an area of approximately 3.5 ha (8.6 acres) and comprises a mixture of brownfield and greenfield land. The application site falls within the Strategic Development Area (SDA) allocated in the Northamptonshire Structure Plan and the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, with the majority of the site also within the lowland floodplain of the Ise Valley. Wellingborough Town Centre lies to the west of the application site.

The site is principally bounded by arable and pastoral land, with some industrial and commercial development to the north and south of the site. Wellingborough Railway Station lies on the western part of the site, with other residential, commercial and industrial development also in close proximity – including Higgins Yard (a former builders yard on Midland Road) and part of Midland Road (including the Elsden Road and Senwick Road junctions) and part of the River Ise. Other properties adjacent to the application site include South Hill Farm, Irthlingborough Garage, approximately 500 metres to the east of the site, and an Anglian Water Pumping Station to the south east corner of the site.

The development crosses the River Ise and its floodplain just to the north of the existing mainline railway station and lies to the north of the confluence of the Rivers Ise and Nene.

The application site is surrounded by a number of villages, including Finedon to the north, Irthlingborough to the north east, Rushden to the east, Irchester to the south, and Great Harrowden, Little Harrowden to the north west and Wellingborough to the west.

There are no other significant on-site land uses within the application area.

2. Planning History

WP/2004/0600/O Mixed use development including 87 Ha of residential development: B1, B2 and B8 development, new public transport links (buses), new and enhanced walking and cycling routes and facilities, country park, neighbourhood centre, 2 secondary local centres, construction of access roads, bridges and highway structures, footways, footpaths, bridleways and associated works and facilities.

WP/2004/0730/F Amended planning proposals submitted by the applicant on 18 May 2005 addressing comments from various statutory and non- statutory bodies as well as third party representations. Revisions include amendments to the detailed highway and river works design.

3. Description of the Scheme

This full planning application, registered by the Council in October 2004 (and amended in May 2005), forms part of wider strategic proposals for Wellingborough East and comprises an extension to the eastern end of Midland Road by running past Wellingborough Railway Station, over the railway line and across the River Ise.

The application seeks permission for the following development:

" Construction of a new single carriageway road from the eastern end of Midland Road (B572) across the railway and River Ise. The road will eventually serve as a primary access route to the proposed mixed use development east of Wellingborough."

In detail, the application consists of:

• An extension to Midland Road – approximately 1 km in length – to connect Wellingborough East (including Station Island) to the town and vice versa. The new road will run past Wellingborough Railway Station, over the railway line and across the River Ise • The construction of two new bridges (to enable the road to cross the railway line and River Ise) – designed so as to reflect the deign theme proposed for the station forecourt area • Retaining wall along the western boundary to the Midland Road extension footpath. This varies between 1-3.5m in height • Acoustic screen from the top of the retaining wall or from the existing level further north • Creation of a new embankment crossing the floodplain – incorporating culverts, positioned to accommodate an existing small watercourse to ensure water flow in times of flood, with retaining wall on its western side • Provision of a new junction (on the new section of Midland Road) and the signalisation, with pedestrian crossing facilities, of the Midland Road/Senwick Road junction to accommodate the forecast traffic levels 11

• Creation of a roundabout to the east of the rail bridge enabling crossing into the Station Island development • Provision of a 3 metre wide combined cycle/footway on the south side of the new road and 1.8 metre wide footway on the north side • Connection of existing footpath from Mill Road to the north side of the road and west of the Railway • Creation of a concourse area in front of the Station • Provision of a taxi rank and bus lay-bys for pedestrians using the Station

Proposed mitigation measures, to alleviate the potential adverse impact of the development proposals, include:

• River works to provide flood compensation – including the realignment of the River Ise, the provision of a two stage channel, additional flood storage and the use of SUDS • Noise screen in order to protect the ‘Riverside’ property on Mill Road • Re-use of Higgins Yard as a car park to replace existing railway parking provision that will be lost following the construction of the bridge across the railway lines – for which planning permission has now been granted • Habitat creation and enhancement measures – including wet woodland, reedbeds, neutral grassland and new native structure planting across the site • Measures to ensure the preservation/recording of cultural and archaeological assets • The retention of existing landscape features, where possible, and the introduction of new planting and screening to break up the development form • Signalised traffic junctions and better signalised pedestrian crossing facilities to mitigate potential amenity and severance problems caused by the extra traffic • Restricted hours of operation (using quieter machinery and temporary screening) for the construction works and other noise and dust control measures and • Extensive site management.

The proposed mitigation measures identified above are considered in the sections below.

In support of the (amended) application, the following documents have also been submitted:

• Planning application forms and notices • Plans and drawings showing the site’s location, proposed layout and river improvement works • Environmental Statement and supplementary statement of further information • Flood Risk Assessment • Alternative route assessment • Transport Assessment and Executive Summary • Midland Road Extension – design summary for Access Route 4 • Travel Plan • Cycling strategy • Revised bus strategy 12

• Walking strategy • Access strategy and traffic forecasts • Midland Road micro-simulation model • Midland Road Extension – Stage 1 road safety audit and response and exception report • Other Highway drawings

The Midland Road proposals (known as ‘Route 4’) provide for a central ‘Midland Road’ access which will act as the principal ‘community link’ to the development from the town and vice versa. The scheme will provide access to area of land located between the Railway and River Ise floodplain – known as Station Island – and eventually to the wider development proposals at WEAST.

Route 4 involves the construction of a new single carriageway road from the eastern end of Midland Road (B572), past the Station, over the railway and into Wellingborough East. Access would be provided to the station car parks, bus stops would be provided, and a taxi rank created.

In front of the Station there will be a concourse area which would be constructed to indicate an area of joint pedestrian and vehicle movement. Immediately to the north of the concourse the road will rise up on a new embankment before turning east, and crossing the site of the existing northern Station car park, before crossing the railway over a new bridge. This would be located south of the existing Mill Road Bridge and north of the station platforms. The road would then connect to a roundabout junction which will provide access to the ‘island’ of land bounded by the railway and River Ise floodplain (Station Island).

The route continues eastwards towards the centre of the site crossing the floodplain on a bridge over the River Ise and an embankment incorporating culverts to ensure water flow in times of flood. The final section of the route continues on embankment until the carriageway reaches existing ground level where it would continue on to the proposed Neighbourhood Centre in the heart of the development at WEAST. Its alignment here passes through the pumping station’s cordon sanitaire.

The route comprises a 7.3m carriageway with a 1.8m footway on the northern side and a 3.0m cycle/footway along the southern side. The route has been designed with a design speed of 30mph. As part of the works for Route 4 the junction between Senwick, Elsden and Midland Roads would be signalised. A new signalised junction would also be constructed at the inter-section of Midland Road, the southern station car park and the Royal Mail sorting office.

An extension to the current network of pedestrian and cycling facilities is also proposed in association with improvements to the existing section of Midland Road. The application proposes the integration of the proposals with existing public rights of way and junction improvements to accommodate pedestrian and cyclist crossing movements.

A Transport Assessment (TA) describes and assesses the development proposals. The application is also accompanied by Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which identifies and assesses the potential effects of the proposed access road on 13 the environment, and a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which reviews the impact of the proposed development in relation to flooding issues and surface water drainage within the catchment of the Rivers Ise and Nene. In May 2005 a revised application package including a TA, FRA and a Supplementary Statement of Further Information to the Environmental Statement was submitted to the Borough Council.

4. Background to the Application

4.1 Scheme Evolution

Due to the strategic significance of the area to the Borough, the Council set up a dedicated WEAST project team. During 2001, the team established a process of working with local stakeholders, and community groups to debate and agree upon the core guiding principles for developing the site and a series of public consultation initiatives were undertaken. Between September 2001 and April 2002, the Council also commissioned five technical studies to inform the preparation of the Wellingborough East Development Framework:

• Wellingborough East Development Initial Flood Risk Assessment (prepared by Halcrow) • Transportation Study (prepared by Jacobs Consultancy) • Energy/Waste Feasibility Study (prepared by UCN/De Montfort) • Town Park Study (prepared by Hankinson Duckett) • Skills Study – Labour Market Information (Matters of Fact, 2002)

In November 2001 an Enquiry by Design (EbD) event was held which resulted in a series of sketch plans for WEAST based on two central principles:

• To create a place fully integrated with the existing town; and • To develop an overall strategic approach to masterplanning (to avoid uncoordinated piecemeal decisions).

The EbD event was followed in March 2002 by a day-long ‘Technical Planning Event’ which developed in more detail proposals aimed at designing-in health, education, community development and crime reduction considerations. A further consultation event, in September 2002, was also organised by Bovis (by then appointed as the preferred principal developer) followed by a public exhibition in the Swansgate Centre in December 2002. During the course of 2003, the Council held focused workshops to inform the preparation of the Development Framework Supplementary planning Guidance (SPG) and other detailed SPGs for the Neighbourhood Centre, Station Island. These SPGs have now been adopted. A draft East of Eastfield Road Development Brief has also been consulted upon and is currently being amended for re-consultation.

A summary of the key consultation dates is noted below:

• June 2000 - Questionnaire asking people what the focus of the development should be. Issues of crime and violence, education provision, health provision, public transport, congestion and the vitality of the town centre were raised. 14

• May/June 2001 - Workshops with landowners and stakeholders to inform and gain feedback on what the key issues for the development were. • October/November 2001 - Local people were updated at 12 information sessions; key issues to address in Wellingborough East were identified. • November 2001 - A 3 day 'Technical Planning Event' with stakeholders, experts and local representatives attending to identify key issues and create and illustrative plan for Wellingborough East. • March 2002 - A second 'Technical Planning Event' to look at some issues such as education, crime, health, community development, the Town Park and access to East of Eastfield Road in more detail. • September 2002 - An event held jointly by the Borough Council and Forum for the Future to explore the potential to deliver sustainable development through new urban extensions, with a presentation from Jonathan Porritt. • April 2003 - Station Interchange Technical Event - experts attended a workshop to identify key issues with developing the Station Interchange area on Midland Road. • July 2003 - Neighbourhood Centre Workshop - to identify the issues within the Neighbourhood Centre and the community facilities required. • July/August 2003 - East of Eastfield Road Open Evening and Enquiry by Design Event - Open Evening to provide residents and allotment holders with further information and gather their views on development. The Enquiry by Design Event gathered stakeholders, experts and local people together to draw up illustrative plans for East of Eastfield Road. • January 2004 - Development Brief Consultation Public Event - an informal exhibition and opportunity for people to ask questions and a presentation of the three Development Briefs during the consultation period.

Subsequently, in August 2004, an outline planning permission was submitted, to the Council, by Bovis Homes Ltd and other Applicants (including William Davis Ltd, Hallam Land Management and the Wellingborough East Landowners Group). The planning application is for outline planning permission with full details submitted for means of access and all other matters reserved for subsequent approval. The application site comprises 460ha of a mixture of previously developed and previously undeveloped land located on the eastern fringe of Wellingborough in Northamptonshire. It forms the main part of a Strategic Development Area (SDA) allocated in the Development Plan for the site. The outline planning application seeks permission to develop the site as a mixed-use urban extension to Wellingborough town and includes detailed proposals for the required infrastructure works. This application has yet to be determined.

4.2 The Wellingborough East Development Framework SPG (adopted November 2003)

In response to the high level of development pressure to the east of Wellingborough and the identification of the area as a sustainable urban extension area, the Borough Council commissioned the preparation of a development framework for Wellingborough East. The Framework was prepared in consultation with key stakeholders including local authority staff and members, community organisations, landowners, business groups and other statutory agencies.

It is expected that the Framework will be used to coordinate the more detailed Masterplans and the Development Briefs for specific areas and has been prepared as a strategic planning tool to help manage change in Wellingborough and to assist in the assessment of planning applications in the area. In particular the document seeks to establish a framework for considering the cumulative impact of development and sets out a number of key urban design principles for the area and the principles for delivery and implementation.

In summary, the Framework seeks to:

• describe and illustrate how planning and design policies and principles set out in the Wellingborough Local Plan and other supplementary documents should be implemented • reflect the views and values of the local people and stakeholders involved in the process to date and provide a positive basis for furthering the constructive dialogue • articulate and illustrate the vision for taking WEAST forward as an exemplary sustainable urban extension • establish clear urban design principles to ensure that the development achieves the highest possible standards and • explain the next steps that are anticipated in the planning and design of the site.

4.3 Wellingborough East Station Island Development Brief SPG (adopted June 2004)

Policy U17 of the Local Plan commits the Borough Council to prepare Development Briefs for key areas such as Station Island. The Wellingborough East Station Island Development Brief has been prepared to achieve the high design standards expected and to provide the clarity needed for public sector partners and prospective developers alike to implement proposals.

4.4 Pre-Application

Prior to Bovis submitting the main application for WEAST in August 2004, the applicant sought the Council’s opinion on whether it was proper to submit a further detailed application for the Midland Road scheme prior to the determination of the WEAST application and whether a ‘stand alone’ Environmental Statement would be required for the scheme.

The Council responded that a ‘screening opinion’ on the proposed scheme would need to be adopted and that in the event that a full EIA was not required then sufficient information would need to accompany an application in respect of flooding issues, heritage and historic context of the Station and listed buildings, traffic impacts, noise and air quality. Subsequently, the applicant requested a screening opinion in respect of a potential EIA relating to a detailed application for the extension of Midland Road, east across the Midland Mainline and River Ise.

In August 2004, the Council indicated that it considered the proposed scheme to be a Schedule 2 development and had the potential to have significant effects on the environment – an EIA was therefore requested. As a result, in October 2004, Bovis 16 submitted a detailed application for the above scheme together with an EIA, Transport Assessment and other supporting documentation.

5. CONSULTATIONS

1. East Midlands Development Agency - The road proposal is integral to the development as it will provide a central link to the neighbourhood centre and connect the new development to the railway station and to Wellingborough Town Centre. The Urban extension at Wellingborough will also make a significant contribution to the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan and is in accordance with the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Study Sub Regional Study. EMDA recommends the approval of the application as not only is transport provision hugely important to attract and retain investment but the proposal incorporates the provision of high quality connections to the strategic road network.

2. Environment Agency – Subject to safeguarding conditions, the Environment Agency has no objections to the application. Comments on the applicant’s flood risk assessment are set out in the Appraisal section of this report.

3. Anglian Water – No objection or comment on the proposals

4. CABE – No comment

5. Central Networks – No objection

6. Health and Safety Executive – No objection

7. English Nature – Advises that it objects to the application on the grounds of the potential adverse impact on the proposed Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) as a result of the WEAST development.

8. Transco – No objection.

9. Midland Mainline – Prior concerns regarding the original submission have now been addressed. No objection to the application.

10. The Wildlife Trust – Object to the application as the application does not recognise the importance of the Nene and Ise Valleys for wildlife and that the proposed impact on biodiversity is not adequately mitigated against. No further comment has been received on the amended application.

11. Borough’s Environmental Protection Section – No objection, subject to safeguarding conditions.

12. Borough’s Economic Development – Supports the constriction of the scheme as it provides a high level of economic potential bringing wider benefits within the main Wellingborough East Development creating access to employment areas within the development providing the opportunity for Wellingborough to create a substantial number of new jobs. 17

13. Irchester Parish / Wollaston Parish / Ecton Parish / Mears Ashby Parish Council – No objection

14. Wellingborough Chamber of Commerce - The proposals are not sited at an optimum location as the bridge should be sited to continue the existing line of Midland Road

15. Northamptonshire County Council (Highways Authority) – Concerns regarding junction and highway designs around the Midland Road/Senwick Road/Eastfield Road junction at 2016 and proposed mitigation measures

16. Northamptonshire County Council – NCC would be happy to take on the Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) relating to the Highways but not all the SUDs. Although additional information and a management statement are provided on landscape and ecological issues, the supplementary statement does not include the sufficient additional information we advised should be provided on these matters. If a decision on the application to construct the Midland Road Bridge is required at this time then we would wish to work with Borough Council of Wellingborough on design and management proposals for the associated mitigation landscaping works and the Country Park to assess the biodiversity and landscape impact of the approved scheme.

17. Irthlingborough Town Council – Have advised that existing roads need to be upgraded where they meet with new roads; signs denoting weight restrictions and signs diverting lorries away from the centre of Irthlingborough will be necessary; Broadholme sewage works may not being big enough to cope with the expansion of needs; and that a survey is requested to be carried out to assess the environmental and economic impact on Irthlingborough. No further comment has been received regarding the amended application.

18. Mears Ashby Parish Council – No objections

19. Bozeat Parish Council - would like to see improved public transport from the development, the train station and the Midland Road area in general to the Town Centre. No further comment has been received on the amended application.

20. Little Harrowden Parish Council – Would expect a dual carriageway road as the proposal is a primary access route and queries availability of car parking, the impact of the river diversion on development and the potential flooding implications of the development. No further comment has been received on the amended application. Disruption to the railway station slip road is inappropriate and will lead to increased peak-time congestion.

21. Wellingborough Civic Society – Concerns regarding; the use of Irthlingborough Road as an access route between the development and the southern part of the Town Centre, the adverse impact on the Senwick Road/Irthlingborough Road junction, the adverse impacts of additional noise and fumes arising and the loss of parking for station users. 18

22. The Ramblers Association – objects to the application on the grounds of a lack of information on the effects on rights of way and the Ise Valley. No further comment has been received on the amended application.

23. Castle Residents Association – concern regarding traffic levels and associated air and noise pollution.

Local Consultation

Approximately 3,000 public consultation letters and comment forms were hand- delivered to residents and businesses in the local area for both the original and the revised application on 20th October 2004 and 19 May 2005 respectively. Both applications were advertised in the press and site notices posted.

