Agenda Item 7 East Northamptonshire Council Cedar Drive THRAPSTON Northamptonshire NN14 4LZ
APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 6 February 2013 INDEX OF APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Application Location Recom. Page No.
12/01889/VAR Land North Of Raunds Fronting Brick Kiln Grant 2 Road North Street Brooks Road And Midland Road Raunds Northamptonshire
12/00704/FUL SP9479 OS0050 Slipton Lane Slipton Refuse 15 Northamptonshire
12/01464/FUL Co-Operative Retail Services Ltd St Osyths Grant 25 Lane Oundle Northamptonshire PE8 4BG
12/01517/FUL Land Rear Of 23 And 25 St Marys Avenue Grant 32 Rushden Northamptonshire
12/01535/FUL 5 Parkham Industrial Estate Wellingborough Grant 39 Road Rushden Northamptonshire NN10 6AY
12/01557/FUL Laundry 259 Addington Road Grant 47 Irthlingborough Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN9 5US
12/01800/FUL Springfield Farm Oundle Road Thrapston Grant 61 Kettering Northamptonshire NN14 4PQ
12/02018/REM Land Adjacent 93 Kimbolton Road Higham Grant 73 Ferrers Northamptonshire
Development Control Committee 1 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Committee Report Committee Date : 6 February 2013 Printed: 25 January 2013
Case Officer Samantha Hammonds 12/01889/VAR
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 19 November 2012 20 November 2012 19 February 2013 Raunds Saxon Raunds
Applicant Barwood Land And Estates Ltd
Agent Savills ( L And P) Ltd - Mr R Serra
Location Land North Of Raunds Fronting Brick Kiln Road North Street Brooks Road And Midland Road Raunds Northamptonshire
Proposal Variation of Condition 4: Removal of the access between Brooks Road and the eastern part of the site so that access to and from this eastern parcel is via Midland Road only. Approved plan CS24675/T/108 to be substituted with revised plan CS-0593-T-001, pursuant to Application 09/01626/OUT - 'Outline application: Proposed Sustainable urban addition to Raunds comprising residential (Use Class C3); residential care facilities (Use Class C2); business (Use Class B1); storage and distribution (Use Class B8); new vehicular and pedestrian access and associated road infrastructure, public open space, landscaping (including flood alleviation measures), and conversion of existing buildings to provide residential (Use Class C3) and/or community facilities (Use Class D1) (All matters reserved except for access)' dated 12.10.09
1. Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That the proposed variation be GRANTED.
2. The Proposal 2.1 This application effectively seeks to remove from the plans one of the accesses that was approved as part of application 09/01626/OUT, specifically the access from Brooks Road to the eastern parcel of development. Procedurally this necessitates variation of condition 4 of the outline planning consent, which states that development be in accordance with the plans listed therein.
2.2 Members may recall that the consented Northdale End scheme comprises two distinct parcels of land which are connected by an east-west crossroads over Brooks Road. The proposed variation would see the south-eastern arm of that crossroad removed, resulting in a T-junction access from Brooks Road to the western-most parcel of development and the sole access to the eastern-most parcel being from Midland Road. The east-west connection between the two distinct parcels of Northdale End would be removed.
3. Site and Surroundings 3.1 The site is located to the north / north east of Raunds, with existing residential development to the south / south west and open countryside to the north, west and east of the site. Some ribbon development is present along Brooks Road which runs though the centre of the site. New Barn Farm complex abuts the north western corner of the site. Northdale Farm buildings lie within the centre of the western parcel of the site, just to the north of the Brooks Road / Midland Road junction. The centre of the Northdale End site to the
Development Control Committee 2 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 town centre (Market Square) is approximately 0.7 km.
3.2 The access road that is proposed for removal under this variation would run through garden land associated with an existing dwelling on Brooks Road known as White Gables.
4. Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
4.2 Regional Plan (RSS8) On 10th November 2010 the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State's decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies was unlawful as it had been taken without primary legislation. A statement was then issued by the Government reiterating their intention to remove RSSs and that this should be treated as a material consideration. Despite a further legal challenge, it has now been confirmed that the Government's intention to abolish RSS's is a material consideration which should be taken into account when determining a planning application. Whilst the Localism Bill has now received Royal Assent, Regional Strategies have not yet been revoked.