A total of 31 statutory responses and 72 third party letters were received for the original application and 23 statutory responses and 48 third party letters on the amended application. Although some expressed support for the principle of the scheme, the following is a summary of concerns expressed:

Traffic and Transport • The existing Midland Road cannot accommodate the projected levels of traffic • Road scheme will increase cars taking short cuts • Slip road from Elsden Road into Midland Road should be signalised – Elsden road should be one-way only and heavy goods vehicles banned. • Slip roads should be provided off the Midland Road extension to allow access to Senwick Road and the Town Centre etc • Significant increases in traffic flows will lead to adverse impacts on residential amenity and existing noise and air pollution conditions as well as adversely affecting pedestrian safety in crossing roads • Object to the proposed 71% increase in vehicular traffic • A summary of the alternative road routing/alignment solutions (Ring Roads / Relief Roads, access via Irthlingborough Road, access via Castle Street/Castle Road etc) that were considered prior to selecting the proposed route should be provided • Mitigation proposals to ameliorate the increases in traffic elsewhere on the highway network should be set out • Insufficient consideration is given to further traffic that will be generated on the B571 and Sidegate Lane • Junction arrangements at Elsden/Midland/Senwick Road are unacceptable – an alternative route should be found for Station Island and the area around Midland Road • Traffic lights and pedestrian crossings are essential at Elsden/Midland/Senwick Road junction • Existing speed of traffic needs to be addressed and road access for WEAST via the bridge will make Midland Road even more dangerous • Encouraging further traffic onto existing junctions (Elsden/Midland/Senwick Road) that are already busy will only acerbate current problems – existing roads and junctions are already grid-locked at peak times of the day 19

• Existing traffic calming is ineffective • The construction of a new single carriageway road is insufficient for the large increases in forecast traffic levels • Access to Chester Road needs to be addressed • A proper Eastern Relief Road should be constructed • Proposals to widen Senwick Road will lead to loss of residents’ car parking • Junction with Senwick Drive needs a mini roundabout • Residential roads should be made ‘Residents Only Parking’ (such as Dryden Road, Senwick Road, Mill Road etc) • Increasing traffic along Elsden Road/Eastwood Road must be avoided • The proposals are the ‘least bad’ of all options • The applicant should be obligated to provide the Eastern Relief Road and at the earliest opportunity • Midland Road Bridge extension should be restricted to buses, taxis and cyclists and peak times • A weight restriction on lorries should be imposed to stop heavy vehicles taking Elsden Road/Senwick Road and Midland Road • Elsden Road needs traffic humps to calm traffic and avoid rat runs • More pedestrian crossings should be incorporated into the proposals • Lack of existing car parking for residents • A number of road improvements to other roads (including Elsden Road/Senwick Road and Midland Road) are necessary in conjunction with the Midland Road extension proposals in order to address existing traffic problems • Levels of traffic along Mill Road east needs to be addressed – suggest that a road be branched off for lorries accessing Mill Road industry. Proposed pedestrian and cycle routes are at odds with a heavily trafficked road. Traffic calming measures should also be identified and roads have a weight limit • Permanent proposals for displaced car parking should be included (rather than the temporary solution at Higgins’ Builders Yard) • Proposals for bus services should be clarified • Traffic should not be prohibited from turning right from Midland Road into Senwick Road • The proposed ramp leading to the bridge will adversely affect the rear gardens of properties in Talbot Road and residential amenity (noise/light/pollution/privacy etc) • A new road should be built from Finedon Road and taken away from the Midland Road area • Constriction traffic should not be via Irthlingborough Road • Traffic lights will need to be introduced at the staggered junction • Junction of Irthlingborough Road and Senwick requires management immediately

Environmental • Proposals will exacerbate current problems with noise and pollution in the local area • The creation of significant amounts of waste during the construction period will e problematic • Existing wildlife and landscaping will be lost 20

• The rear of houses in Elsden Road/Midland Road/Senwick Road will suffer from traffic pollution • The impact of the proposals on Riverside and its owners needs to be assessed and appropriate mitigation identified • The proposal adversely impact upon properties at Riverside • Reduced quality of life for residents in Castle Street as a result of increasing volumes of traffic being routed via Castle Street • Town Centre traffic circulation will be significantly affected • The Midland Road / Victoria Road junction needs to be assessed in the Transport Assessment • Significant levels of additional traffic will adversely affect the amenity value of the proposed Ise Valley Country Park • Provision of lighted covered shelters is required for buses • Will the 22 houses in Midland Road/Elsden Road/Senwick Road be offered alternative parking and noise reduction double glazing? • Houses in Eastfield Road will be affected by further traffic

Land Use • Development at WEAST is unnecessary • Creating the Midland Road extension imposes upon the car parking at the station • The road should proceed directly east to continue Midland Road over the railway and not bend round the station • Approve of the proposed natural open space to the east of the station • The station will be dominated by the bridge

Landscaping • Loss of open space and countryside • Significant landscaping should be incorporated for both screening and wildlife purposes • Proposals will be visually intrusive • Visual effect of traffic over the bridge needs to be screened for the houses on Elsden Road • Views to the open fields and Irchester Country Park will be blanked out by the new buildings • Will pedestrian islands only be provided in 2016?

Station Island • Station Island forecourt should be enlarged to enable bus turnarounds

General • Piecemeal approach to planning application submission is unacceptable – especially whilst traffic routing on the main WEAST application is being discussed • Application is premature prior to determination of the WEAST application • Primary route for traffic has to be elsewhere • Elsden and Senwick Road should not be altered • Application is premature in the context of the outline application

Officers are satisfied that the relevant planning considerations have been assessed and addressed through the negotiation on the planning application and safeguarding conditions, in particular those issues relating to the impact on air quality, noise assessment, flood risk assessment, landscape protection, habitat loss and visual amenity. Furthermore, the scheme will bring substantial improvements to the strategic road network as well as investment and economic growth to the area upon its connection to WEAST. It is therefore considered that these benefits outweigh the planning concerns listed above.

6. Appraisal/Material Planning Consideration

The appraisal is divided into the following areas:

• Policy • Principle of the development • Environmental Impact Assessment • Flood Risk Assessment • Design • Transport and Movement • Air and Noise quality • Conclusions

6.1 Material Planning Considerations

6.1.1 The Development Plan

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (which was brought into force from 28 September 2004) states that if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for Wellingborough at the local level is the 1999 Adopted Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and Local Plan Alteration, adopted in March 2004.

6.1.2 National Planning Policy

The most relevant national policy documents are PPS1 (Creating Sustainable Communities), PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas), PPG9 (Nature Conservation), PPG13 (Transport), PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment), PPG16 (Archaeology), PPG24 (Planning and Noise) and PPG25 (Development and Flood Risk). Relevant national, regional (RSS8) and local planning policy are summarised below.

6.1.3 Planning Policy Statement 1 – Creating Sustainable Communities (2005)

PPS1 replaces PPG1 and forms part of the Government’s Planning Green Paper, ‘Planning – delivering a fundamental change’, published in December 2001.

PPS1 sets out the Government’s vision for planning, and the key policies and principles, which should underpin the planning system. These are built around three themes: sustainable development – the purpose of the planning system; the spatial planning approach; and community involvement in planning.

PPS1 sets out the overarching planning policies for the delivery of sustainable development through planning. PPS 1 emphasises the need for local authorities to integrate the various elements of sustainable development and to seek to achieve outcomes which enable social, environmental and economic objectives to be achieved together. LPAs should:

• promote efficient use of land through higher densities and re-use of land and buildings; • encourage high quality inclusive design over the lifetime of the development; • emphasise the need to integrate the various elements of sustainable development; and • seek to manage patterns of development to reduce the use of the private car and make full use of public transport.

Increasing levels of community involvement are expected and partnership with local communities is seen as a key element in sustainable development: “Local communities should be given the opportunity to participate fully in the process for drawing up specific plans or policies and to be consulted on proposals for development. Local authorities, through their community strategies and local development documents, and town and parish councils, through parish plans, should play a key role in developing full and active community involvement in their areas.” (para. 41)

6.1.4 Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable development in rural areas

PPS7 sets out the Government’s broad policy objectives relevant to rural areas in England and its planning policies that will help deliver these objectives. These policies are firmly based on the principles of sustainable development and the need to protect the wider, largely undeveloped countryside for the benefit of all.

6.1.5 Planning Policy Guidance 9: Nature Conservation (1994)

Nature conservation is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. PPG9 gives guidance on the principles and policies that apply to the integration of nature conservation priorities and land use planning, and the need to take into account of nature conservation interests wherever relevant to local decisions.

The most significant habitats in the proposed WEAST site are understood to be the Ise and Nene Valleys. One Site of Nature Conservation Value is identified in the November 2003 SPG (section 3.9), prepared for the area on behalf of Wellingborough BC.

The Site of Nature Conservation Value is identified as an area of ‘woodland and lake’ (Local Plan Amendment 2004, paragraph A9.63). It is located to the west of the railway, on the site also known as ‘land east of Eastfield Road’, and is surrounded by an industrial estate and allotments. It was identified in association with the Wildlife Trust for Northamptonshire, but is not a statutorily designated site and therefore is not subject to the same level of protection as a SSSI, SAC or SPA under PPG9.

6.1.6 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (2001)

PPG13 outlines the Government’s aim of achieving reduced car dependency via transport and planning policies that are integrated at the national, strategic and local level. PPG13 includes provision of transport infrastructure, including mitigating the impact of new road schemes. Para 15.6 states that new routes should make the best use of existing landscape contours and features and reduce noise and visual effects. They should be designed to minimise the impact on best and most versatile agricultural land and avoid farm severance and disruption to field drainage systems. In the construction of new roads, emphasis is placed on implementation of traffic management measures and the promotion of integration of other modes of transport thus encouraging sustainable transport options.

PPG13 states that “new development should help to create places that connect with each other sustainably, providing the right conditions to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport. People should come before traffic.” (paragraph 28).

PPG13 also requires local authorities, when assessing planning applications, to intensify housing and other uses at locations that are highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling (paragraph 16).

6.1.7 Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) and Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology (1990)

PPG15 sets out the Government’s policy for the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas and other elements of the historic environment, and the implications for development proposals. PPG16 provides guidance on the preservation and record of archaeological remains and the implications on development proposals.

However, PPG15 and PPG16 are likely to be of minimal significance in the determination of this application, as the site is of low historic interest. It does not contain or form part of a conservation area. The only listed buildings are the railway station and associated goods shed. There are no scheduled ancient monuments within the proposed site and its archaeological interest is considered to be “low in national terms” (Wellingborough East Masterplan, page 17).

6.1.8 Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning and Pollution Control (2004)

PPS23 replaces the remaining extant parts of Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 23 Planning and Pollution Control published in 1994. PPS23 advises that: • any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from or may affect any land use; • the planning system plays a key role in determining the location of development which may give rise to pollution, either directly or indirectly, and in ensuring that other uses and developments are not, as far as possible, affected by major existing or potential sources of pollution; • the controls under the planning and pollution control regimes should complement rather than duplicate each other; • the presence of contamination in land can present risks to human health and the environment, which adversely affect or restrict the beneficial use of land but development presents an opportunity to deal with these risks successfully; • contamination is not restricted to land with previous industrial uses, it can occur on greenfield as well as previously developed land and it can arise from natural sources as well as from human activities; • where pollution issues are likely to arise, intending developers should hold informal pre-application discussions with the LPA, the relevant pollution control authority and/or the environmental health departments of local authorities (LAs), and other authorities and stakeholders with a legitimate interest; and • where it will save time and money, consideration should be given to submitting applications for planning permission and pollution control permits in parallel and co-ordinating their consideration by the relevant authorities.

6.1.9 PPG24: Planning and Noise (1994)

PPG24 sets out guidance on the assessment of the implications of new development for noise and air quality levels and :

• outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which will generate noise; • introduces the concept of noise exposure categories for residential development, encourages their use and recommends appropriate levels for exposure to different sources of noise; and • advises on the use of conditions to minimise the impact of noise.

6.1.10 PPG25: Development and Flood Risk (2001)

PPG25 provides guidance on how flood risk should be considered at all stages of the planning and development process in order to reduce future damage to property and the loss of life. The guidance states that:

• The susceptibility of land to flooding is a material planning consideration 25

• The Environment Agency has the lead role in providing advice on flood issues, at a strategic level and in relation to planning applications • Planning Authorities should apply the precautionary principle to the issue of flood risk, using a risk-based search sequence to avoid such risk where possible and managing it elsewhere • Planning Authorities should recognise the importance of functional flood plains, where water flows or is held at times of flood, and avoid inappropriate development on undeveloped land and undefended flood plains • The level of detail of the Flood Risk Assessment will vary depending upon the site and potential flood risk.

Planning policies and decisions should recognise that the consideration of flood risk and its management needs to be applied on a whole-catchment basis and not be restricted to flood plains.

6.1.11 The Sustainable Communities Plan (2003)

The “Sustainable Communities Plan” issued by the ODPM in February 2003 aims to provide for major development in four new growth areas in the ‘Greater South-East.’ One of these is Milton Keynes-South Midlands – within which Corby / Kettering / Wellingborough is identified as a key growth node. The intention of the Sustainable Communities Plan is to bring together the best of design and planning to ensure that the built environment in new and expanded communities is of a high standard and the surrounding countryside is protected and enhanced. Wellingborough East is referred to as a good practice case study of partnership working in action.

6.1.12 RSS8 (Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands)

Following the enactment of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) became part of the statutory development plan and has been re-named as a Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS).

The former RPG8 was issued by the Secretary of State in January 2002, but certain parts of it were recommended for early review. Consequently, a revised draft of RPG8 was published by the Government Office for the East Midlands in April 2003. This was subject to an Examination in Public in November 2003; the Panel Report was published in March 2004 and the Schedule of Proposed Changes was published in July 2004.

RPG8 (published on 17 March 2005) has become RSS8 and is an important material consideration. The purpose of the document is to provide a clear, agreed, long-term spatial vision for the region up to 2021 and also includes the policies and proposals for Northamptonshire included in the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub- Regional Strategy. The Regional Spatial Strategy includes:

• An annual average regional housing provision of 15,925 houses • Detailed policies for Northamptonshire which allow for the increased growth envisaged in the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy • New policies to promote sustainable economic growth consistent with the region's economic strategy and 26

• A new appendix indicating how policies are to be implemented and measured.

The RSS sets out a number of specific policies for Wellingborough (identified as one of the three growth towns in the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy (MKSM SRS)) including the location of significant levels of new development. This means that in line with the principles of sustainable communities set out in the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan (ODPM, February 2003), increased levels of new development will be planned providing new houses, new infrastructure, new facilities and essential services, and new employment opportunities. At Wellingborough the emphasis will be on managing growth and job creation in a sustainable way that realises their potential. It is expected that Wellingborough will accommodate 12,800 over the plan period of 2001—2021.

RSS8 lists a number of schemes for existing and potential future priorities to meet the needs of Northamptonshire both in terms of meeting the growth needs and within the wider context of promoting sustainable transport options. The Midland Road Bridge is identified as a key transport infrastructure project to be delivered 2002- 2006. Similar support for the project is also identified in the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Study.

The Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy is a co-ordinated review of policy for the Milton Keynes & South Midlands Sub-Region. The Sub- Regional Strategy forms part of the regional policy basis for the preparation of statutory Local Development Documents by the local planning authorities within the sub-region.

Wellingborough is identified as being capable of accommodating growth in a complementary way, while retaining its own separate identity. The emphasis will be on managing growth and job creation in a sustainable way that realises its potential. The existing role of Wellingborough should be strengthened through the continued provision of a diverse range of quality comparison shopping that meets the needs of both the town as a whole and its wider rural hinterland.

The Midland Road Bridge scheme is identified one of a number of schemes that address existing and potential future priorities to meet the needs of Northamptonshire both in terms of meeting the growth needs and within the wider context of promoting sustainable transport options.

6.1.13 Northamptonshire County Structure Plan (March 2001)

The 2001 Northamptonshire County Structure Plan identifies land east of Wellingborough as a Strategic Development Area (SDA) and identifies that the railway station should be developed as a multi-modal interchange. It emphasises the importance of high quality design and sustainable development and the need to plan layout and form to reduce the dependency on the private car. The Plan also promotes the creation of high quality, mixed-use developments which provide a wide range of facilities and services that are well served by public transport.

The Plan’s general strategy for development within Northamptonshire includes the following specific policies: 27

Policy GS2 – emphasises the need to conserve important environmental assets, minimise the impact on natural resources and make best use of brownfield land within urban areas

Policy GS3 – Seeks to conserve important environmental assets

Policy GS5 – Seeks to promote high quality design and sustainable development

Policy GS6 – States that LPAs will use planning conditions, obligations and other powers to secure the necessary infrastructure, facilities and services to support development

The County Council recognises that, due to environmental and physical constraints, additional locations need to be identified outside the urban areas to accommodate some of Northamptonshire’s future growth. The Plan makes provision for five mixed- use Strategic Development Areas (including to East of Wellingborough)

Policy SDA1 – Development within the Strategic Development Area seeks to encourage the provision of a wide range of facilities and services, provide a balanced range of housing and employment, promoted measures to encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport and seeks the provision of large-scale advanced landscaping and conservation of important environmental assets and natural resources

The Structure Plan’s objectives in relation to planning for ‘transport’ include the reduction of the total amount of travel by private car; increasing bus and rail patronage; minimising the impact of transport on the environment and increasing the number of trips made by cycling and walking:

Policy T1 – (In relation to the ‘Eastern Sub-Area’), the Plan includes the promotion of an improved multi-modal interchange at Wellingborough Rail Station; a network of safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle routes and a Wellingborough Eastern Relief Road

Policy T2 – Promotes the development of integrated transport strategies for Sub- Areas of the County

Policy T3 – Promotes the use of the primary road network for long and medium distance road traffic.

Policy T6 – Encourages greater use of buses and encourages the introduction of bus priority measures, improved services and improved bus facilities and infrastructure.

Policy T8 – Indicates measures for the encouragement of walking and cycling

Policy T9 – identifies the requirement for maximum car parking standards and minimum cycle parking standards

The Structure Plan seeks to safeguard and improve Northamptonshire’s environmental assets and natural resources:

Policy AR2 – affords protection to the landscape character of the county. Development proposals should respect the local character and distinctiveness of the landscape

Policy AR3 – affords protection to sites of designated importance for biodiversity and introduces a requirement for developers to demonstrate that, where proposals are likely to affect a County Wildlife Site, there are reasons for the proposal or other considerations which outweigh or overcome the adverse impact.

Policy AR5 – development which will adversely affect landscape features of major importance to wild flora and fauna will be required to include measures to prevent any net loss of biodiversity throughout the county

Policy AR6 - Promotes the protection of nationally important archaeological sites and monuments, the character, appearance and setting of listed buildings and hedgerows protected under the Hedgerow Regulations.

Policy AR8 – Proposals will not be permitted in areas at direct risk of flooding

6.1.14 The Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan 1999 (Including Local Plan Alteration March 2004)

To make sufficient provision for the level of growth set out in the 2001 adopted County Structure Plan, the Borough Council adopted the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan (including local plan alterations) in March 2004. This sets out the housing and employment policies and proposals as they relate to the town of Wellingborough up to 2016. The 2004 Alteration identified a series of sites throughout the town that altogether will lead to 6,500 new homes and 160 hectares of employment land being developed between 1996 and 2016.

Within the Local Plan the following list of policies are considered to be the most pertinent to the application:

Policy G1 – Promotes development that: is of a high standard of design; will not affect the amenities if neighbouring properties; does not have an adverse impact on the road network and would not prejudice highway safety; and is consistent with the principles of sustainability

Policy G2 – Seeks to ensure that development does not lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding and damage natural and built assets. Flood protection and mitigation measures should be provided as appropriate

Policy G9 – Proposals for development will only be granted planning permission if they will not detract from the setting of a listed building

Policy G14 – Proposals for development which would adversely affect the site or setting of archaeological remains of national importance will not be permitted 29

Policy G15 – On sites where there are archaeological remains proposals for development which do not provide for the preservation of remains in situ will normally be refused

Policy G21 – Seeks to protect woodland, trees covered by a tree preservation order or hedgerows

Policy G22 – Promotes the provision of satisfactory landscape necessary to sensitively integrate development into the local environment

Policy G25 – Development should be designed with regard to the provision of suitable infrastructure and physical works, open space, social, recreational, sporting and educational provision

Policy L14 – protects rights of way

Policy T3 – seeks to protect residential areas, the Town Centre and the B573 from high levels of traffic especially of HGVs

Policy T4 – Planning permission for development proposals in the ‘allocated sites’ will be conditional upon the provision of effective routes for buses

Policy T5 – Promotes the incorporation of safe and attractive footpath and cycleway systems into development proposals

Policy T6 – requires the provision of cycle routes and footpaths shown on the Proposals Map

Policy T7 – requires the provision of satisfactory secure cycle parking facilities at public transport interchanges

Policy T9 – Development proposals for new road must: satisfactorily meet highway standards; not be detrimental to the environment; incorporate a satisfactory landscaping scheme and provide for pedestrians, cyclists, the disabled and public transport

Policy T10 – protects off-street parking facilities where the loss would result in adverse impact on the road network or amenity

Policy U14 – Allocates land at WEAST for mixed use development and sets a number of principles upon which proposals should be based, including; safe and convenient access links, reduced dependency on the use of private cars, the prevention of flood risk, the protection of the character of the countryside and a regulated development programme

Policy U17 – Allocates land between Finedon Road and the Railway for mixed-use development

Policy UT1 – provides for the primary road access to Wellingborough East via the A510/A509 in the north and A45 in the south

6.1.15 Supplementary Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents are produced to provide further guidance. A number of supplementary planning guidance documents have been prepared to cover Wellingborough East, Station Island, the Neighbourhood Centre and the East of Eastfield Road Development Brief (currently being amended). These are designed to bridge the gap between the development plan and a planning application and have been prepared by the Council to coordinate the more detailed Masterplans and the Development Briefs for specific areas. The documents:

• describe and illustrate how planning and design policies and principles set out in the Wellingborough Local Plan and other supplementary documents should be implemented • reflect the views and values of the local people and stakeholders involved in the process to date and provide a positive basis for furthering the constructive dialogue • articulate and illustrate the vision for taking WEAST forward as an exemplary sustainable urban extension • establish clear urban design principles to ensure that development achieves the highest possible standards • explain the next steps that are anticipated in the planning and design of the area.

There are also a number of other generic SPG’s which are relevant;

• SPG1 – Trees on Development Sites • SPGVIII – Building Better Places: How to Contribute to Sustainable Development • SPG IX – Guidance on the Use of Planning Obligations

6.1.16 Wellingborough East Development Framework (Adopted November 2003) The Development Framework will be used to coordinate the more detailed Masterplans and the Development Briefs for specific areas. The Development Framework was prepared to ensure Wellingborough East is developed as a series of distinctive ‘places’, rather than ‘estates’. The Framework demonstrates how WEAST can be developed as a natural extension to the existing town and be designed as an exemplar sustainable development. The Framework provides a detailed analysis of the area in terms of its land form, site drainage, access, landscape context etc and provides an urban design framework for development proposals.

The Development Framework states that an extension of Midland Road, providing access to the town centre over the flood plain and across Station Island and the railway tracks via a new bridge traversing the river valley, should be designed to:

• Blend with its surroundings (including a generously landscaped embankment to the eastern side); and 31

• Span the Ise in such a way as to facilitate attractive visual and functional northsouth connections along the proposed Ise Valley Country Park.

The existing Midland Road access to the station will also need to be subject to a range of traffic calming and highway geometry improvements, which is most likely to impact on the Higgins’ builders yard site and current station parking and access areas.

The Framework goes onto indicate that the new bridge should be a major new feature and a striking new landmark feature that is fully integrated with the surrounding area.

Key considerations in the design of the Midland Road Bridge include the need:

• To accommodate all modes of transport – pedestrians, cyclists, buses and other vehicles safely and comfortably; • For an active edge to the bridge with arches / undercroft spaces accommodating appropriate uses close to the railway station; • To avoid north-south segregation of the Station Island site; • To ensure that it does not create a barrier to movement or blight views along the valley, with wide bridge supports designed to enable safe and attractive northsouth pedestrian links alongside the river; • For the north and south facing elevations of the bridge to be attractively designed and mounding adjacent to the bridge structure to be well-planted so that it blends with the surrounding Town Valley Park landscape; • For the treatment of the area where the bridge touches down on the eastern side to be carefully handled so as to minimise cut-and-fill and enable development to line this important route. • For a high quality design that adds value to the station plaza and befits this key access point to the development.

6.1.17 Wellingborough East Station Island Development Brief (Adopted June 2004)

The Station Island Development Area is situated on the extreme eastern edge of Wellingborough and is bounded by the limits of the Ise Valley Flood Plain to the east, by Finedon Road to the north and by the railway tracks to the west. The area has been allocated, in the Wellingborough Local Plan, for mixed use development and as a Public Transport Interchange to facilitate easy access to and transfer between forms of public transport.

The Development Brief indicates that the extension to Midland Road should serve a major strategic role as Wellingborough East’s principal east-west link and open up local access to the Station Island Site. The new link should be achieved via a bridge extending from Midland Road across the Ise Valley north of the railway station, to link with the new Neighbourhood Centre. The Brief also acknowledges that some of the existing car parking spaces around the station will be lost to make way for the construction of the new Midland Road bridge and that there is potential to redevelop Higgins’ Builders Yard as temporary station car park whilst construction is taking place. 32

The Development Brief also sets out a number of matters that should be addressed to ensure the railway bridge design is of high quality:

• Engineering considerations should be fully integrated with landscape and architectural design of adjacent areas; • The parapets and safety barriers on the bridge and along its approach should be sensitively designed to avoid negative visual impact; • Excessive use of safety fences such as ‘double box’ beams should be avoided; and • Attention be paid to the aesthetic quality of the bridge elevations.

6.1.18 Other Considerations A range of additional guidance, with more detailed advice, is also applicable, notably: • By Design: Urban design in the planning system” (DETR and CABE, 2000), a companion guide to PPG1. • “By Design: Better places to live” (DETR and CABE, 2001), a companion guide to PPG3 which advises on best practice in housing design. • “Places, Streets and Movement” (DETR, 1998), a companion guide to Design Bulletin 32 which details how highway design should be integrated into designs for residential and mixed use areas. • “Urban Design Compendium” (English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, 2000), which provides detailed best practice advice on urban design.

6.1.19 Environmental Impact Assessment

This application is of a scale and nature that means it must be assessed in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) England and Wales Regulations 1999. Where EIA is required for an application made in outline, the requirements of the Regulations must be met in full at that stage, since reserved matters applications cannot be subject to EIA.

Following a request by the applicant for a ‘scoping opinion’ from the Council, the following key issues were identified:

• Drainage and Flooding • Heritage • Ecology • Traffic impacts • Construction impact • Noise and • Air quality

Since the submission of an ES with the planning application, the local authority has negotiated a number of revisions to the scheme and requested further information under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations. These changes required the submission of a revised Environmental Statement and Transport Assessment, which 33 was submitted on 18 May 2005. The additional environmental information was advertised in accordance with the Regulations and includes:

• Topographical survey information in relation to highway design • impact on air quality from the proposed levels of traffic figures • modelling methodologies in the calculation of impacts on air quality • details of the methodology, parameters and assumptions made in deriving the data upon which noise assessments are made • cumulative noise effects of the new road and existing traffic, including rail noise • flood risk assessment information • further detailed information on the proposals for landscape protection and enhancement and habitat creation • mitigation measures and evidence in terms of the long term impacts resulting from habitat loss and • visual assessment of the proposals in terms of their potential impact on the Station Area

Following these amendments it is considered that the Environmental Statement complies with the Regulations.

Any representations received on the content and the scope of the Environmental Statement are also considered to be part of the ‘environmental information’ under the Regulations.

6.2 The Principle of the Development

The proposed scheme provides a 1km extension to the eastern end of Midland Road. The scheme includes the construction of two new bridges together with river works to provide flood compensation.

The development of a direct link from WEAST to the existing Town, and links both to the north and south to connect to the strategic road network are essential to ensure appropriate and safe access to and from the proposed development at WEAST. The Midland Road extension is a particularly critical element of the applicant’s access strategy in this context and will also provide an essential link between the existing town and the proposed development.

There is a strong policy context that establishes the development’s access requirements and in turn supports the access strategy contained within the outline application and particularly the Midland Road Extension application. As noted above, the MKSM and RSS8 state in Northamptonshire Policy 4 that new development should be planned to take account of the committed transport investment and further transport provision indicated in Figure 7, which specifically refers to the Midland Road extension and new interchange facilities at the station, to facilitate a modal shift to public transport. It continues to state that high quality public transport services should be provided to connect key centres of housing, employment and service activities.

In conjunction with Northamptonshire Structure Plan Policies and Wellingborough Local Plan policies, the WEAST Development Framework SPG specifically refers to 34 a new access opportunity (para 4.1.9) in relation to the extension of the Midland Road providing access to the Town Centre over the flood plain and across station island and the railway tracks via a new bridge traversing the river valley. In addition para 4.1.13 indicates that the existing Midland Road access to the station will need to be subject to a range of traffic calming and highway geometry improvements. The Station Island SPG also indicates that (para 3.6.4) the Midland Road will serve a major strategic role as Wellingborough East's principal east-west link, and at the same time open up local access to the Station Island site. This new link will be achieved via a bridge that will extend from Midland Road across the Ise Valley north of the railway station, to link with the new Neighbourhood Centre.

An optioneering report has also been submitted setting out the parameters within which the Midland Road extension alignment has been designed as well as the route options which were considered at the inception stages of the design process. The report identifies the range of technical and environmental constraints that informed the route options as well as the precise alignment of the proposed Route 4. The Council agrees that the nature of the built form and the presence of the railway line and River Ise have limited the range of options that could accommodation the new central link. Further, once all of the technical and environmental constraints are considered that the proposed alignment of the extension represents the most feasible option.

Therefore, subject to design and other matters, it is considered that, in principle, the provision of the Midland Road extension complies with national, regional and local planning policy. Furthermore, the scheme will bring substantial benefits in terms of:

• Connection to the trunk road network • Provision of full permeability with all parts of the existing town • Dissipation of the impact of development • Provision of appropriate infrastructure to allow development of public transport system and • Reduction of traffic impact on existing urban area

6.3 Flood Risk Assessment

The extension of Midland Road to cross the railway and River Ise is the main link between the new WEAST development and its core neighbourhood centre and the town centre. The highway is generally on embankment and flood mitigation measures are proposed upstream of the proposed river crossing.

The drainage and flooding issues relating to the site have been subject to extensive consultation with the approving authorities including the Environment Agency, Borough Council of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire County Council and Anglian Water. The Council has classified the development as ‘essential infrastructure’ – a classification that has been justified in the Borough’s Local Plan, the WEAST Development Framework SPG and paragraph A9.50 of the Local Plan in relation to the importance of the multi-modal interchange at the existing station.

Given the policy framework and the need in terms of sustainable development to link the new development allocation to the existing town the alignment and location of the 35 bridge and road through the floodplain is considered to be wholly exceptional in as much as there is no viable alternative for the route to follow.

The provision of the infrastructure is also required to allow access to the development allocation to enable the future growth of the town.

Significant consultation has been undertaken for the overall Development Framework for WEAST and the specific Development Brief for Station Island which includes the link road, rail bridge and bridge across the River Ise. Alternative routes have been considered and since March 2000 when an initial feasibility study was undertaken for the Council and the developers have also appraised other routes. A direct alignment of the road across the floodplain from Midland Road was discounted on the grounds that the change in levels would require a very long bridge structure to be required on the western side of the railway and this would blight a very large area of this part of the town and would not be feasible. Similarly, Mill Road was considered and the existing bridge structure and road width back into town was felt to be insufficient for the level of traffic that would be using it and the impact on that road too great. Mill Road is a narrow residential street with properties set close to the highway and with limited off street parking.

The present alignment allows for the development of the station multi-modal interchange and also provides the sustainable link for the development with the existing town centre which will increase its viability and ensure as far a possible that Wellingborough East does not become a purely commuter settlement that is predominantly car based which looks to other centres for the provision of goods and services.

PPG25 states in paragraph 23 that ‘In [these] functional flood plains, the government considers that build development should be wholly exceptional and limited to essential transport and utilities infrastructure that has to be there. Such infrastructure should be designed and constructed so as to remain operational even at times of flood, to result in no net loss of flood-plain storage, not to impede water flows and not to increase flood risk elsewhere’.

It is considered that the infrastructure proposed by the Midland Road bridge and road within the flood plain is wholly exceptional and that the design and construction of the infrastructure that has been undertaken by the applicant in correspondence with the Environment Agency is such that it enables the flood plain to remain operational even at times of flooding with no net loss of flood plain storage or increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

6.4 Design

Detailed design has been carried out, by the applicant, for the junctions on Route 4, including the provision of a signal controlled junction at the staggered at Elsden Road/Midland Road and Midland Road/Senwick Road, a signal controlled junction to the south of the Railway Station and a roundabout at the junction with Station Island, North South Route.

As noted above, Route 4 will provide the direct link from WEAST to the Railway Station and then to the Town Centre. It commences at the Midland Road/Senwick 36

Road/Elsden Road staggered cross roads junction, and continues in an easterly direction along the remaining length of Midland Road to a new signal controlled cross roads junction with the existing Station Approach Road, access to the Royal Mail Sorting Office and a modified access to Wellingborough Main Line Railway Station. Northwards from this junction, Station Approach will be re-aligned to the west of the station complex, the forecourt area of which will be refurbished. To the north of the station the route rises over the railway, to provide the necessary headroom set by Network Rail and continues in an easterly direction over Station Island, the River Ise and into the site.

It is considered that the philosophy for the design and alignment of Route 4 is in accordance with the aims and objectives of the WEAST SPG, including:

• Ensuring WEAST is strongly linked to the existing town via the rail station axis • Ensuring WEAST is highly accessible by public transport • Prioritising the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users ahead of private motor cars • Blending with its surroundings • Spanning the River Ise in such a way as to facilitate attractive and functional north south connections along the proposed Ise Valley Country Park

Route 4 has also been designed to incorporate sufficient carriageway and footway widths to encourage pedestrian and cycle movement between WEAST, the railway station and the Town Centre and to ensure that the majority of its length will be governed by a 30 mph speed limit.

As to the elevational treatments of Route 4 the character of the road has been designed so as not to harm the character and setting of the listed station buildings by passing at grade. Whilst a retaining wall is required along the western boundary to the Midland Road extension footpath, the applicant has reduced its height from 8 metres to 1-3.5 metres in height. The re-designed retaining wall will be clad in a similar red brick to the station with other design features to be agreed in consultation with the Council.

With regards the station forecourt area, the applicant has been in dialogue with the Council and has submitted illustrative material demonstrating the design proposals and proposed furniture and materials.

Whilst the rail bridge has been designed taking into account a number of technical constraints, including crossing the rail line, the Council is in agreement with the applicant that the position, orientation and scale of the bridge, wing walls, parapets and safety barriers have been designed to minimise the physical and visual intrusion on the station area.

The river bridge span has also been designed to allow the provision of a footpath under the bridge connecting the two proposed parks with the brick cladding to the span reflecting the existing station building materials.