4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008 Policy 1 - Strengthening the network of settlements Policy 6 - Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions Policy 7 - Delivering Housing Policy 8 - Delivering Economic Prosperity Policy 9 - Distribution and Location of Development Policy 10 - Distribution of Housing Policy13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Policy 15 - Sustainable Housing Provision Policy 16 - Sustainable Urban Extensions
4.4 East Northamptonshire District Local Plan GEN3 - Infrastructure, Services and Amenities H4 - Housing Types and Sizes RL3 - Open space for New Development RL4 - Play areas for New Development
4.5 Other Relevant Polices / Documents North Northamptonshire Sustainable Design SPD North Northamptonshire Annual Monitoring Report Safer Places - the Planning System and Crime Prevention 2004 Northamptonshire Environmental Character Assessment Map ENC SPD - Developer Contributions NCC SPG - Crime and Disorder NCC SPG - Parking
5. Relevant Planning History 5.1 09/01626/OUT - Outline planning permission was granted by the Secretary of State in July 2011 for a mixed use development comprising 310 dwellings, a 68-bed care home and 19 close care apartments, 1,859sq.m of office/light industrial starter units, up to 140sq.m of community facilities and the conversion and restoration of the historic Northdale Farm buildings.
6. Consultation and Representations 6.1 Local Residents: Objections have been received from 29 local residents, citing the following concerns:
Principle
Development Control Committee 3 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
• The scheme was purposely master-planned with this link road as a prominent feature to facilitate the flow of traffic. How can it suddenly be unnecessary? • Since 2007 it has been clear that this road was needed to facilitate traffic flow for the development and the wider town. • In the Raunds Area Preferred Options it was suggested that a local distributor road to link Brick Kiln Road and Midland Road would be needed alongside any development of this site. The absence of a site-specific DPD has meant the development has been approved without this distributor road. At least there is a link of sorts on the allowed plans - this should be retained. • If the road is not constructed the justification for Northdale End is flawed on highway grounds and the town will be worse off. • Implications will be wider and affect future development • Any change that downgrades the infrastructure would only make this unwelcome development more unacceptable and compound the problem. • ENC will let them do what they want • The varied plan is not what was considered by the committees or inspectors and should hence make the application invalid. The variation should be rejected and the developer held to their original commitments in full. • The development is not needed or wanted.
Highway safety • The existing road network is substandard with tight S bends, blind corners and awkward junctions. • The new access from Midland Road would not be able to cope - big safety concern especially as there would be no footpaths (danger to horse riders, dog-walkers and schoolchildren). One objector feared traffic from 700-800 homes coming out of a single exit onto Midland Road (NB: it would actually be c.105 dwellings). • Midland Road-Brooks Road junction is problematic for right turners into and out of Brooks Road. • Brooks Road is not suitable for more traffic as too narrow. • Midland Road-North Street junction is on a blind bend and is unsuitable to accommodate heavy traffic and HGV movements - this was identified in the Raunds Area Preferred Options as a long standing problem. The proposed variation will make it worse and cause a bottleneck. • Concern about weight of traffic using small bridge (over brook) on North Street and damage this causes. • If all traffic goes through the town problems will arise. • Traffic on Midland Road has increased in volume and speed - the variation will only add more vehicles to Midland Road and increase the probability of an accident. Reference made to the dangers caused by the steepness of private drives on the opposite side of Midland Road. • Traffic on Butts Road at school times is already heavy and will get worse. • Concerns about construction traffic impact. • Concern about impact on Chowns Mill • Traffic calming is needed • Would a pedestrian crossing be installed? Over Midland Road? • Access should be from the A45 • Access via a roundabout on Midland Road would be better. • A roundabout at the junction of Midland Road, Station Road and Butts Road would improve matters • The town has insufficient dropped kerbs to facilitate mobility scooters.
Flooding • Brooks Road suffers from flash flooding and the culvert is becoming damaged - caused by the unkempt culvert overflowing? • Flooding in the Square area and North Street has also been a problem. • Unclear of the plans for flood alleviation.
Development Control Committee 4 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Residential amenity • Traffic noise will increase Amount of development • One objector asks why the amount of houses has gone up to 350 (NB: there is no proposed change to the amount of development than that already consented).
Infrastructure • Pressure on parking, doctors, schools, shopping etc. • Employment in Raunds is limited. • Raunds does not need more housing • Better to develop brownfield land and outside the Floodzone
Wildlife and open spaces • Wildlife and open spaces will be affected. • Concerned about potential loss of historic green in front of listed building Providence House - this will become surrounded by roads and houses.
Other - non material • House prices will be affected.
Land ownership • Agreement was reached over the purchase of the necessary land and renewed 18 months ago, but recently Barwood sought to renegotiate this agreement. • It seems the reason for the proposed amendment is that the applicant does not wish to pay the previously agreed price.
6.2 Raunds Town Council: Objection on highway safety grounds • Safety concerns as there is no pedestrian footpath on the development side of the road • With only one exit, concerned about the distribution of traffic and likely increase in volumes using Midland Road • Access is on the brow of a hill, therefore unsafe for pedestrians and vehicles exiting the site. • A pedestrian crossing of Midland Road would be needed.
6.3 ENC Partners and Internal Consultees 6.3.1 ENC Design Officer: objection • The implications of this variation go far beyond the design of the highway junction. The resulting change to the overall concept and illustrative masterplan is significant in design terms, and the information provided in this application does not address these matters (these other plans may need to be varied). • The impact on the quality of place that would be delivered would be adverse. • Integration with the existing fabric of Raunds - The eastern parcel would become a poorly connected housing estate with reduced connectivity within and beyond the development. Both the D&A for Northdale End and the consultation on the Raunds Masterplan identified this as a key concern for the existing town and set out a desire to avoid this for future development. • Internal layout - development would take the form of two discrete areas, with the easternmost being a purely residential scheme. Northdale End as a development would become less integrated internally and direct access to community facilities in the western parcel would be lost. A direct link across Brooks Road and Northdale Green is highly desirable. • Future proofing - the removal of this link has potential to undermine the long term future potential development to the north of Raunds by reducing integration and connection options beyond the site. NPPF states that developments should be designed to function well over the lifetime of the development not just in the short term.
Development Control Committee 5 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
6.3.2 NCC Archaeologist: no comments
6.3.3 NCC Highways: objection • Transport Assessment and capacity - no objection on technical grounds as content that the generated traffic would be accommodated. The methodology used in the submitted transport assessment is accurate and the junction assessments indicate the proposed site access junction and the Midland Road / Brooks Road junction will operate well within theoretical capacity levels. • Sustainable Transport - objection in principle to the removal of this vital traffic link. NCC feel that the allowed development should be adhered to. • Without the link any Travel Plan will possibly fail to deliver the reduction of single occupancy private car journeys in the peak period, having serious implications for the developer and long term strategy for the development site and local needs to introduce sustainable transport benefits. • Issues regarding connectivity for all pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and public transport will be lost. • The long term benefit of rerouting HGVs to ease difficulties in the North Street area would be lost. • The proposal will not allow the easternmost parcel to be served by public transport in a user friendly manner. • The proposed junction, as allowed, was amended in 2010 to address concerns of NCC Highways (comments dated 3-3-10). NCC insisted that the priority on the crossroads was given to the road linking the development parcels and give-way lines were added to Brooks Road. • NCC Highways also previously requested that all potential traffic links are formed to the site boundary to prevent the formation of ransom strips and the potential loss of formal links to serve the future development needs.
6.4 External Consultees 6.4.1 Highways Agency: no further comment Condition 4 was not imposed by the HA so we have no further comment to make, subject to the Travel Plan or other conditions that may impact the A45 not being affected.
6.4.2 Police: no objection
6.4.3 Ramblers Association: welcome the amendment It will improve safety for all users of Brooks Road by lessening the amount of vehicular traffic using Brooks Road.
6.4.4 Western Power: no objection
6.4.5 Natural England: no objection
7. Evaluation 7.1 Background, link road and wider SUE 7.1.1 In allowing the appeal, the Secretary of State imposed a requirement that the development be carried out in accordance with the plans listed in condition 4. These plans include the individual detailed access plans together with other site-wide illustrative design concept and pedestrian-cycle route plans that all show an east-west link road between the two parcels of development land. The Secretary of State's decision letter did not expand upon his reasoning for this requirement, nor did it give any indication of how important he felt the road link feature to be to the acceptability of the Northdale End scheme.
7.1.2 Taking things back a stage, Barwood began promoting a "Sustainable Urban Extension" (SUE) to the north/east of Raunds many years ago, and their earliest tabled iteration of their masterplan concept (2008) happens to show a "link-road" running through the wider SUE. Northdale End was the first portion of the SUE to come forward to the council as a planning application and the submitted illustrative masterplan for Northdale End
Development Control Committee 6 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 incorporated the relevant section of the "link road" concept with a crossroads over Brooks Road.
7.1.3 From this it seems fair to conclude that the notion of a link road was a suggestion made by the developer (initially at pre-application stage but followed through to the submitted illustrative layout for Northdale End) rather than something that was ever actively sought or required by the council or the Secretary of State. Nonetheless the concept was welcomed by officers. Also during the consideration of the outline application for Northdale End the Highway Authority negotiated an improvement to the priority of the accesses that formed the Brooks Road crossroads with a view to easing movement of large vehicles and buses around the site.