The development proposals retain existing landscape features as far as possible and provide new structural planting close to and along the embankment to help in 37 breaking up the bridge structure. The height of the embankment has also been minimised to reduce its impact on the floodplain hydrology and visual amenity of the area and includes new planting to help its integration into the park.

The proposals are based on a sound analysis of the surrounding area and are the result of extensive consultation. The scheme is in compliance with policies in the Built Environment Chapter of the Local Plan and Structure plan as well as policy objectives in the Councils SPGs. The scheme has been sensitively deigned to integrate with the surrounding area and ensures limited impact on the existing townscape. The scheme also accords with national and regional policies on creating a safe and accessible environment.

Given the above, it is considered that the proposals are in accordance with relevant Structure Plan and Local Plan policies regarding design, landscape and visual amenity.

6.5 Transport and Movement

The Highway Authority (Northamptonshire County Council) has considered the amended Transport Assessment (submitted May 2005) and other supporting information in relation to the transportation and highway design aspects of the revised application. In advising the Council, the Highway Authority has noted that not only should all new roads or improvements to existing roads be to requisite standards but also proposals should not, at a future date, result in detriment to road users due to the ratio of projected traffic flows to capacity, increased journey times or queue lengths (i.e. ‘nil detriment’).

With regards to the Midland Road extension, the Highway Authority has advised on two particular aspects:

• Effects on the Midland Road/Senwick Road/Elsden Road junction; and • Proposals for providing signals, safer crossings for pedestrians and improved capacity on the Senwick Road and Elsden Road approaches

Effects on the Midland Road/Senwick Road/Elsden Road junction

Without WEAST, Midland Road would terminate at the Station and even with substantial development elsewhere in Wellingborough; the traffic flow would remain modest in the design year (2016). With WEAST and the continuation of Midland Road through to the new Neighbourhood Centre, it is recognised that traffic flows will be substantial and in peak periods the condition of ‘nil detriment’ (i.e. result in no detriment to road users due to the ratio of projected traffic flows to capacity, increased journey times or queue lengths) could not be met without substantial capacity improvements along Midland Road and at the junctions with Elsden Road, Senwick Road, Victoria Road and elsewhere in the town centre. However, such capacity improvements sufficient to meet the ‘nil detriment’ condition could not be achieved without acquiring land and possibly demolishing property.

The Highway Authority recognises that, at this time, such a course of action would not produce a sustainable solution in terms of current national, regional and local 38 transport/highway policy objectives and would likely induce further traffic growth to the area.

The Highway Authority’s view is that if it were simply a case of widening Midland Road approaching and through the Midland Road /Senwick Road /Elsden Road junction then a condition of nil detriment being met regardless of whether it means acquiring property or not would be recommended. However, providing extra capacity for car travel along the Midland Road Axis including the approach to this junction would make the route attractive to other, non-WEAST traffic and would be contrary to the principles of sustainability.

The County Council has therefore recommended that, in lieu of a condition ensuring nil detriment on the Midland Road approach to the junction, the applicant contributes to a multi-modal/route corridor study covering the corridor between the Town Centre and the Station and further contributes a sum to be agreed towards a solution based on the study.

Proposals for providing signals, safer crossings for pedestrians and improved capacity on the Senwick Road and Elsden Road approaches

Given that the northbound and southbound approaches to the Senwick Road and Elsden Road junctions, will carry substantial volumes of traffic in the peak hours in 2016 (even without the development) the applicant has submitted a scheme for providing signals, safer crossings for pedestrians and improved capacity on the Senwick Road and Elsden Road approaches.

However, an initial ‘Stage 1 Safety Audit’ of the scheme has concluded that the two lane approach northbound on Senwick Road is substandard in width and vehicles alongside each other, particularly if alongside a goods vehicle or a bus, risk side to side collisions or being squeezed into potential collision with the refuge island or nearside kerb. Taken together with the substandard width of the lanes and the narrowing of the footways both in Elsden Road and on both sides of Senwick Road, the safety auditor has recommended that a single lane approach to the junction should be adopted unless additional highway width can be obtained.

The Highway Authority acknowledges that if there is an irreconcilable conflict between meeting ‘nil detriment’ and providing a safe junction, then safety is paramount. The Highway Authority has therefore confirmed that it is disposed to waive the requirement for ‘nil detriment’ on the Senwick Road approach to the junction provided the Safety Auditor’s recommendations are followed or his concerns met by a revised design. In the event that the approach to the junction is not revised the Highway Authority is unwilling to accept the liability of a design which fails a Safety Audit.

Given the above, it is recommended that additional conditions are imposed to ensure that a multi-modal study/route corridor study covering the area between the Town Centre and the Station is carried out and its recommendations implemented and that a revised detailed highway scheme incorporating proposals for providing signals, safer crossings for pedestrians and improved capacity on the Senwick Road and Elsden Road approaches, is submitted to and approved by the LPA prior to the first 39

300 housing occupations on land between Finedon Road and the Railway, Neilson’s Sidings and Land North of Finedon Road, Wellingborough .

The Borough’s Wellingborough East SPG (Nov 2003) indicates that a maximum of 300 dwellings for the neighbourhood centre can be served off Irthlingborough Road without further necessary junction/highway works. Therefore it is considered that 300 dwellings can be occupied prior to highway works on the Midland Road/Senwick Road/Eastfield Road being carried out.

6.6 Air Quality, Noise and Construction Impact Assessment

Further to the submission of the original application in October 2004, the Borough’s environmental protection section advised that (and sought further information through the Council’s ‘Regulation 19’ letter):

• An assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on air quality and appropriate mitigation measures should have been identified • The impact on air quality and data for noise from the proposed levels of traffic figures should be presented in terms of the development of phases on the WEAST site and the provision of transport infrastructure • All relevant issues, which had the potential to impact significantly on local air quality within the WEAST development area and also in the surrounding existing urban and rural area, should have been considered • The methodology, parameters and assumptions made in deriving the data upon which the noise assessments were made should be identified • An assessment of the impacts of the completed scheme, 15 years after the commencement of development was required • Road sections should be shown on a map with levels at individual properties detailed • Noise locations should be shown on a map • The cumulative noise effects of the new road and existing traffic, including rail noise should be identified. • Absolute levels of noise affecting individual properties or sections of property on Midland, Elsden and Senwick Roads should be detailed and mitigation measures provided and • The relationship between the levels of the bridge and the houses behind should be clarified and assessed

Subsequent to the concerns raised above, the Council received a revised Supplementary Environmental Statement (ES) on 18 May 2005. The revised ES contains a new Traffic and Transport assessment which assesses the impact until 2016 - the proposed period for completion of the whole development rather than the 2012 scenario previously detailed.

The Council’s Environmental Protection Service has considered the additional information and has advised that in terms of road traffic noise the assessment considers the potential impacts from road and construction traffic as a result of the development, as well as the cumulative effects with the other major noise source in the area, railway noise. It assesses the impact against categories of change in noise. It also calculates and assesses the resulting noise levels against the standards for 40 noise insulation works to dwellings made under the Noise Insulation Regulations (NIR) which is applied where new roads and road alterations are carried out. Due to the requirements of the NIR, the traffic figures used are until 2021, 15 years after the proposed scheme commencement.

In traffic and associated noise terms there are two distinct effects of the proposal. Firstly there is the effect upon properties at the junction of Elsden Road, Senwick Road and Midland Road. This will mainly be upon front ground and first floor living rooms and bedrooms. The other properties affected are those on Talbot Road and Riverside, Mill Road, adjacent to the new road and bridge, which experience an increase in noise at the rear of the houses and in gardens. These properties will also be most exposed to any construction impacts.

The Council agrees with the applicant’s assertion that an increase in traffic noise is an inevitable consequence of higher traffic numbers and for Elsden and Senwick Roads this will occur regardless of the proposal. The increased traffic use of Midland Road is a consequence of its strategic use as the main route between Wellingborough East and the town centre. This is reflected in the assessment of the number of properties for which there is a moderate adverse impact.

Having identified the potential impacts the assessment suggests appropriate mitigation. In the case of Elsden, Senwick and Midland Road this consists of the NIR “scheme” that may be applied to eligible dwellings around the junction. The scheme could include acoustic insulation of doors, windows and the provision of ventilation to eligible rooms on the front, and where applicable side elevations of the properties. Such a scheme would normally be administered by the Highway Authority, but in this case is likely to form part of an agreement between them and the applicant as part of the Section 38 Road Adoptions, and Section 278 Works in the Public Highway.

In the case of Talbot Road and Riverside, Mill Road it is proposed that the provision of noise barriers will mitigate the impact to acceptable levels. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the barriers it necessary to pay particular attention to the extent, construction and detailing. It is therefore recommended that if the application is approved a condition is included to ensure a scheme is submitted and implemented for the erection of noise barriers which is acceptable to the LPA.

With regards to traffic noise the assessment has also provided information on the likely construction impacts. It recognises that noise will inevitably be produced and that consideration of items such as siting of plant, temporary barriers, and the use of best practice, etc should be employed to mitigate the construction impact. This can be best addressed by including a condition, in any approval requiring an Environmental Risk Assessment/ Construction Method Statement to be submitted and approved to control all unacceptable construction impacts.

In terms of the impact of the proposals on existing air quality, the assessment includes modelling of a number of pollutants. Only two are significant Nitrogen Dioxide NO2 and Small Particles PM10. Four locations were selected to be representative of the likely changes in pollutant concentrations due to the increases in traffic figures predicted by the Transport Assessment. The assessment concludes that while there are increases in both pollutants, as a result of increased traffic, there 41 is not likely to be any exceedences of relevant Air Quality Objectives. The appropriate mitigation is included in the overall proposals for transport in the Transport Assessment, Wellingborough East Travel Plan and Bus Cycle and Walking strategies. Further, as the assessment indicates, the Borough Council will monitor the resulting air quality and hence the effectiveness of these measures, under its duties under the Air Quality Management regime. It is therefore considered that given there is no likelihood of exceedences of Air Quality Objectives the Air Quality impacts assessed from traffic are acceptable and no conditions are necessary.

The assessment also considers the likely dust creation during construction which will particularly affect dwellings close to the new road works. It proposes a range of measures to mitigate against the various temporary impacts. Works of this nature require detailed application of appropriate measures. A condition should therefore be attached to any planning permission requiring an Environmental Risk Assessment/ Construction Method Statement to be submitted and approved to control unacceptable impacts.

Construction Impact

The applicant has identified a number of potential impacts arising from construction of the scheme and has proposed a range of mitigation measures that include agreement with the planning authority for the management of construction traffic including specified routes and diversions. The routes specified by the applicant include the use of Sidegate Lane from Finedon Road and the western side of the railways is likely to be via the Embankment and Senwick Road. A number of safeguarding conditions are therefore recommended.

6.7 Ecology

PPG9: Nature Conservation sets government policy on the relationship between land-use planning and nature conservation. The guidance emphasises the importance of locally designated sites and that the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a local planning authority is considering a development proposal. The guidance states that local authorities should consider attaching appropriate planning conditions or entering into planning obligations under which the developer would take steps to secure the protection of identified habitat.

The proposed development is not predicted to have a significant adverse effect on the ecology of the application area which consists mainly of improved pasture and arable land. The nature conservation value is mainly attached to the hedgerows and the river Ise. Unfortunately It is unclear how much of the existing hedgerows will be retained and the trees which are mainly associated with them. Badgers are a protected species and their territory extends over the area. Provision will need to be made for them in the design. Although the area does not contain any sites of nature conservation value there are significant areas beyond. These should not be directly affected by the proposals. The proposed development of the country park with reintroduced meanders to the river Ise and the creation of reed beds, wet grassland and wet woodland offers great potential for enhanced biodiversity. The County Council’s ecologist refers to the Biodiversity Action Plan for Northamptonshire and considers that the current mitigation measures are insufficient and in some cases 42 inappropriate and wishes to be involved in the evolution of the design of this substantial part of the whole town park and the all important management plan without which the design proposals will not succeed.

Notwithstanding the above, it is proposed to attach a number of safeguarding conditions in relation to the approval of a comprehensive landscape scheme and the protection of existing trees and hedgerows.

Recommendation:

Recommend that the approval of the grant of planning permission subject to conditions be delegated to the Director of Environment and Economy upon prior signing of a section 106 agreement related to the landowners covenanting with the LPA to ensure that .no more than the first 300 housing occupations on land between Finedon Road and the Railway, Neilson’s Sidings and Land North of Finedon Road, Wellingborough, will be allowed until such time that the improvements to the Midland Road/Senwick Road/Eastfield Road junction and approaches have been implemented in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed with the Highway Authority.

Conditions:

1. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless in accordance with the Approved Drawings (dwg ref. – 04 1633.12.001A Planning Application red line plan) (highway drawings 611071/A1/R4/11 Rev B, 611071/A1/R4/12 Rev A, 611071/A1/R4/13 Rev A, 611071/A1/R4/14 Rev A, 611071/A1/R4/15 Rev A, 611071/A1/R4/16 Rev A, 611071/A1/R4/17 Rev A, 611071/A1/R4/18, 611071/A1/R4/J1 Rev B, 611071/A1/R4/J2 Rev C, 611071/A1/R4/B11 Rev A, 611071/A1/R4/B12, 611071/A1/R4/B14 Rev A, 611071/A1/R4/B15, 611071/A1/R4/B19 Rev A, 611071/A1/R4/B20 Rev A or any subsequent amendments approved by the local authority.

2. No variation to the approved plans shall be made which in the reasonable opinion of the Council creates new environmental impacts which exceed the range or scale of those assessed and measured in the EIA dated May 2005 and/or which the Council considers may require further or additional mitigation measures.

Reason: In order that the development is carried out in accordance with any necessary mitigation for the purposes of the Environmental Impact Assessment and in order that the development complies with the Approved Plans.

3. The development to which this permission relates shall be commenced by the later of: a. The expiration of a period of 5 years commencing on the date of this permission b. The expiration of a period of 2 years commencing on the date upon which the final approval of the details of the last reserved matter is given by the planning authority

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented permissions

4. Surface Water drainage works and source control measures shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the local authority before the development commences.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding

5. No development shall commence until precise details of a scheme to allow the safe access across the bridge by Otters has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bridge shall not be used by vehicular traffic until the otter pass has been installed in accordance with the details so approved.

Reason: To ensure the safe egress of Otters during high flow periods

6. No development shall commence until floodplain compensation in accordance with the submitted details shown in the revised Flood Risk Assessment received 18 May 2005 have been provided and made available for flood storage.

Reason: To ensure the development does not increase flood risk elsewhere through reduced level for level floodplain storage

7. Prior to development commencing a suitable scheme to maintain the existing standard of flood risk protection to the Ise floodplain including the existing metal recycling plant shall be submitted for approval to the LPA and the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved.

Reason: To ensure the development does not increase flood risk elsewhere through reduced level for level floodplain storage

8. Prior to development commencing details of a long term management programme for flood storage areas and new flood defences including means of controlling invasive landscaping and means of delivery shall be submitted and approved by the LPA.

Reason: To ensure the development does not increase flood risk elsewhere through reduced floodplain storage or flow attenuation.

9. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA development shall proceed with the details, phasing and maintenance responsibilities set out in the flood risk assessment.

Reason: To reduce flood risk

10. The Council’s standards will be adopted where the road is to be adopted as public highway.

Reason: To ensure that road infrastructure is provided in accordance with the Council’s standards.

11. Before the commencement of the development, details of the materials to be used for the surfaces of the road and associated bridge infrastructure shall be submitted to and approved by the local authority. The development shall be in accordance with such details as approved.

Reason: In order that the local authority may be satisfies as to the details of the proposal. 44

12. The development as hereby permitted shall not commence until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (including any work necessary to preserve remains in situ and/or by record), or watching brief, as appropriate, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The relevant works shall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme or brief pursuant to this condition.

Reason: To ensure that potential archaeological remains are recorded.

13. The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the local planning authority and shall allow that person to observe the excavation and record items of interest and finds.

Reason: To enable archaeological investigation of the site.

14. Prior to the commencement of development, details of foundation design and any other below ground disturbance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority Development and shall take place strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that potential archaeological remains are recorded.

15. An Environmental Risk Assessment and construction method statement to address the potential environmental impact of construction shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction commencing. This shall be implemented during construction and shall include the following:

i. An Environmental Risk Assessment which addresses the detail of the environmental impact of all demolition and construction work. This shall incorporate method statements to control or mitigate all of the identified impacts. ii. The assessment shall include information upon noise, vibration, dust, operating hours, construction lighting, parking, construction traffic access routes. iii. In respect of noise, vibration and dust emissions it shall address the identification of sensitive premises, suitable mitigation, use of plant and equipment, mitigation measures such as barriers and environmental monitoring. iv. The assessment shall include details of the site management of environmental impacts, including control of subcontractors, contact details, public relations and information systems.

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

16. Prior to the start of construction a detailed scheme for the location, design and construction of noise barriers shall be submitted to and approved by the Local 45

Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the new road sections being opened to traffic.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate mitigation is carried out so that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

17. Prior to the start of construction details relating to the routing of construction traffic shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved.

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

18. Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces and hard surfaced areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality.

19. A scheme of hard and soft landscaping including details of existing trees and hedgerows to be retained shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby permitted, is commenced.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and that all components of the development are integrated at the outset.

20. All works comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping shall be carried out before the end of the first planting and seeding season following completion of the development.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development

21. Any existing tree shown to be retained or trees or shrubs to be planted as part of the approved landscaping scheme which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within 5 years of the completion of development shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of appropriate size and species in the next planting season.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

22. Before the development is commenced details of the location, extent and depth of all excavations for drainage and other services in relation to trees on the site shall be submitted and approved by the local planning authority and the development carried out in accordance with such approval.