7.1.4 Having outlined the background to how the link road concept emerged and became established as part of the approved scheme, it is important to now make a distinction between the consented Northdale End scheme and the wider SUE that was initially promoted by Barwood. This is because, whilst it could be argued that a link road may be a desirable and necessary part of a wider, large-scale SUE, it is more difficult to justify that this link is necessary for just the consented Northdale End scheme.
7.1.5 In terms of the likely potential for a wider SUE for Raunds, there is currently no adopted or emerging DPD that proposes or identifies the extent of any such SUE. The Four Towns Plan is currently at the very earliest stages of production so cannot be afforded any weight, but even so it seems likely that the plan will look to Rushden rather than Raunds as the main focus for growth. In terms of Raunds' likely status within the plan there is as yet no answer to the question of whether an SUE at Raunds is likely to be pursued. Furthermore, it is recognised that Raunds already has a high volume of consented development that will make a substantial contribution towards meeting housing need. Given these circumstances, it would be premature and unjustified at this stage to assume that a wider SUE would come forward at Raunds, and so it follows that the long-term provision of the conceptual link-road is far from certain.
7.1.6 Turning back to the consideration of the current variation application, the council must set aside any consideration relating to the uncertain prospect of a wider SUE and link road for Raunds and consider purely whether the consented Northdale End scheme can proceed safely and sustainably without the point of access that is now proposed for removal. If the consented development could go ahead and function safely and effectively without the link then the link cannot be considered "necessary" and therefore cannot be insisted upon in a highway safety sense. The question of whether the removal of the link would render the development unsustainable is however relevant and is discussed in the sustainable transport and urban design sections below.
7.2 Policy Consideration 7.2.1 The Northdale End scheme already benefits from outline planning permission, granted by the Secretary of State in July 2011. The principle of development is not therefore a matter for the current application, so there is no reason to re-visit the policy discussions that surrounded the decision to grant outline planning permission. For the current variation application, the council can only consider the direct implications of the removal of the point of access, compared to the fall-back position of the access having to be installed as permitted.
General Policy - NPPF principles
7.2.2 An over-riding principle of the NPPF is that local planning authorities (LPAs) should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It will therefore be important to establish through the rest of this report whether the development, as amended, would be sustainable. Another core principle of the NPPF is that LPAs should make every effort to meet housing needs and respond positively to opportunities for growth (core principle 3). Development is seen as an important factor in boosting the national and local economy and the general feeling from government is clear: that councils should do all they can to facilitate
Development Control Committee 7 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 the delivery of development and conversely should not be seen to stifle development unnecessarily.
7.2.3 The motivations for any proposed application are not generally considered to be a material planning consideration, as all applications must be determined on their own merits on the basis of current policies and circumstances on the ground. In this instance the applicant's stated reason for seeking this variation is relevant to planning as it refers to the marketability of the site to potential developers/house builders and could hence affect the likely deliverability of the consented scheme. As stated above the NPPF tasks the local planning authority with achieving growth in a positive and pro-active manner by seeking solutions rather than problems, and applying the general presumption in favour of sustainable development (paras 197, 186 and 187).
7.2.4 Generally speaking then, as the proposed variation is sought in order to overcome an identified issue of marketability, and taking into account the current difficult market circumstances, the council should be supportive of the variation in principle, subject of course to the detailed considerations in the rest of the report.
Detailed Policies
7.2.5 Before moving away from the policy context it is worth outlining the following specific, detailed policies that are relevant to the proposed variation. These will be picked up through the relevant detailed sections of the report below.
7.2.6 The NPPF states that LPAs should: • identify and protect, where there is robust evidence, sites and routes which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choice (para 41) • plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design (para 57) • ensure that developments function well and add to the overall quality of the area over the lifetime of the development….and optimise potential to support transport networks (para 58) • address connections between people and places (para 61) • promote opportunities for meetings between members of the community (para 69)
7.2.7 The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) states that development should: • have a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards (policy 13(d)) • be designed to take account of the transport user hierarchy and incorporate measures to contribute to an overall target of 20% modal shift over the plan period (policy 13(e)) • allow for travel to home, shops, work and school on foot and by cycle and public transport (policy 13(k)) • not have an adverse impact on the highway network and not prejudice highway safety (policy 13(n))
7.3 Highways Capacity and Safety 7.3.1 The proposed variation would not impact on the western parcel of the development site as the previously approved access points to this site would all remain unchanged. In reality it is likely that that the Brooks Road access to the western parcel would be used less intensively than it would have been were it to continue as a crossroads.