Reason: To safeguard the health of existing tree(s) which represent an important amenity feature.

23. No site works or works on this development shall be commenced until temporary fencing shall have been erected around existing tree(s) in accordance with details to be submitted in writing by the local planning authority. This fencing shall remain in position until after the development works are completed and no material or soil shall be stored within these fenced areas.

Reason: To safeguard the health of existing tree(s) which represent an important amenity feature.

24. The type and treatment of the materials to be used on the bridge’s facades and culverts shall be approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the development being carried out. The approved materials and treatment shall be used in the construction of the development hereby approved.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure proposals are of a high standard of design in preserving the setting of the listed railway buildings

25. No development shall take place 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 investigations which has been submitted and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that there is an opportunity to properly investigate and record information on the site which is considered to be of archaeological interest

26. The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the local planning authority and shall allow that person to observe works and record items of interest and finds.

INFORMATIVE

• The applicant is advised that photographs of the existing highway immediately adjacent to that used for access/egress and delivery of materials to the site will be required by the Highways Authority prior to the commencement of the construction works. Any subsequent damage to the public highway resulting primarily from the works, as shown by the photographs, including damage caused by delivery vehicles to the construction works, will be made good to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority and at the expense of the applicant. Attention is drawn to Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980 in this respect.

• In connection with the approved development, the applicant’s attention is drawn to the guidance produced by the Health and Safety Executive on contaminated land “protection of Workers and the General Pubic during the Development of Contaminated Land” which can be obtained from HSE Books.

The developer, all contractors, sub-contractors, consultants engaged in any form of engineering or construction work within the Site should apply the principles of the Construction Industry’s Board’s “Considerate Constructor Scheme”, and consider the merits of formally registering the Site with the Board. Main 47

contractors should be encouraged to enter into discussion with the local authority to develop a method statement to ensure that matters such as noise and dust from the construction process do not become a nuisance as the development proceeds.

• The developer, all contractors and sub-contractors engaged in any form of construction work as part of the development should employ the principles of current best practice.

• In particular due regard should be made to BS 5288 “Noise and vibration control of construction and open sites”, and “Control of dust from construction and demolition activities BRE 2003, and the principles of the Construction Industry Boards “Considerate Construction Scheme”

• The land in question was historically raised out of the floodplain and it seems clear that there is a major opportunity to reinstate the natural regime for storage and flood flow conveyance by relocating the recycling area. The development of such an option could potentially balance some of the additional loss of floodplain envisaged in other areas such as crossings and the rail related development. We would urge all parties involved in this process to take a long term view and the Environment Agency would be pleased to discuss and help promote a more sustainable solution.

• The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice received from Central Networks in relation to operational apparatus and responsibilities in relation to Health and Safety.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 22/06/2005

Report of the Director of Environment and Economy

APPLICATION REF: WP/2005/0053/CL

PROPOSAL: Proposed alterations - additional plan.

LOCATION: Probation and After Care Service, 20 Oxford Street, Wellingborough .

APPLICANT: Colliers CRE.

This application has been referred to the Regulatory Committee for comment because a representation has been received from the Residents Action Group (RAG).

PROPOSAL: The proposal is for a single storey flat roofed rear extension that incorporates a fire escape. The proposal is not a planning application because development by the Crown does not require planning permission. The scheme has been submitted to the Council for its consideration and comment by way of a Notice of Proposed Development under the terms of Department of the Environment Circular 18/84 – Crown Land and Crown Development. The Council is required to treat the Notice in the same way as a planning application and to send its views on the proposal to the notifying department. In formulating its view the Council will have regard to the views of any bodies consulted and to any comments received by the Council in response to the publicity given to the Notice.

PLANNING HISTORY: WU/54/24 Change of use – Childrens Home to Council Offices and maisonette - approved. WU/69/108 Change of use from maisonette, stores and kitchen to offices - approved. BW/77/427 Change of use from offices to club premises - conditionally approved. BW/81/444 Change of use from offices to training workshop - conditionally approved.

PLANNING POLICY: Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan – C5, C8, C12, G1 and T9. Northamptonshire County Structure Plan – GS5 and TCR1. Supplementary Planning Guidance – Parking and Planning Out Crime. D Pavilion W

D ES

3 T 3 ST RE W ET

E D 9 D 2 S Church T

PC V

488700 65.2m 488900 I L

Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 08/06/2005 2

R O 888 Hall D A D

267800 267800BM 64.25m W

Cn_sc 1

9 1

7 9 13 4 Oxford House b 48 7 8 1 6e a 62 1 s 4 48

ttage 46d

Co 5 Post

tvilla s 5 We a

48 3

1 46c 6a D 4 S a n

c h

i 1

o n o g 7 l PH

Club

46 a

39 44 b

PH 8

1 42 8

STREET a OXFORD 63.4m

C 1m l BM 64.5 in

ic W

TCBs 7 6

1 1

2 A

677 1 677

2 R

2 0 0

2 C

2 6 3 H

4 E 1

2 7

1 1 6 0 7 Kenroyal S

2 H

1 A

1 RM 1 5 A O Nursing Home N R

Slope Slope

5 1

1 4

Fairlawn

Centre

5 1 S P R Slope I 1 N 6 G 7 Slope G A 1 to 31 R D E Hollowell Court N S

676 8 676 W 9 O 2 O D S T R E A E B T B O T 1 E 8 S S W O L A

C 1 Y

N 4 I 2 P

5 IP

8 P 3 2 3

2 4

g 9 in r to p e 1 S s 7 7 ou 1

H 15 3

2 1

2 9 7

4 9

2 9 3

5 6

2 3

9 Y

4 WA 6

0 BBOTS 3 A 2

2 0

3 3

2 8 P

1 I 8

6 1 GR 2

3 1 0 1 9 I

2 W 6

Y H 267500 4 267500 IL

L 488700 2 Y 488900

S A 2 T 888 W 8

R 6 S T E 5 0 O E 2 B T P B I A ScaleL 1:1250 7 7 G 7

to R

8 I 7 M

8 9 49

Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development. Planning Policy Statement 6; Planning for Town Centres. Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport. Circular 18/84 - Crown Land and Crown Development.

CONSULTATIONS: 1. NCC Highways –

“The application relies largely upon parking requirements and should be determined having regard to the adequacy of parking accommodation provided to serve both the existing and proposed use of the premises. It is acknowledged that considerable on-street parking takes place in Spring Gardens in the vicinity of the application site but, provided adequate parking accommodation is provided in connection with the use of the premises, there should be no increase in the nuisance suffered by the residents.” The Highway Authority (HA) makes reference to a local resident supplying it with evidence with a view to practical measures being taken to resolve the difficulties. The HA also states that the enforcement of parking contravention and obstruction is still a matter for the Police and mentions that it is unable to comment on the possible removal of the bollards in Spring Gardens.

2. Construction and Property Services - memorandum dated 3rd February 2005 which confirms that the Council’s property holding next to the Notice site has been transferred to the Defence Estates and it has no interests in the application but has not responded at the time of writing the report with regards the grasscrete area in Spring Gardens.

3. Neighbours – letters have been received from 2 no. occupiers in Spring Gardens and on behalf of the RAG. The writers refer to the following issues:

• Opinion that the property is a fine example of Victorian architecture built for the Dulley family but has already been adversely affected by ad-hoc alteration. • Reference to the grasscrete area in Spring Gardens. • Concern regarding the effect of the proposal on the dire parking situation in Spring Gardens during the week brought about by parking by staff of the Probation Service and occasionally by the Fairlawn Centre. Comment has been passed on the apparent reluctance of the Highways Authority or the Police to be interested in parking misdemeanours.

4. East Midlands Reserve Forces and Cadets – no comment received.

5. Wellingborough Town Centre Partnership – no comment received.

6. Northamptonshire Police – no comment received at time of writing the report.

ASSESSMENT: Site description: The site is an existing Probation Centre situated on a site that is identified in the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan as a town centre location. The premises has 50 a frontage onto Oxford Street but vehicular access to the site is achieved via an entrance to the site at the rear from Spring Gardens. Adjoining the site to the west is a lean-to building and to the east is the Archfield development. To the southwest are the residential properties of Spring Gardens and Pippin Close. Also adjoining the site is the Cadet Centre and further to the south in Spring Gardens is the Fairlawn Centre. There is an existing flat roof addition that has a fire escape route with the associated iron staircases. On the front boundary is a substantial ironstone/limestone wall and mature trees.

A letter dated 20th May 2005 has been received from the Chief Officer of the Northamptonshire Probation Area in support of the notification and details the following:

• The existing premises are ill equipped and the development will provide new and improved facilities for existing groupwork programmes, offender management and proper storage space for offender files. • There will no additional staff or offender numbers as a result of the development. • The Probation Service is conscious of its need to be good neighbour to the surrounding community and is cognisant of the disparity between staff numbers and the amount of car parking spaces on its site. Staff have been encouraged to utilise public transport and local free parking. • Opinion that the loss of two car parking spaces is a relatively small price to pay for enhancing the facilities to enable the service to undertake work which will have a real impact on reducing crime in Wellingborough. • Belief that the small reduction in car parking provision will not result in any increase in the disturbance caused to those living locally by the car parking related to the Probation Service activities.

Material Planning Considerations:

• Compliance with policy • Effect on visual amenity • Parking and highway safety issues • Effect on residential amenity • Crime and disorder

Compliance with policy With regards to the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan the site lies in the Town Centre area as identified on the proposals map. None of the Town Centre policies however can be readily applied to this notice because the site falls on white land and the appropriate policies against which the development should be judged are the local plans’ G1 policies.

Visual Amenity The design of the proposed extension is perhaps somewhat disappointing especially since the Government’s own recently produced Planning Policy Statement 1 devotes a chapter to promoting good design and bringing design issues to the forefront of local planning authorities’ deliberations. It is accepted that the proposal does not benefit from a quality deign but it is however little different from the existing flat roof 51 and fire escape arrangement and will therefore have no material effect on the visual amenity of the area.

Car Parking and highway safety The car park on the site is at present heavily used and by the Probation Services’ own admission its staff do park in Spring Gardens which is also clearly used for overflow parking from the nearby Fairlawn Centre. The Probation Service has commented that the numbers of staff or users of the centre will not increase and the Highway Authority has not raised any objection to the proposal. The comments of RAG and other residents are noted but it is considered that the deletion of two spaces within the site will not make car parking difficulties on the nearby road network demonstrably worse than they are already. It is considered therefore that no objection to the scheme can be reasonably raised on car parking and highway safety issues. The Senior Officer at the Wellingborough Police Station has been contacted regarding the Polices’ viewpoint on the alleged parking offences in Spring Gardens but at the time of writing the report no response from the Police has been received.

Effect on residential amenity It is considered that there is sufficient distance between the extension and the nearest residential properties to ensure that there will be no material detrimental effect on the standard of amenity that the occupiers currently enjoy.

Crime and disorder It is considered that there are no crime and disorder issues relevant to the determination of this application other than the stated aim of the Probation Service to prevent re-offending.

RECOMMENDATION: That no objection be raised to the proposal. It is suggested that the following condition should be considered:

1. Before development is commenced retrospective samples of the exterior facing materials shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The development shall then be carried out with the approved materials.

Reason: 1. In the interests of visual amenity.

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 22/06/2005

Report of the Director of Environment and Economy

APPLICATION REF: WP/2005/0209/F

PROPOSAL: Erection of a 20.0m high slimline monopole telecommunications mast, radio equipment and electricity meter cabinets and ancillary equipment.

LOCATION: Land Adj. Wallis Close, Park Farm Industrial Estate, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: O2 (UK) Limited.

PROPOSAL: As above.

PLANNING HISTORY: Site T Plot 11 Wallis Close, Wellingborough. BW/89/0361 Industrial, warehouse and office (B1, B2 and B8) – approved with conditions. WP/91/ADV/0004 Temporary sales board – withdrawn. WP/91/0196 Extension of Industrial Estate Roads, footpaths and sewers – approved. WP/2002/0158/F Erection of premises for use as a health and fitness club within Class D2 along with car parking, access and landscaping – approved with conditions. WP/2002/0669/F New leisure use building with 3 storeys assoc. car parking and external works – approved with conditions. WP/2003/0529/AV 3 surface mounted signs, fixed externally to masonry 1 free standing masonry sign adjacent to building – approved with conditions.

PLANNING POLICY: T12 of the Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan. Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 8.

CONSULTATIONS: 1. Highways Authority – the Installation must meet with the approval of the Borough Council of Wellingborough as present owner of the highway comprising Wallis Close and it must be ensured that works will not prejudice the future adoption of the way as highway maintainable at the public expense. Dencora 2 Business ESS Dencora Park Business Park El Sub E Sta V 486300 I 486500

Borough Council Of Wellingborough: LicenceT No.100018694. Published 08/06/2005 O 5 O B 864

267800 7 267800

3 9

WELLINGBOROUGH

4 3

677 677

4 5

El Sub Sta

E S O L C ESS IS L L A W

676 676

Slope Slope Slope

E S O L C El Sub Sta R E I P A N

267500 Slope 267500

486300 864 486500 E S O L Scale 1:1250 C

R E I P A N

Park Farm Industrial Estate Slope

Mast 53

2. OFCOM – no representation received.

3. Borough of Wellingborough, Property Manager –

“I have no objections. It is on Council owned land and as yet does not have agreed terms to be constructed. I am in contact with them and have suggested looking at better locations - behind bushes up the road for instance.”

4. Third Parties – three letters of objection have been received. The grounds of objection are summarised as follows:

• Long term health effects. • Detract from the appearance of high quality premises. • Detrimental Impact on the quality and image of premises and visual amenity. • Installation would cause interference to the testing equipment of a company which develops and produces base station antennas and will have a serious effect on the business of this company.

ASSESSMENT: The proposed installation would comprise of a 20 metre high slimline pole that would support a small headframe and three 3G antennas, together with small radio equipment and electricity meter cabinets. The use of a slimline monopole and cabinets has been chosen to minimise the visual impact as far as possible whilst providing an acceptable level of coverage.

The application site is located within the Park Farm Industrial Estate, on the western edge of Wellingborough. The site is an area of highway verge on the south eastern side of Wallis Close, Wellingborough which is adjacent to the Bannatyne Fitness Club. Business and industrial units surround the site. These include Nimlock Ltd to the west of the site, Stephill Generators to the north and BC Technology to the north east. Jaybeam Limited, a company that manufactures and tests antennae for mobile phone companies is located to the south of the application site. Tops of masts and antennae can be seen from the site. Street furniture including telegraph poles and street/car park lighting surround the site.

The proposed installation is required to provide coverage to the residential area on the western side of Wellingborough. Alternative sites and existing masts have been considered by the applicant but none have proved to be suitable. The following sites have been discounted.

• The existing mast at Weavers School was investigated but the school is unwilling to allow the applicant to use the site. • The existing lattice masts at Jaybeam Limited, Rutherford Drive, Park Farm Industrial Estate, Wellingborough. The company does not allow mobile phone operators to use its masts which are used to test antennas. • A street furniture site outside the Costcutter Grocery Store, Queensway, Wellingborough was considered but the present site has been progressed in 54

favour of this option as it is considered to be a less sensitive location for telecommunications development.

Policy T12 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan states:

PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT WHERE:

1. THERE IS NO REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF SHARING EXISTING FACILITIES;

2. IN THE CASE OF RADIO MASTS, THERE IS NO REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF ERECTING ANTENNAE ON AN EXISTING BUILDING OR OTHER TALL STRUCTURE.

Policy T12 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan promotes a sequential approach to the erection of masts. The policy is in line with government guidance to approve telecommunication masts subject to making sure that the proposal can not utilise an existing mast. It is considered that the application site is an acceptable location in principle for telecommunications development and that a location and design has been chosen which minimises visual intrusion.

With regard to health concerns PPG 8 states the following:

“However, it is the Governments firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Governments responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Governments view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.”

The applicant has submitted an ICNIRP compliance notice with the application and has confirmed that the proposed development fully complies with ICNIRP guidelines.

Jaybeam Limited has objected to the application as they are concerned that the proposed installation will cause interference to their test equipment/receivers and consequently degrade the quality and accuracy of their measurements. This would have a serious impact on their business. An interference survey and report has been prepared by independent consultants on behalf of the applicant. This report however does not conclusively state whether the proposed installation will or will not cause interference. In response to the interference report Jaybeam Limited state in a letter dated 4th May 2005 that the company maintains its objection. No comments have been received from OFCOM regarding the contents of the interference report and the concerns of Jaybeam Limited.

Annex 2 of PPG 8 states that:

“It is unlikely that refusal of planning permission would be justified on the grounds of radio interference from a transmitter or non-radio equipment alone except in extreme cases…. Where applications which are turned down solely or mainly on interference grounds come to appeal, the Secretary of State will expect planning authorities to produce details of the evidence of interference, or likely interference, and evidence that there are no reasonable remedies that would be satisfactory.”

Jaybeam Limited has not produced any evidence showing that the proposed installation will cause interference and, if this is the case, whether there any remedies to this.

A supporting statement from the agent was received 24th May 2005. This reads as follows:

“1. Although Jaybeam has raised an objection to the proposal it has provided no evidence that it would result in unacceptable interference. 2. Having regard to the Government guidance contained in Annex 2 to PPG 8 at appeal the LPA would need to produce evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would result in interference and that there are no reasonable remedies. Failure to do so would run the risk of an award of costs. 3. The Office of Communications (OFCOM) has the statutory powers to investigate alleged cases of interference and to enforce the relevant legislation. 4. In a letter dated 28th February 2005 Jaybeam stated that an acceptable minimum distance between O2 proposed mast and its test facility would be 4.8km. As pointed out to them this would preclude an installation in the whole of Wellingborough and that, in any case, there are numerous base stations well within this distance providing coverage to Wellingborough.”