7.3.2 The key impact to establish is the ability (or otherwise) of the eastern parcel of the development to function safely and effectively with access only off Midland Road. It should be noted that, as drawn on the indicative layout the eastern-most parcel would serve approximately 105 dwellings.
7.3.3 A Technical Note was submitted in support of the proposed variation (November 2012 ref CS/059342/D 001d) and this provides a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the
Development Control Committee 8 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 impacts of the proposed revised access arrangements. The document acknowledges that there would be a local re-distribution of trips so that all vehicular journeys to and from the eastern parcel (105 dwellings) would be routed along Midland Road.
7.3.4 Officers at NCC Highways have considered the submitted Technical Note and conclude that they have no objection on technical grounds as they are content that the generated traffic would be accommodated on the existing network. They advise that the methodology used in the submitted report is accurate and they agree that the junction assessments therein indicate that both the proposed site accesses from Midland Road and the Midland Road / Brooks Road junction will operate well within theoretical capacity levels.
7.3.5 The physical design and positioning of the two new site accesses from Midland Road, and the associated footways and forward visibility splays, have already been assessed in detail as part of the outline application and found to be satisfactory. The approved details are given on plan CS24675/T/079revB, and have been secured by condition. As the Midland Road access details already benefit from consent and the current variation does not seek to reposition or redesign these in any way, objectors' concerns about safety and visibility on Midland Road are only relevant to the current application in so far as they relate to the intensification of traffic at this point.
7.3.6 The proposed variation would inevitably result in more vehicles using Midland Road than was previously anticipated with the Brooks Road access in place. However, as outlined above, NCC Highways are content that the Technical Note accompanying the variation application demonstrates that both the proposed new Midland Road accesses and the wider road network (including Midland Road, North Street and Brick Kiln Road) would be able to cope with the associated vehicular traffic.
7.3.7 The high level of concern raised by local residents and objectors about highway safety and capacity issues is noted. However, the council is being advised by highways specialists at NCC that the consented development would not be detrimental to the safety or operation of the wider highway network with or without an access linking the eastern parcel to Brooks Road. Given the above analysis, there are no justifiable highway safety grounds on which to refuse the proposed variation.
7.3.8 Several objectors have made suggestions about alternative access solutions that they feel would be preferable, such as direct access from the A45, a roundabout at the new access from Midland Road and a roundabout at the junction of Midland Road and Butts Road. However, the outline planning permission has already secured all the necessary off- site highway improvements and the design of the various access points is already fixed. This variation application refers only to the removal of one consented point of access between the eastern parcel and Brooks Road. Given the NCC Highways view that this variation would not have a detrimental impact on the highway network, there is no justification for now seeking more elaborate off-site highway works or access solutions.
7.3.9 The question of whether the intensification of traffic on Midland Road arising from this variation would be sufficient to justify the need for a pedestrian crossing has been put to NCC Highways. Any comments will be reported on the update sheet.
7.4 Highways Sustainable Transport 7.4.1 Although satisfied from a technical and capacity point of view, NCC Highways have raised an objection in principle to the removal of this point of access from the wider scheme. The main reason for this in principle objection relates to the wider aspirations and benefits that were initially envisaged when the idea of a link-road was put forward. These envisaged benefits were: • Connectivity for pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and public transport • Potential use of the link road as a bus route • Easing the ability of the developer's Travel Plan to deliver modal shift and associated sustainable transport benefits.
Development Control Committee 9 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
• Long term benefit of re-routing HGVs to ease current difficulties in the North Street area.
7.4.2 However, in order for the council to be able to legitimately insist that wider benefits are provided by a development it must follow that the need for these benefits arise as a result of the development itself. Taking each of the above "benefits" in turn:
• Whilst connectivity is a desirable feature of any development, the two parcels of this scheme could stand alone independently of each other (indeed if the schemes came forward as two separate applications it is unlikely that a link would be insisted upon or justified). It must also be noted that pedestrian, cycle or vehicular journeys could still be made between the two parcels and/or to other destinations in Raunds without a significant disadvantage in terms of distance or time.
• As we have seen recently in the case of Darsdale Farm, the historic assumption that bus services can be diverted through new developments is, in current circumstances, less desirable and achievable. Experience now suggests that the real prospect of a bus service being diverted through Northdale End is slim to none, making it difficult to use this argument to justify the need for the link.
• The Travel Plan that is referred to in the outline planning permission was drafted several years ago when it was thought to be a reasonable prospect that a bus could be diverted through the site. As outlined above, this now seems highly unlikely, with or without a link road. Whether this variation is approved or not, the developer will therefore be forced to look at other measures in order to deliver the target modal shift required. The sustainable transport, modal shift and Travel Plan implications are not therefore a reasonable reason to resist this variation.