Having considered the relevant policies of the Development Plan and other material planning considerations the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with Conditions:

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

Reason: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.

sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policy: T12 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: P-035195-GEN-101 P-035195-GEN-102 P-035195-GEN-103 Rev B 2431/D 2522/A 21/03/2005

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 22/06/2005

Report of the Director of Environment and Economy

APPLICATION REF: WP/2005/0250/F

PROPOSAL: Annex bungalow to rear.

LOCATION: 105 Eastfield Road, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Ms L Jackson.

This application has been referred to Regulatory Committee because there has been 3 or more objections received.

PROPOSAL: As above.

PLANNING HISTORY: No previous planning history.

PLANNING POLICY: G1.2, H1.2 and UH5.5 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. Supplementary Guidance VIII - Building Better Places (2003).

CONSULTATIONS: 1. Environmental Health Department – the application should be requested to provide an Environmental Risk Assessment which addresses the potential for the site to be contaminated.

2. Landscape Officer - the proposed building in the rear garden would have a detrimental effect on the trees in both of the neighbouring properties. The canopy of the pollarded oak tree in the rear garden of no. 103 and the larch in the rear garden of no. 107 spread over the site with little more than a metre separating the two canopies. It would be difficult to build beneath the trees and the root loss would certainly compromise their chances of survival.

These trees have presumably been planted to screen the industrial unit behind, and if they were lost the amenity of the neighbouring properties would be adversely affected.

5 3 W

5 Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 08/06/2005 901 Ambron House 268600 268600

6 F 5

I E

8 D 5

6 6 6

53 ROAD

LEYS 72.5m

4 6

8 E 2

Y 2

7 A

3 R

N E

l S

S S

t u a b

T N R

O O

A R

D T

8 Tank

H 7 T Industrial Estate

1 1 685 685

8 3 Industrial Estate

E 4

D 7

R BM

72.05m 9 G 1 S

Y 2 E W L 9

D 8

9 T A

1 2 4 10 O T L S E

D R O

1 2 A

1 0 N O R E T 110 A D H S

I E

1 L 0

D 9 R D 684 O 684

120

2 2 7 63

69.8m B 19 1 M 2 1 9 6 AD

6 RO

. L

W 1

0 21 IL

5 M 2 4 m 2 9 0

130

209 64.3m

2 3

2 a 03

0 9 2

3 12

7 1 5

9 2 2 9

1 2

3 3 1 a 8

0 4

3 193 1

2 7 16 Garage

18 Garage 9 7 6 4

9 M 17

2 0 L 6 T O N 1 68.3m Communication Mast 7 7 R 5a 17 O

A 5 43 7 1

D 1 9 N 6 O R T 268300 H 2683003 65 1 3 1 0 8 490000 490200

4m 901

0.2

V 7 3 3 6 M 8

1 B Scale 1:1250 23

59 Warehouse

1 W

V D 2 V 0

P A 8 1 3 O 155 r 1 R i

P m H 5 T

l R a r O V o W

c T

V se I

e H 2 1

0 7 W

F 3 a 8 c 1 V t o

UGH Factory 58

3. NCC, Highways - recommends that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document ‘Minor Planning Applications that have an effect on the highway’ be applied to this application.

4. Summary of third parties comments – (109, 107 and 103, Eastfield Road, Wellingborough):

• Overlooking • Access difficulties for emergency services. • Loss of view. • Overshadowing • Noise pollution • Potential for similar developments to the rear. • Concerns over loss of trees.

ASSESSMENT: The proposal is for a self contained annex bungalow in the rear garden of 105 Eastfield Road. The annex is located 15m from the rear of 105 Eastfield Road, with an industrial unit to the east of the site. To the front of the proposed annex there is a large bay window facing towards neighbouring properties to the west of the site. Having consulted Supplementary Guidance VIII - Building Better Places, which states that ‘A minimum distance of 21 metres between rear facing windows of neighbouring dwellings (including flats) and 12 metres between rear facing windows and ones in the flank wall of another’. the development is contrary to this guidance and therefore deemed to affect the amenity of existing residents and therefore contrary to Policy G1.2, H1.2 and UH5.5 of the Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan. The development would result in the loss of amenity of, particularly overlooking, on 107 and 109 to the East of the site and 103 and 101 to the west of the site. The development would also prejudice a number of trees that border the site which would screen the industrial unit to the rear, as stated in the Landscape Officer’s comments and although not under a Tree Preservation Order are good specimens of their type.

For all the reasons set out above and after carefully weighing all the issues, there is on balance, no valid planning considerations why planning permission should be granted.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The proposal is contrary to Policy G1.2 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan in that it would have an adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring properties by means of disturbance as a result of the proposed access and overlooking. 2. Planning permission shall not be given if the proposal is for a form of tandem development that would result in a deterioration in residential amenity.

POLICY G1

PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT WILL NORMALLY BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT:

2. WILL NOT AFFECT THE AMENITIES OF ANY NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES OR RESULT IN WIDESPREAD IMPACT, BY REASON OF NOISE, VIBRATION, SMELL, LIGHT OR OTHER POLLUTION, UNACCEPTABLE LOSS OF LIGHT OR OVERLOOKING;

POLICY H1

PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS EXCEPT WHERE:

2. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A FORM OF TANDEM DEVELOPMENT (INVOLVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE DWELLING IMMEDIATELY BEHIND ANOTHER AND SHARING THE SAME ACCESS) THAT WOULD RESULT IN A DETERIORATION IN RESIDENTIAL AMENITY. INFORMATIVE/S

POLICY UH5

PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE TOWN, AS DEFINED ON THE PROPOSALS MAP, PROVIDING THAT PROPOSALS SATISFY:

5. THE NEED TO AVOID UNNEIGHBOURLY STANDARDS OF AMENITY IN DESIGN AND LAYOUT.

INFORMATIVE/S: 1. Pursuant to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the proposed development does not comply with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for approval. These include specifically the following policies: G1.2, H1 and UH5.5 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing number received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: No Drawing Number 06/04/2005

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 22/06/2005

Report of the Director of Environment and Economy

APPLICATION REF: WP/2005/0276/O

PROPOSAL: Outline application with supporting documents for demolition of existing old sort-office building and erection of retail space and residential flats.

LOCATION: Land rear of the Post Office, Midland Road, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mayall Investments Limited.

PROPOSAL: (As above). This site lies between Midland Road (opposite the Swansgate Shopping Centre) and the Matalan Store between the existing Post Officer and the Telephone Exchange. The old Post Office buildings currently occupy the frontage. The proposal is submitted in outline form with all matters other than siting reserved, in order to establish the principle of developing the site by virtue of 4 retail units around a courtyard with a frontage also to Midland Road and two linked blocks of maisonettes (9 units) to the rear and flats on 4 levels (54 units) over the retail units at the frontage and to one side, as well as over the maisonettes. Basement parking for 20 cars is envisaged and pedestrian access is provided to the rear. All these details are indicated on indicative plans that don’t form part of the application (save for siting of the buildings).

PLANNING HISTORY: Various – most recent and relevant is: WP/2003/536 - Outline application for residential development - refused. WP/2004/0133 – Outline application for residential development (78 flats) and 2 ground floor shops with flats over on the Midland Road frontage - refused

PLANNING POLICY: Northamptonshire County Structure Plan - GS1, GS2, GS5, GS6, TCR1 Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan - Policies G1, G10, H1, H7, H8, H12, C2, C3, C5, C8 and C9. The site is within the Town Centre Core, is on a Secondary Shopping Street and adjoins Wellingborough Conservation Area. SPG VIII: Building Better Places.

Hall 6

2 1 1 1

T 4 h 0

T e 3 1

a 1 Hall b B 9 e a T

rn p E 2 E 1 a ti R

Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694.Garage Published 08/06/2005

2 2 3 0 893 Church

Factory

W 1

268100 B 2 268100 6 9 M 1 Club 8 NE LA 6 S

3.3 R

1 UE 0 EQ 4 CH m 1 rks 2 Wo 13

Works 62.6m 5

4 8

Works

Works 3 2

Club

2 2 1 8 19 a 2 3 18

5 3 1 0

4a 1m 3

1 . 3 0 1 T 1 PH 4 6 E a

Cinema 7 1 E R

Club o T

t S

1 E 3 G 3 ID 63.1m 11 BR

AM PH 3 C 5 S 8 9 RCH TRE b CHU ET 3

8a 5

a 3 6

8 6

7 7

6a 7 a

2 1 3 4 6 Vicarage 8 3 3a 4 4a 5 5a 680 680

3 T 9

WELLINGBOROUGH TREE

GE S 3

BRID 9 CAM a

Vicarage 0 4 GLOUCESTER 1 PLACE 's rty ffe Ra ) PH 2 T

( 7 h e

6 2 C r ( is 2 P p

8 H

) in

2 8

All Hallows' a

Church 3

9 T b

2 E 29a

T 3

2 0

K 1

2 3

M 2

3 3 33a

Library 3

6 4

7 Granville 1 GBOROUGH Chambers Head 8 1 Post Office

679 6797 9 3 5 to e P 9 e e on g G b h n b L l p a E e e h N l L c B e a x A n 57.9m T N PCs e 3 E K 1

1 3 5 1 13

5 TCBs 2 1 1 9 1 21 5 23 3 23

M a 25 2

0 ID 5a

5 5 LA 8 4 N D R 27a 27

0 4 O 2

1 t 5 6 AD

MARKET e 5 6 e 5 Bank r

SQUARE 9 t

9 3

S C 5 6 53.6m

4 6 t h 6 6 e e 2

k e 6

r s 5 6

a e 7 1 7

1 M 6 e

8 L n 6

5 8 4 a

a 8 0 L 0 n 6 s e an w 5 S Bank 9

6 TCBs 4 9 4 7 The Swansgate Bank

3 7 4 1

28 LB 4 Centre 2 7 2

Bank 7 3 1 7 4 3

2 6

1 7

t 6 o

0 3

2678001 267800

1 9 6

3 3 489200 489400 1 C 38 e 893 o

n r

7 a 2 n

3 L 1 L

g 2 a ts 36 in 9

s r n 7

p e 7 1

o S 3 Scale 1:1250

P 1 t

o t

3 8 2 1 0

Hind Hotel 8 7 D 3 A

T 7

S E 3

Y C 5

A 3

R L 5 o

6 3

3 6 4 61

CONSULTATIONS: At the time of drafting of the report the period of consultation was outstanding. The responses received are set out below. Any subsequent responses will be included on the Committee update list and circulated at the meeting.

1. County Highway Authority – concerned that the means of vehicular access to the development will adversely affect the facilities provided over the frontage of the application site to accommodate bus stop and parking facilities, for both general purpose and disabled use. It would appear that no dedicated facility, except for direct access to the front of the building from Midland Road, has been provided to serve the Post Office. It must be clarified how it is intended to serve both the residential and retail parts of the development with deliveries, removals etc. The vehicular access must be of sufficient dimensions to permit two-way access by all vehicles expected to visit the site. The likelihood of obtaining access from alternative directions (such as the rear of the site) should be investigated. The vehicular crossing must be to the specification of Northants. County Council and the local authority should perform refuse collection in respect of which early discussions should be held with the appropriate Borough Council officer. It will not be intended to adopt the on site access ways. Any alterations to traffic regulation orders affected by the development must be undertaken at the expense of the applicant. The Borough Council must satisfy itself as to the adequacy of parking on the site.

2. Head of Spatial Planning, Borough Council of Wellingborough - no comments.

3. Repairs and Improvements Manager of Housing Services – there are no objections to this application.

4. Environment Agency – no objections.

5. Environmental Health Officer – an Environmental Risk Assessment to assess possible contamination of the site is required.

ASSESSMENT: This proposal is located within an area defined in the adopted Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan as a Secondary Shopping Street. Policy C2 of the Local Plan requires shopping uses to predominate in the overall area covered by any streets falling into this category.

In addition, it is located within an area identified in the Local Plan where Policies C8 and C9 require a mix of uses together with a comprehensive plan for the development of the area where they are located.

Members will recall an application to develop this site for 78 flats and 2 shop units that was refused planning permission at the Council’s Regulatory Committee in April 2004 (WP/2004/133/O). This previous application involved the demolition of the Post Office frontage to enable 2 ground floor shops to be provided at this location. These shops were welcomed in terms of the aims of the Secondary Shopping Street policy. 62

Other than this, the previous proposal was for the erection of 78 flats on the remainder of the site including some above the shops on the frontage.

As has been outlined above, the earlier application not only had to be considered in relation to the Secondary Shopping Street but in terms of an overall mix of uses and the comprehensive planning of this part of the town.

Policy C8 requires an acceptable mix of uses and Policy C9 requires the comprehensive planning of an area bounded by Midland Road, Victoria Road, Cambridge Street and the rear of properties fronting Market Street North. It is accepted that much of this area has now been taken up by the Aldi and Matalan developments so an overall comprehensive plan is not appropriate. However, there is still a significant area of land remaining (including this application site) and it is important that this is planned in as comprehensive a way as possible including a mix of uses as required by Policy C8. An important aspect of this approach involves linking the Midland Road frontage through to land at the rear and ideally eventually through to Cambridge Street.

The previous application included a pedestrian access through to the rear of the site to make some provision for such a link. This was, however, in some places less than 2 metres wide and it would have run alongside an area proposed to be developed solely for residential proposes. It was not considered that this would be attractive to potential users and this, combined with the lack of a mix of uses on the rear of the site was considered contrary to the aims of policies C8 and C9 of the Local Plan. The applicant had been made aware of the above situation and in response had advised the following:

“We are not opposed to greater retail use on the site but the reality is that our agent Underwood’s (the leading commercial agents in the town) have been marketing the whole site to retail occupiers for 3 years and have had no expressions of interest, despite repeated marketing campaigns.

They have marketed the site to numerous retailers with requirements from 1000 sq ft up to 20000 sq ft and I am sure they would be prepared to show you the mailing lists. The fundamental problem with this site is that it is a tertiary retail location, which is made significantly worse by the complete ‘dead frontage’ created by the shopping centre opposite.

The only scope for retail use over the whole site would have been through the provision of clear access to the Matalan/Aldi site. This may have ensured some retail interest however, this opportunity was squandered when a decision was made to build the imposing Matalan unit so close to the rear of our site, which has resulted in our site being hardly visible, when viewed from the Aldi car park. To make matters worse, the service road to the Matalan unit is immediately to the rear of our site, making it undesirable as a pedestrian access.

In hindsight, if the Matalan unit had been constructed at the Victoria Road end of the site, it might have enabled sufficient visibility to enable a retail link to the 63

shopping centre. You should note that our outline application does allow for a pedestrian link alongside the British Telecom property however, we are not in control of the Matalan site and the freehold owners and indeed Matalan may strongly resist the general public using their service road with all the dangers that could result.

Regarding the actual drawings we submitted these are for indicative purposes as our application is for outline consent. The proposal broadly is for just under 2500 sq ft of NEW retail accommodation fronting Midland Road. We have suggested this be divided into two units in order to provide similar accommodation to all the other retail users in Midland Road. It is also more logical to split the units due to the significant slope of Midland Road and to enable attractive access and servicing to retail and residential accommodation.

However, we would be prepared to make this into a single unit and give it greater depth but it must be recognised that this is an outline application and the actual design would not be finalised until the detailed design stage. In summary, the site would have a total retail accommodation of about 4000 sq ft when the Post Office (already extended) is taken into account.

When we submitted our previous application, the spatial planning department accepted that a comprehensive scheme could not now be achieved and we believe this current proposal which provides significant new retail accommodation combined with an access route to adjoining sites is making the best of a poor situation that has resulted from past consents.

Council Officers also made the comment that the Wellingborough East development could create more retail demand in the town centre, which may be the case however from my experience, retail operators will not consider this site and will only come to the town if they can be accommodated in the shopping centre. This reality is evident from our complete lack of interest over three years in what has been a strong retail market.

Finally, I would request that the Members and Officers go and stand in the Aldi car park and see just how screened off our site is as a result of the imposing Matalan unit.”

These comments were noted but there was considered to be more potential for this site to accommodate a greater mix of uses, particularly in the light of the forthcoming Wellingborough East development. The capacity of the Swansgate Centre to accommodate additional growth is considered limited. In addition, whilst it is accepted that there may be problems at present with access through the Matalan site to Cambridge Street, the potential to provide this must not be lost.

The new application addresses the concerns of the Borough Council by increasing the amount of retail floorspace and by providing a pedestrian link to the site boundary of the Matalan store. The scheme as now envisaged would appear to meet the requirements of the Local Plan.

Given that this proposed scheme includes retail development and exceeds 10 residential units, the development is in excess of the threshold for seeking Planning Obligations in accordance with the terms of the Council’s adopted Guidance. At the time of drafting this report the S106 consultation had not been concluded.

There are not any valid reasons or material planning considerations why planning permission should not now be granted.

RECOMMENDATION: That the issue of planning permission be delegated to the Director of Environment and Economy subject to the possible prior signing of a Section 106 legal agreement.

1. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates: (a) the expiration of five years from the date of this permission; or (b) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. 2. Before any development is commenced, detailed plans, drawings and particulars of the design, drainage and external appearance of the proposed development and the means of access thereto, together with landscaping and screen walls/fences shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance therewith. 3. In preparing the detailed plans, drawings and particulars of the design of the access as indicated in Condition 2 above the requirements of the County Highway Authority (as set out on the attached consultation response document) must be adhered to. 4. The development shall not exceed 5 storeys in height. 5. Prior to the commencement of the development of the site an Environmental Risk Assessment, which addresses the potential contamination of the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. To secure satisfactorily planned development. 3. To secure satisfactorily planned development. 4. IIn the interests of visual amenity. 5. To avoid any detrimental affects from contamination.