• The difficulties with HGVs manoeuvring in the North Street area are a pre-existing problem not brought about by the proposed scheme.
7.4.3 Officers do have sympathy with the NCC Highways view in relation to the perceived benefits of the link road, and share the feeling that it would be a shame if these benefits were lost. Nonetheless, the above analysis has shown that a mere desire for the link is not sufficient and that when each point is considered carefully there is no real justification for insisting on the retention of this link in sustainable transport terms.
7.4.4 Some objectors have implied that if this link was necessary in the first place then it surely must still be necessary now. However, as suggested in an earlier section, the link was an early suggestion put forward by the applicant who at the time was promoting a much larger SUE for Raunds. The link road concept was welcomed by officers due to the perceived connectivity and urban design benefits that could be envisaged. However, it is only now that the question of its necessity is being raised and scrutinised. The council now has to look at this issue objectively in the context of the consented Northdale End scheme alone, setting aside any pre-conceptions about a possible wider SUE.
7.5 Urban Design 7.5.1 The council's design officer has raised an objection in principle to the removal of this point of access from the wider scheme as she feels it would have an adverse impact on the quality of place that would be delivered. She has raised three main areas of concern, which will be considered in turn below.
7.5.2 Firstly, in terms of integration with the existing fabric of Raunds, the design officer is concerned that the eastern parcel would become a poorly connected housing estate with reduced connectivity within and beyond the development. She highlights that both the Design & Access Statement for Northdale End and the consultation on the Raunds Masterplan identified connectivity as a key concern for the existing town and set out a desire to avoid this for future development.
Development Control Committee 10 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
7.5.3 On the matter of poorly connected housing estates, officers agree that these should ideally be avoided where possible, but the circumstances of each case will always play a part. In this case we are considering a variation to a consented scheme that would see the removal of one point of access to Brooks Road, a peripheral country lane with sparse ribbon development. The crux of this particular objection relates to connectivity and integration with the existing fabric of Raunds. In the context, officers are concerned that this would be a weak reason for resisting the proposed variation as any difficulties in connecting and integrating the development to the existing fabric of Raunds would not be much affected by the removal of the Brooks Road access.
7.5.4 Secondly, the design officer is concerned about the impact on the internal layout of the scheme, in particular that the development would end up taking the form of two discrete areas, with the easternmost being a purely residential scheme. She fears that the two parcels of Northdale End would become less integrated internally and direct access from the eastern parcel to community facilities in the western parcel would be lost. A direct link across Brooks Road and Northdale Green is highly desirable.
7.5.5 Officers feel that this objection would carry slightly more weight than the first, but on balance it would still be quite tenuous to defend as a reason for refusal when balanced against the need to facilitate development. Clearly the loss of the direct link between the two parcels of the site would make these sites less integrated. However the facilities on the western parcel would still be accessible to people on the eastern parcel. The route to reach the facilities would need to divert along Midland Road, but the journey time and distance implications would not be significant compared to a position where the link remained in place. Again, just because it is more desirable to have a direct link this is not sufficient to justify the need for it.
7.5.6 Lastly, the design officer raises the issue of future proofing. She highlights that the removal of this link has potential to undermine the long term future potential development to the north and east of Raunds by reducing integration and connection options beyond the site. She refers to para 58 of the NPPF which states that developments should be designed to function well over the lifetime of the development not just in the short term.
7.5.7 Whilst there is a need to consider urban design over the lifetime of development this can be very difficult to ensure in reality, particularly in a situation like this where there is no certainty or direction about the potential likelihood of a larger scale SUE being promoted for Raunds. As outlined in an earlier section there is no emerging local plan that identifies an SUE for Raunds in this location, so there is no real basis at this stage on which to assume the need to "future proof" the development linkages.
7.5.8 On the matter of future proofing, officers have taken legal advice on whether there would be any legitimate mechanisms to future-proof the development so that the potential future delivery of a link road was not precluded should the need arise in the future. The advice received is as follows: The only sound mechanism available would be via an emerging DPD to which weight could be accorded in the lead up to submission. If the emerging DPD was proposing a wider SUE for Raunds and a conceptual link road was an important element in achieving that wider SUE then the council would seem to be acting reasonably in resisting proposals which would thwart the link road. However there is not such emerging DPD proposal on which to lean.
7.5.9 Similarly to the sustainable transport section above, analysis has led to a conclusion that a mere desire or preference that the link remains is not sufficient when considered purely in the context of what is required to facilitate the consented Northdale End scheme. Having considered each urban design objection carefully in turn, officers conclude that there is no strong urban design justification for insisting on the retention of this link.