Structure Plan and G1, G10, H1, H7, H8, H12, C2, C3, C5, C8 and C9. of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 1802-20, 21 22/04/2005 3. Please ensure that the provisions of The Party Wall Act 1996 (see booklet attached) are adhered to when carrying out this development. 66

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 22/06/2005

Report of the Director of Environment and Economy

APPLICATION REF: WP/2005/0323/F

PROPOSAL: Proposed warehouse/offices.

LOCATION: T S R Plastics, Finedon Sidings Industrial Estate, Furnace Lane, Finedon, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: TSR Plastics.

PROPOSAL: Warehouse and offices to replace existing workshop.

PLANNING HISTORY: Various - most recent is: WP/2004/0833 withdrawn because of objection from the Environment Agency on the grounds that no flood risk assessment had been provided.

PLANNING POLICY: Policies G1, G2, E7 and LH1 of the adopted Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

CONSULTATIONS: 1. Little Harrowden Parish Council - the Parish Council have now had the opportunity to review this application and are happy to support this application. The Council have however asked me to pass on their strong feeling that road improvements are much needed in this area before the development is to go ahead.

2. Finedon Station Road Residents Group – strongly object to the application on the following grounds – a. The Heavy Goods Vehicles already using Finedon Station Road have reached record numbers and despite promises from Northamptonshire County Council continues to rise. This application can only cause more problems to residents. b. The access road and junction to Finedon Station Road are not up to standard and lorries have to swing across Finedon Station Road to gain access. c. Light pollution from the estate is already a problem and this will be increased; and Slope Pond Water

272700 272700 V

4667 Pond 7465 50.1m Water

MP 68 VV

V V V

V V N P V e Works Is r e Water iv

726 R 726 Water V

1 V

A N V V

Compton House D P

725 725 3 51.6m Bobtail E T Lodge D D L

t BM 52.07m a

Kennels Y

V V

724 724 Furnace Lane Industrial Estate

Water

V V

0 1

8 50.1m 723 723

MP 67.75 T

2 1 V V

Slope

T 722 722

r a Furnace Cottages c

1 8

49.3m Slope Slope Water Slope

272100 272100

489400 489800 895 896 897 V Scale 1:2500 V 67

d. The residents feel that continued development in this rural area particularly on the floodplain should be discouraged. Already established businesses should be encouraged to move to approved sites i.e. Wellingborough East and allow the Ise Valley to return to its natural state and functions.

3. County Highway Authority – advise that the frontage of the site to Furnace Lane exhibits a run-down and unkempt appearance. Raise no objections to the application subject to the following: a. To encourage disciplined operation and the safe and efficient use of the site entrance and the adjacent highway it is necessary for improvements to be made to the fencing, kerbing and the surface of the vehicular crossing before the new premises are occupied. b. You must satisfy yourself as to the adequacy of parking accommodation provided to serve the existing and proposed uses on the site; and c. The gates at the entrance to the parking area must be hung so as not to obstruct vehicles entering the site from Furnace Lane.

4. Environment Agency – objects to the application on the grounds that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment is not fully PPG25 compliant. In particular, additional information is needed to assess the impact of the 1 in 100 year flood event with an allowance for climate change on the site.

5. Borough of Wellingborough, Landscape Officer - there is an extensive area of rough ground to the rear of the Furnace Lane site with a belt of trees along the River Ise boundary. The spoil could be graded down with the larger pieces buried and the nutrient deficient substrata sown with appropriate wild flower mixture to provide benefits for biodiversity.

6. Furnace Lane Action Group – strongly oppose the application on the grounds of inadequate access and highway safety plus noise and light pollution as a result of 24 hour activity. Also advise that the site backs onto the River Ise which bursts its banks annually and the development could pose a potential water pollution hazard.

7. Third Parties – 15 letters of objection received from residents of Furnace Lane. These express concerns on highway grounds as well as increased noise and light pollution as a result of the development.

ASSESSMENT: This is a proposal to replace an existing workshop with a floorspace of 589m2 with a warehouse and offices covering a floorspace of 1904m2. It is located on the small industrial estate at Furnace Lane, Finedon Sidings.

Policy LH1 of the Local Plan does give scope for development of this nature at this location within an area defined in the Local Plan providing that it does not give rise to extra traffic movements and has adequate screening. Approximately 75% of the proposed building lies within this defined area with the remaining 25% lying in an area that is considered in the Local Plan as appropriate only for open storage under the terms of the same Policy.

The applicant advises that it is necessary for the building to extend into the area considered suitable only for open storage in order to give appropriate vehicle parking and emergency access at the front of the building and also to allow the entrance gates to be set back to allow a proper and safe turning curve for trailers.

Related to this, in connection with the previous application, the Highway Authority recognised that the existing building exhibits a rundown and unkempt appearance and advised that to encourage disciplined operation and the safe and efficient use of the site entrance and the adjacent highway it is necessary for improvements to be made to the fencing, kerbing and the surface of the vehicular crossing before the new premises are occupied.

The applicant also advises that his existing building is very old and dilapidated. The larger building is needed to accommodate a number of larger double deck trailers that they have introduced to their fleet. These vehicles allow them to carry more pallets and therefore reduces the number of lorries travelling to and from the site. They advise that allowing this facility will enable them to continue introducing these trailers further reducing truck storage. The existing building is not tall enough to accommodate the taller doors that the larger trailers have and, because of its condition, it is not economical to raise the roof. He does not consider this is an intensification of use and feels the proposal will enable them to operate more efficiently and give a more enhanced feel to the local area compared to the existing building.

These points are all accepted and are considered to outweigh the location of part of the building on an area of land defined in the Local Plan as only being suitable for open storage. The location of part of the building on this land is therefore not considered sufficient to justify refusing planning permission.

In response to the concerns about lorry traffic, the Highway Authority does not object to the application and it is noted that the applicant feels that this proposal will result in less lorry movements compared to the present situation. Furthermore, Policy E7 of the Local Plan indicates that proposals for large scale warehousing and distribution will only be permitted on industrial estates with satisfactory access to the primary road network. The site is well located for access to the A509 and all of the points raised by the Highway Authority about improving the entrance to the site can be accommodated. The site also has adequate on space for parking turning and manoeuvring of vehicles. It is therefore considered acceptable on highway grounds subject to appropriate conditions being included in any planning permission to secure the Highway Authority’s requirements.

The existing building is visible from the surroundings and the new building will add to this impact. It will be almost 11 metres tall at its highest point. However, this impact is not considered to be sufficient to justify refusing this application because there are also a number of other large buildings nearby and the proposal will be seen as part of these. Notwithstanding this, it is important that sufficient landscaping is carried out to mitigate against the effect of the proposal as much as possible. This can be secured by means of a planning condition in the event that permission is granted for the proposal. Any lighting on the new building can also be controlled by planning conditions. 69

There is also the opportunity to secure some improvement to the biodiversity of the area by planting an area at the rear of the site with wild flowers. This can also be secured by means of a planning condition in the event that permission is granted for the proposal.

In response to concerns about noise from nearby residents in Furnace Lane Cottages, the proposal is over 200 metres from the closest of these dwellings. It is in the centre of the existing industrial estate and there are a number of other premises which potentially can cause disturbance. The proposal is to replace an additional building without any significant intensification of use on the site. In this context, any additional disturbance which may result from this development is not considered sufficient to justify refusing the application.

The proposal is of a size whereby possible Section 106 contributions have to be considered. As a result, consultations have been carried out with all the identified ‘responsible officers’ for possible contributions and, at the time of writing this report, no topics have been identified for inclusion in such an agreement in the event that planning permission is granted for this proposal. A Section 106 Agreement is therefore not considered justified in this case.

However, notwithstanding the above, Policy G2 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that new development does not cause flooding problems. The proposal is located in the flood plain of the River Ise. It has therefore been subject to a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to ascertain whether this is likely to cause any problems. The Environment Agency has considered the FRA and objects to the application on the grounds that it not fully PPG25 compliant in that insufficient information has been provided to address potential concerns about the proposal. In particular, additional information is needed to address the impact of the 1 in 100 year flood event with an allowance for climate change on the site. In view of this, it is considered that the proposal does not comply with Policy G2 of the Local Plan and therefore should be refused.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy G2 of the adopted Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan in that insufficient information has been provided to address potential concerns on flooding grounds about the proposal detrimental to the amenity of the locality. In particular, additional information is needed to address the impact of the 1 in 100 year flood event with an allowance for climate change on the site.

POLICY G2

UNLESS FLOOD PROTECTION AND MITIGATION MEASURES APPROPRIATE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE IMPACT OF THE 70

DEVELOPMENT ARE PROVIDED, PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE REFUSED FOR DEVELOPMENT:

1. WITHIN THE FLOODPLAINS AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSALS MAP; OR 2. IN OTHER AREAS AT RISK OF FLOODING; OR 3. WHICH WILL INCREASE THE RISK OF FLOODING ELSEWHERE; OR 4. RESULT IN PROBLEMS DUE TO ADDITIONAL SURFACE WATER RUN OFF. 71

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

FOR INFORMATION

Regulatory Committee 22/06/2005

Report of the Director of Environment and Economy

APPLICATION REF: WP/2005/0179/C

PROPOSAL: Extension of existing processing operations from unit 23A into unit 23B and use of material seperation plant and variation of planning permission WP/03/470/C to include storage of hazardous waste components removed from refrigeration and electrical equipment.

LOCATION: 21-23 Leyland Trading Estate, Irthlingborough Road, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: NCC

NOTE: Approved by Northamptonshire County Council on 23rd May 2005 subject to the following condition/s:-

Note: This planning permission updates and consolidates Permission (WP/03/470 C) dated 1st October 2003, the conditions of which are retained and updated. An additional 5 conditions to ensure satisfactory completion and monitoring of the site have been added. All amendments to the original permission including additional Informatives are indicated in BOLD.

Commencement

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

2. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority:-

a) No waste other than non-hazardous or hazardous as specified by the Hazardous and the Electrical and Electronic Equipment waste directives shall be imported on to the site.

3. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority; materials to be treated and recycled shall be restricted to commercial and domestic refrigeration units, fluorescent lighting tubes and 490600 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. 490800 Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 08/06/2005 907 267900 267900

Pipe Line

100

s I

v i

D 678 678 Y Slope P

Slope Y 3 06 Water 2 1

1 2 El Sub Sta

P 110 a 109 a

a 108 D 3

ra 2

in 107

1 1 1 Leyla

Water

b 2

a Trad

a 2

2 Esta

b 3

2 2

1 Water 2

677 677 1

M P

6 4 4

.7 1

5 1

c 9

4 1

Slope 0

9 c

T 9

1 b

a 4 2

c S k w a

n 7

s 1

p Y 5 o 2 o

l 4

B 3

r 1

o 9 Tank

o 1

k 6

0 2

1 1

Water

Slope 4

2 1 5 a

267600 267600

490600 490800

907 7 6 Scale 1:1250

Water

3 Y 72

other mercury containing components, gas discharge lamps, refractory ceramic fibres, phthalate plasticized rubber, CFC, HFC, HCFC and HC gasses from refrigeration plastic containing brominated flame retardants capacitors containing PCB’s batteries, toner cartridges and waste electrical and electronic equipment.

4. Treatment and recycling or waste material shall be confined to inside the Units the subject of this permission. No waste shall be disposed of on the site

Noise

5. No plant, machinery or vehicles shall be used on the site unless fitted with silencers maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations and specification.

Drainage

6 Any facilities, above ground, for the storage of oils, fuels or chemical shall be sited in impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharged into the bund.

7 Vehicle loading or unloading bays and storage areas involving recycling or waste matter shall not be connected to the surface water system.

Monitoring

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

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

10. A copy of the terms of this permission, including all documents hereby permitted and any documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission (or amendments approved pursuant to this permission) shall be displayed at the site office and shall be made known to any person given responsibility for the management 73

or control of operations on the site.

The reasons for the conditions and Relevant Development Plan Policies are:-

1. This condition is imposed to meet with the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended). 2 to 4 To specify the range of wastes permitted to be deposited and the scope of this planning permission (County Structure Plan (CSP) Policy W3). 5. To safeguard the local environment and protect the amenities of local residents and users from unreasonable noise levels. (CSP Policy W3). 6. To prevent pollution of the Water environment. (CSP Policy AR9). 7. To prevent pollution of the Water environment. (CSP Policy AR9). 8 & 9 To be in keeping with the proximity principle, national waste policy and the imposition of the landfill regulations and future changes to the planning system and waste management system and to monitor the effect of the imposition of the directive regulations (CSP Policy W3). 10. To monitor the implementation of the conditions (CSP Policy W3)

Informatives

1. The Environment Agency comment that the current W M Licence (referenced: EAWML/ 73115) which Environmental; Storage Solutions are operating under in units21 and 23A of the Leyland Trading Estate, Irthlingborough Road, Wellingborough, will need to be surrendered and a new license to cover these units and 23B will need to be applied for. Mr David Clingo of Environmental Storage Solutions is aware of this requirement.

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

The specialist nature of these existing operations means that waste can be recovered in keeping with the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive as well as the Hazardous Waste Directive. The site is an existing waste management facility for non-hazardous and hazardous waste. The adopted Borough of Wellingborough Council Local Plan Policy E10 is that these workings should be permitted where it is connected with the storage or use of hazardous substances in the vicinity of an existing hazardous installation. The proposal is in keeping with Policies E1 and E2 of the adopted Local Plan for Borough of Wellingborough Council (1999). The Modified Waste Local Plan describes local sites as those who deal with waste of less than 50,000 tonnes per annum. The proposed development is for local waste management facility within larger area of employment use and general industrial purposes (B2 of the Use Classes). The extended site is on land previously affected by development, within industrial area. The Modified Waste Local Plan goes on to say that the use of existing or redundant buildings and structures for waste management is encouraged. The proposal is therefore in keeping with Policy 4 of the Modified waste Local Plan and therefore Policy 2.

74 22nd June 2005

REGULATORY COMMITTEE

The following applications dealt with under the terms of the Director of Environment and Economy’s delegated powers.

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

WP/2002/0639/HS Scott Bader Company Limited Scott Bader, Irchester Road, APPROVEC Wollaston, Wellingborough. The continuation of hazardous substance consent which needs to change because of the new Polymer Plant for which all other Planning Consents have already been granted.

WP/2004/0811/F Prologis Developments Victoria Business Park, land APPROVEC Limited between Victoria Mills and Chester Farm, A45, Wellingborough. Proposed bridge link over the River Nene including regrading existing embankment and formation of access ramp to the riverside footpath.

WP/2005/0197/LB Mr A Khan Hind Hotel, Sheep Street, APPROVEC Wellingborough. To place grilles on the frame of the windows to prevent further vandalism.

WP/2005/0203/F Mr A Spokes 120 Windsor Road, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Single storey side extension (disabled facility).

WP/2005/0207/F Mrs M Granger 50 Abbey Road, APPROVEC Wellingborough. 2 storey rear + single storey rear extension.

WP/2005/0210/F Mr A Mistry 72 Shearwater Lane, REFUSED Wellingborough. Single storey extensions to front and rear - amended location plan and corrected address. 75 Application No. Location of Proposal Decision Applicant’s Name Description of Proposal

WP/2005/0213/F Mr M Fisher 62 Main Street, Little APPROVEC Harrowden, Wellingborough. Increased floor area to existing approved first floor extension (Re-submission- WP/2002/0348/F).

WP/2005/0214/F Mr and Mrs P Morson 92 Main Street, Little APPROVEC Harrowden, Wellingborough. First floor rear extension.

WP/2005/0215/F Mr C Odom 17 Church Street, Isham, APPROVED Kettering. Construction of garage to front of property.

WP/2005/0219/LB Mr J Hilsdon, Harrowden Church wall adjoining APPROVEC Farms Limited Wentworth Farm, 2 The Slips, Great Harrowden, Wellingborough. Re-building church wall, adding railings - application for the removal of condition 2 (of Listed Building Consent WP/2005/0005/LB) requiring square section railings and seeking permission to use circular iron railings.

WP/2005/0224/LB T J W Farmers, C/o Agent Manor Farm, Hardwick, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Renewal of Listed Building Consent WP/2001/0052/LB - Demolition of parts of outbuildings and conversion of 2 barns into dwellings.

WP/2005/0225/F T J W Farmers, C/o Agent Manor Farm, Hardwick, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Renewal of planning permission WP/2001/0051/F - Residential development of 5 no. units comprising 2 no. barn conversions and 3 no. new detached houses.

WP/2005/0227/O Mr J Davis Land at rear of 20 Church APPROVEC Street, Isham, Kettering. Renewal of outline consent for single dwelling.

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

WP/2005/0228/LB Mr G Stalker 17 Finedon Hall, Mackworth APPROVEC Drive, Finedon, Wellingborough. Four roof windows to rear elevation. Retrospective installation of satellite dish to rear wall.

WP/2005/0234/F Mrs J Passmore 9 Church View, Ecton, APPROVEC Northampton. Single storey rear/side extension with first floor in roof over middle at rear and detached garage to replace existing garage - amended plan and additional information.

WP/2005/0236/F IMS Research Limited Site WN Huxley Close, Park APPROVEC Farm South, Wellingborough. Repositioning of proposed three storey offices, with amendments to external parking and landscaping (previous approval - WP/2004/0904/F).

WP/2005/0238/F Mr and Mrs McDonald 17 Second Avenue, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Single storey extension to rear elevation i.e. - conservatory.

WP/2005/0242/F Mr R Templeman 14 Prospect Avenue, APPROVEC Irchester, Wellingborough. First floor rear extension.

WP/2005/0245/F Heartlands PCT NHS Trust - Isebrook Hospital, APPROVEC Estates Department Irthlingborough Road, Wellingborough. Extension of existing car park for approximately 20 additional spaces.

WP/2005/0246/LB David Smith Grove Farm House, 39 High APPROVEC Street, Great Doddington, Wellingborough. Internal alterations to utility room and store room above.

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

WP/2005/0251/F Mr S Williams 49 Mears Ashby Road, Earls APPROVEC Barton, Northampton. Proposed replacement dwelling.

WP/2005/0255/F Mr and Mrs Lancaster-Lennox 26 Tudor Way, APPROVED Wellingborough, Change of use from grass verge to garden land.

WP/2005/0256/F Mr and Mrs Cox 4 Weavers Road, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Proposed first floor rear extension.

WP/2005/0257/F Miss M White Land Adj 11 Churchill Road, APPROVEC Earls Barton. Proposed detached dwelling with allocated parking and garden - amended plans.

WP/2005/0263/F T M Vincent 40 Main Road, Grendon, APPROVEC Northampton. New garden shed/outhouse.

WP/2005/0264/F Mr and Mrs Good 52 Hatfield Close, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Two storey side extension.

WP/2005/0267/F Miss M Foster 22 James Road, APPROVED Wellingborough. Erect a PVCu conservatory to rear of property.

WP/2005/0269/F Wayne Pittams 13 Cordon Crescent, Earls APPROVEC Barton, Northampton. Dormer side extension over garage and rear conservatory (slightly amended scheme).

WP/2005/0271/F Mr Lovell 21 Fourth Avenue, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Proposed two storey side extension (re-submission).

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

WP/2005/0272/F Mr S P Patel, Vins Village Vins Village Stores, 6 North APPROVEC Stores Road, Earls Barton. Northampton Replacement of windows and door and installation of roller shutters - additional information.

WP/2005/0274/O Moorgate House Private Unit 9, Midland Business REFUSED Pension Limited Units, Finedon Road, Wellingborough. Outline application for new industrial unit (600m2).

WP/2005/0277/F Mrs E Clouder 19 Denby Dale, APPROVED Wellingborough. Conservatory to rear (Retrospective).

WP/2005/0278/F Toy World Knuston Lodge Farm, Higham APPROVEC Road, Irchester, Wellingborough. Warehouse extension.

WP/2005/0283/F Mr and Mrs J Clarke 12 Prospect Close, APPROVEC Wollaston, Wellingborough. Ground floor single storey garden room (12 sq. m.) extension to living area.

WP/2005/0285/F Weavers School Weavers Sports Centre, APPROVEC Weavers Road, Wellingborough. Alterations to existing sports centre - addition of new hall, addition of social annex - front admin. extension.

WP/2005/0286/AV AMF Bowling AMF Wellingborough Bowl, APPROVEC Victoria Park, Turnells Mill Lane, Denington Industrial Estate, Wellingborough. Repainting existing signs and adding new flex-face - retention of existing neon band - new feature entrance portal sign - new poster frames - new fascia signage above glass line.

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

WP/2005/0288/F Ms J Patrick 25 Cordon Crescent, Earls APPROVEC Barton, Northampton. Proposed mono-pitched roof to front of property.

WP/2005/0289/F Mr D Hutton 23 Medway Drive, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Two storey side extension.

WP/2005/0290/F Mr and Mrs Burnham 12 Doddington Road, Wilby, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Single storey side extension.

WP/2005/0291/F Mr I Forth, E Lee & Sons E Lee & Son Butcher, 25 The APPROVED Square, Earls Barton, Northampton. Single storey rear extension.

WP/2005/0293/F Mr Sayed 96 Somerford Road, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Ground floor side extension.

WP/2005/0294/F U-Pol Products Limited Land Adj. 1 Everitt Close, APPROVEC Denington Industrial Estate, Wellingborough. Change of use from car park area to storage area.

WP/2005/0295/F Progress Motors Limited Unit C2, Baird Court, Park APPROVEC Farm Industrial Estate, Wellingborough. Change of use to B2 - M.O.T. Testing, car servicing and repairs (no bodywork or spray painting).

WP/2005/0297/F Mr J Bolton 42 Mile Street, Bozeat, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Revised application for 1 no. 3 bedroom detached house.

WP/2005/0304/F Mr and Mrs Martin 51 Queen Street, Bozeat, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Single storey side, rear and front extensions.

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

WP/2005/0305/F Alan Rose Light It, 2 Pebble Lane, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Change of use from A1 to D2 - temporary (5 yrs) 30 minute fitness and weight loss facility.

WP/2005/0309/F Mr and Mrs P Collins The Grange, 3 Manor Road, APPROVED Grendon, Northampton. New pool enclosure building with link to existing house.

WP/2005/0315/CON Cornerstone Construction Conisway Limited, 140 APPROVED Highfield Road, Wellingborough. Details submitted pursuant to Condition 2 concerning external facing and roofing materials for 6 no. 2 bed houses and associated parking and demolition of existing building at Conisway Limited 140 Highfield Road Wellingborough. Reference no. WP/2005/0115/F approved 30 March 2005.

WP/2005/0322/F Mr L Tee 29 Berrill Street, Irchester, APPROVEC Wellingborough. Rear conservatory.

WP/2005/0324/CON Mr I Harding Land Adj. 15 Rock Road, APPROVED Finedon, Wellingborough. Details submitted pursuant to Condition 3 concerning external facing and roofing materials, Condition 4 concerning parking plans and Condition 6 concerning site levels at Land adj. 15 Rock Road, Finedon, Wellingborough. Reference no. WP/2004/0603/F approved 10 November 2004.

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

WP/2005/0334/CON Sywell Leisure Sports Limited Sywell Shooting Grounds, APPROVED Kettering Road, Sywell, Northampton. Details submitted pursuant to Condition 3 concerning landscaping scheme for construction of go kart track and car park at Sywell Shooting Grounds, Sywell. Reference no. WP/99/0493 approved 11 October 2000.

WP/2005/0347/CON Hutchison 3G UK Limited Grange Farm, 60 APPROVED Wellingborough Road, Earls Barton, Northampton. Details submitted pursuant to Condition 2 concerning a scheme for the colour of the mast for installation of 20m telecommunications tower with 3 No. antennas, 2 No. 600mm + 1 No. 300mm diameter dish antennas, radio equipment housing + development ancillary thereto at Grange Farm, 60 Wellingborough Road, Earls Barton. Reference No. WP/2005/0125/F approved 27 April 2005.

WP/2005/0348/CON BTS Developments Limited Land off Nest Lane, APPROVED Wellingborough. Details submitted pursuant to Condition 1 concerning material samples for new build development (involving demolition of existing buildings) of 20: 2, 3, 4, bedroomed dwellings with new access road, parking and garages. Reference no. WP/2004/0715/RM approved 5 January 2005.

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

WP/2005/0349/CON BTS Developments Limited Land off Nest Lane, APPROVED Wellingborough. Details submitted pursuant to Condition 4 concerning areas allocated to bin storage for new build development (involving demolition of existing buildings) of 20: 2, 3, 4, bedroomed dwellings with new access road, parking and garages. Reference no. WP/2004/0715/RM approved 5 January 2005.

WP/2005/0350/CON Leicester Housing Bassetts Court, West Villa APPROVED Association Road, Wellingborough. Details submitted pursuant to Condition 2 concerning external facing and roofing materials for conversion and extension to 32 bedsits to form 32 self-contained flats at Bassetts Court, West Villa Road, Wellingborough. Reference no. WP/2004/0527/F approved 2 September 2004.

WP/2005/0351/CON Mr and Mrs M Whatling 19 Hilltop Road, Little APPROVED Harrowden, Wellingborough. Details submitted pursuant to Condition 2 concerning external facing and roofing materials at 19 Hilltop Road, Little Harrowden. Reference no. WP/2005/0048/F approved 29 March 2005.

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

WP/2005/0364/CON Weavers School Weavers Sports Centre, APPROVED Weavers Road, Wellingborough. Details submitted pursuant to Condition 4 concerning the provision of a cycle storage facility within the secure boundary fenced area of the site for alterations to existing sports centre - addition of new hall, addition of social annex - front admin. extension at Weavers Sports Centre, Weavers Road, Wellingborough. Reference no. WP/2005/0285/F approved 25 May 2005.

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, Environment and Economy Department, Croyland Abbey, Tithe Barn Road, Wellingborough.

84 REGULATORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH WITH UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date :06/06/2005

Description Application No. Name & Address FP/2004/0642/ C Mr J Brown 1 The Meadows Conversion demolition and new Wellingborough building of barns to form a dwelling APPROVED

FP/2004/0889/ B Mr & Mrs Wingrove 14 Ground & first floor extension at site Leyland View of dwelling APPROVED Wellingborough

FP/2004/2699/ A Mr & Mrs M Gibbard 19, Balcony at 1st floor (north Voysey North Street Mears elevation), single storey extension APPROVED Ashby Northampton for games room (east elevation)

FP/2005/0353/ A Mr B Vidal 187 Northampton Loft conversion Road Wellingborough REJECTED

FP/2005/0455/ Mr&Mrs Halsall 6 Milbury Two storey side extension Earls Barton Northampton APPROVED

PS/2005/0708/ Northampton Building Single storey rear extension ControlCliftonville House APPROVED Bedford Road Northampton 85 REGULATORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH WITH UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date :06/06/2005

Description Application No. Name & Address DI/2005/0747/ Mr A Spokes 120 Windsor Forming bedroom/sitting Road Wellingborough room/W.C/shower-(disabled) APPROVED

FP/2005/0751/ Mr Shaun Cooper 59 Hayden Lean to extension to rear of existing Avenue Finedon building APPROVED Wellingborough

FP/2005/0758/ Wellingborough Extension and alteration to existing SchoolWellingborough School music block APPROVED Irthlingborough Road Wellingborough

FP/2005/0772/ Mr & Mrs Jones 140 Midland Proposed dwelling extension & Road Wellingborough alterations APPROVED C

FP/2005/0775/ Mrs S L Bateman 68 Nest Single storey rear extension Lane Wellingborough APPROVED

FP/2005/0817/ Mr&Mrs B Gill 20 Third Single storey side extension Avenue Wellingborough APPROVED 86 REGULATORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH WITH UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date :06/06/2005

Description Application No. Name & Address FP/2005/0821/ Mr & Mrs C Tebbutt 60 Ecton Single storey extension to front of Lane Sywell Northampton dwelling APPROVED C

FP/2005/0842/ Mears Ashby Village Hall Alterations to entrance hall and Management CommitteeC/O kitchen area APPROVED 24 Manor Road Mears Ashby

FP/2005/0863/ Ms S James 29 Doddington New first floor pitched roof Road Wellingborough extension over existing single APPROVED storey extension

BN/2005/0905/ Bernard W Allen 168 Extension to rear bedroom, replace Northampton Road timber windows with double glazed ACCEPTED Wellingborough UPVC frames

FP/2005/0959/ Mr M Seckington 91 Single storey rear extension Wellingborough Road Earls APPROVED C Barton Northampton

WI/2005/0986/ Dr Stephen Kownacki 18 Replacement window x 3 Debdale Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough 87 REGULATORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH WITH UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date :06/06/2005

Description Application No. Name & Address WI/2005/0987/ Mrs Salter 20 Brook Vale Window Wilby Wellingborough ACCEPTED

BN/2005/0988/ Neville Palmer 16 Herriotts Remove interior wall between Lane Wellingborough kitchen and dining room ACCEPTED

BN/2005/0989/ Mr Barry Green 154 Mill Remove wall and put in RSJ Road Wellingborough ACCEPTED

WI/2005/0990/ Mr D Callis 24 Manor Road Replacement windows-UPVC Mears Ashby double glazed ACCEPTED

WI/2005/0991/ Mr Tony Rose 45 Oakley Replacement patio door and bow Drive Wellingborough window ACCEPTED

BN/2005/0992/ Mr David Smith 5 Woodlands Change of use from utility room to Road Irchester enlarged kitchen ACCEPTED Wellingborough 88 REGULATORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH WITH UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date :06/06/2005

Description Application No. Name & Address BN/2005/0995/ Mrs J Hall 5 Roses Close Conversion of garage and store to Wollaston Wellingborough bedroom and bathroom. ACCEPTED

BN/2005/1006/ M Smalley 1/3 Townwell Convert two semis to a single Lane Irchester dwelling-install new UPVC ACCEPTED Wellingborough windows/doors. 2 windows to be fire escape exits. Front door to become a window (non-opening). Open party wall next to chimney breast, support with lintels, install 1/2 hr fire door. Demolish 2 internal hall walls-install RSJ's. Demolish garage to rear of no 3. BN/2005/1007/ Mr U Patel 25 Covington Remove wall between front/rear Grove Wellingborough room, remove chimney breast in ACCEPTED rear bedroom, install new bathroom window, install soil pipe to connect to main sewer, concrete kitchen floor-dig 1 foot down

BN/2005/1008/ Mr G Stead 9 Norman Way New bathroom upstairs in 3rd Wellingborough bedroom, new kitchen including 2 ACCEPTED new windows and 2 RSJ's as a wall coming down in kitchen. Also outside drains work for toilet.

BN/2005/1009/ Mr A Noble C/O 26 Shelley Repair fire damage. Some new Road Wellingborough doors and windows. Partial ACCEPTED rewiring. New gas boiler and fire.

BN/2005/1029/ Mr&Mrs Thomas 25 Crawley Single storey rear extension Avenue Wellingborough ACCEPTED 89 REGULATORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH WITH UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date :06/06/2005

Description Application No. Name & Address BN/2005/1031/ Mr R H Kirton Hayes Lodge Convert garage and roof void to Farm Ecton Lane Sywell apartment ACCEPTED Northampton

FP/2005/1032/ Mr&Mrs Hockaday 2 White Proposed first floor extension to Way Earls Barton side of existing dwelling APPROVED C Northampton

BN/2005/1036/ Mr&Mrs Gill 55 Roche Way Single storey extension Wellingborough ACCEPTED

BN/2005/1037/ DaniscoDenington Road Replacement of 3 windows and Wellingborough form opening to fit 1 x window ACCEPTED

BN/2005/1038/ Jordaya Construction Removal of internal walls - insert Ltd207 Avenue Road RSJ Beam/replace windows ACCEPTED Rushden

FP/2005/1044/ Scott Bader LtdIrchester Construction of new canopy and Road Wollaston new battery store APPROVED 90 REGULATORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH WITH UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date :06/06/2005

Description Application No. Name & Address PS/2005/1046/ Daventry District Window/door replacement works CouncilLodge Road Daventry APPROVED

WI/2005/1077/ Barry Sawford 12 Steele New UPVC windows & french Road Wellingborough doors, front bedroom, landing ACCEPTED bathroom, rear bedroom, kitchen f/doors to dinning room.

DI/2005/1080/ Mrs T Hassell 19 Swanspool Bathroom alteration to provide level Parade Wellingborough access shower facility ACCEPTED

FP/2005/1082/ Mr M Williams 10 Bell End Two storey rear extension Wollaston APPROVED C

FP/2005/1083/ Northamptonshire County Installation of mobile classroom Council (Schools Service)PO APPROVED Box 216 John Dryden House 8-10 The Lakes Northampton

FP/2005/1084/ Mr M Winters 2 Cowper Two storey side extension to Road Wellingborough existing house APPROVED C 91 REGULATORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH WITH UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date :06/06/2005

Description Application No. Name & Address FP/2005/1087/ Mr & Mrs T Allen 5 London Garage conversion, rear & front Road Little Irchester extensions APPROVED Wellingborough

FP/2005/1104/ Mr&Mrs K Falkner 4 First floor bedroom and ground Tingdene Road Finedon floor kitchen extension APPROVED C Wellingborough

WI/2005/1149/ Mrs L Joslin 16 Croft Close Double glazing - replacement of old Wellingborough wooden windows ACCEPTED

WI/2005/1150/ Mrs & Mrs W Brown 36 Renewal of windows to various Eastfield Crescent Finedon elevations ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2005/1151/ Mary Bland 33 St Crispin Create doorway from hall in to Road Earls Barton garage ACCEPTED Northampton

WI/2005/1152/ Mr & Mrs Hale 50 Wollaston 2 Replacement bedroom windows Road Irchester to rear of property ACCEPTED Wellingborough 92 REGULATORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH WITH UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date :06/06/2005

Description Application No. Name & Address WI/2005/1153/ Mr F Digby 43 The Ridge Replacement kitchen window Great Doddington ACCEPTED Wellingborough

PS/2005/1154/ Corby District CouncilDene Window/door repalacement works House New Post Office APPROVED Square Corby

BN/2005/1166/ Mr M Foulser 111 Wollaston Attached garage Road Irchester ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2005/1227/ Mr Ridout and Miss Gill38 2 storey side extension Weldon Close ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2005/1228/ Mr & Mrs P Anderson 24 Two storey side extension above Spencer Close Earls Barton garage and front of garage ACCEPTED Northampton

PS/2005/1235/ Kettering Borough Refurbishment - new disabled W/C CouncilBowling Green Road facility APPROVED C Kettering 93 REGULATORY COMMITTEE

APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH WITH UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date :06/06/2005

Description Application No. Name & Address WI/2005/1237/ Mrs P Gayer 48 LONDON Replace Windows ROAD WOLLASTON ACCEPTED WELLINGBOROUGH

BN/2005/1239/ Mr J Camus 93 EASTFIELD Internal alterations with toilet facility ROAD WELLINGBOROUGH ACCEPTED