Development Control Committee 11 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
7.6 Residential Amenity 7.6.1 Local residents are concerned that the noise from additional traffic on Midland Road would affect their residential amenity. However, officers do not feel that the increase in traffic volumes arising from the proposed variation (compared with the previously consented scheme) would be so significant to give rise to an unacceptable impact on residential amenity.
8. Other Issues 8.1 Flooding 8.1.1 Local objections have highlighted problems with flash flooding in and around the affected highways. Any flood alleviation that was considered to be necessary to facilitate the development of Northdale End has been secured through the granting of outline planning permission and would still require to be implemented. The proposed variation to remove the Brooks Road access would not have any additional impact.
8.2 Infrastructure and Facilities 8.2.1 Objections have been received stating that there is insufficient infrastructure and facilities to support the development. However, the outline planning permission has already secured all the necessary infrastructure and facilities by way of developer contributions, the details of which are already fixed. These matters are not relevant to the consideration of this variation application, which refers only to the removal of one consented point of access between the eastern parcel and Brooks Road.
8.3 Wildlife and Open Spaces 8.3.1 The local objection that wildlife and open spaces will be affected appears to relate back to the overall principle of the development. As outlined above, the principle of development has already been established and so is not relevant to the current application to remove one point of access from the consented scheme.
8.4 Land ownership 8.4.1 With reference to the representation submitted on behalf of the third party landowner, members are advised that any issues surrounding land-ownership and land-purchase are civil matters between the relevant parties and not material planning considerations. Planning decisions must be made purely on the planning merits of a case.
8.5 Procedural matters - list of "approved" plans 8.5.1 The Secretary of State listed the "conceptual" and "illustrative" plans in condition 4 as approved plans with which the development must accord. The council's legal advisor agrees with your officers that the outline planning permission should probably not have listed these plans as approved plans to which the development is tied, given their label "illustrative" and "concept" and given that the layout of the site is a reserved matter. However, by virtue of being listed in condition 4 these plans have attained the status of approved plans.
8.5.2 Technically speaking all these plans would need to be varied, but it would then follows that every application for reserved matters would require an application to vary those plans, and this cannot have reasonably been the intention of the Secretary of State granting outline planning permission with only access for determination.
8.5.3 The council's legal advisor concludes that the matter could be dealt with by an informative on any revised approval which indicates that the council has not required a resubmission of the other plans as it does not regard them as determinative. An informative to this effect is therefore recommended.
8.6 Outline planning conditions 8.6.1 If granted, this permission would serve to substitute the wording of condition 4 of the outline planning permission (09/01626/OUT) to enable a substitution of the Brooks Road Priority Junction that would see the access from Brooks Road to the eastern parcel of development removed from the scheme. The outline planning permission (09/01626/OUT)
Development Control Committee 12 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 would still be the main planning permission for the development and all the other conditions therein would remain in force. There is therefore no need to repeat all of the previous conditions on the current variation - the two permissions should be read in conjunction with each other.
Conclusion
It is fair to say that the urban design and sustainable transport implications of this proposed variation have caused significant concern and disappointment among a wide range of stakeholders including your officers. However, the reality of how the council should respond to the requested variation is dictated by government guidance and planning policy. No matter how much the council would have preferred the access to remain a crossroads and hence enable a future link-road, this report has highlighted that the link-road is not actually necessary for the delivery of the consented Northdale End scheme and so cannot be insisted upon at this stage.
Legal advice has been taken and this has reinforced that: • The council does not have any legitimate basis upon which to resist the proposed variation seeking to remove one point of access to part of the consented site if that access is unnecessary to enable the consented development to proceed. • Although the access may be important in terms of the conceptual "link-road" intended to run through the wider SUE, there is no DPD that promotes and defines such an SUE. • There is no legitimate mechanism for future proofing this link through the development control system - only an emerging site-specific DPD could achieve this
Despite the many highway related objections, as NCC is content that there is sufficient capacity and that the junctions would cope, there are no justifiable reasons to resist the variation on highway safety or capacity grounds. The urban design and sustainable transport objections have been found to be tenuous and in the current policy context would be unlikely to stand up to challenge as refusal reasons.
Officers therefore advise that, in the circumstances there would be no justifiable reasons to resist the proposed variation and so recommend that permission is GRANTED to vary condition 4 of the outline planning permission.
Recommendation
That permission is GRANTED to vary condition 4 of the outline planning permission as follows:
"Condition 4 of 09/01626/OUT is hereby varied to read:
"The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Amended Site Plan (BARY1019_001 Rev A); Illustrative Design Framework (BARY1019_002); Concept Framework (BARY1019_003); Indicative Pedestrian and Cycle Routes (BARY1019_004); Proposed works on Brick Kiln Road and North Street (CS24675/T/077 Rev B); Proposed new Priority Junctions along Midland Road (CS24675/T/079 Rev B); Amended Priority Junction on Brooks Road (CS-059342-T-001 Rev - dated 20.08.12) Cycle Route (2 of 2) (CS24675/T/109 Rev A); Cycle Route (1 of 2) (CS24675/T/110 Rev A); A45 Raunds Roundabout Layout (CS24675/T/111 Rev D); Existing Utilities (Sheet 1 of 2) (CS037259/UT/001 Rev C); Existing Utilities (Sheet 2 of 2) (CS037259/UT/002 Rev C); Indicative Utility Strategy (CS037259/UT/003 Rev C);
Development Control Committee 13 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Northdale Farm, Raunds - Floor Plans (13124 / 1); Northdale Farm, Raunds - Floor Plans (13124 / 2); Northdale Farm, Raunds - Elevations (13124 / 3); Northdale Farm, Raunds - Elevations / Sections (13124 / 4).""
It is also recommended that the following informative is added to the decision notice for 12/01889/VAR:
"Notwithstanding the fact that condition 4 of outline planning permission 09/01626/OUT also lists the following plans (which also show a point of access from Brooks Road to the eastern parcel of development), the council has not required a resubmission or substitution of these plans as the council does not regard them as determinative: • Amended Site Plan (BARY1019_001 Rev A) • Illustrative Design Framework (BARY1019_002) • Concept Framework (BARY 1019_003) • Indicative Pedestrian and Cycle Routes (BARY1019_004)"
Conditions/Reasons -
1. Condition 4 of 09/01626/OUT is hereby varied to read: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Amended Site Plan (BARY1019_001 Rev A); Illustrative Design Framework (BARY1019_002); Concept Framework (BARY1019_003); Indicative Pedestrian and Cycle Routes (BARY1019_004); Proposed works on Brick Kiln Road and North Street (CS24675/T/077 Rev B); Proposed new Priority Junctions along Midland Road (CS24675/T/079 Rev B); Amended Priority Junction on Brooks Road (CS-059342-T-001 Rev - dated 20.08.12) Cycle Route (2 of 2) (CS24675/T/109 Rev A); Cycle Route (1 of 2) (CS24675/T/110 Rev A); A45 Raunds Roundabout Layout (CS24675/T/111 Rev D); Existing Utilities (Sheet 1 of 2) (CS037259/UT/001 Rev C); Existing Utilities (Sheet 2 of 2) (CS037259/UT/002 Rev C); Indicative Utility Strategy (CS037259/UT/003 Rev C); Northdale Farm, Raunds - Floor Plans (13124 / 1); Northdale Farm, Raunds - Floor Plans (13124 / 2); Northdale Farm, Raunds - Elevations (13124 / 3); Northdale Farm, Raunds - Elevations / Sections (13124 / 4).
Informatives
1. Notwithstanding the fact that condition 4 of outline planning permission 09/01626/OUT also lists the following plans (which also show a point of access from Brooks Road to the eastern parcel of development), the council has not required a resubmission or substitution of these plans as the council does not regard them as determinative: • Amended Site Plan (BARY1019_001 Rev A) • Illustrative Design Framework (BARY1019_002) • Concept Framework (BARY 1019_003) • Indicative Pedestrian and Cycle Routes (BARY1019_004)
Development Control Committee 14 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Committee Report Committee Date : 6 February 2013 Printed: 23 January 2013
Case Officer Carolyn Tait 12/00704/FUL
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 27 April 2012 16 May 2012 11 July 2012 Lyveden Lowick And Slipton
Applicant Mr G Willis
Agent Henry H Bletsoe & Son
Location SP9479 OS0050 Slipton Lane Slipton Northamptonshire
Proposal Erection of temporary dwelling to house agricultural worker
This application is brought before Development Control Committee as it proposes a new dwelling in the open countryside.
1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That permission be REFUSED.
2. The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes the erection of a temporary dwelling to house an agricultural worker. The application details state that the proposed dwelling would accommodate Mr Wills and Miss Storey (the applicants).
2.2 The proposed mobile dwelling is required to support a developing agricultural business. Details of the business and how it has been developing have been included with the application. An initial time period of three years is being sought. It is the applicants' intention to develop the farm further whilst living in temporary accommodation and then to consider more permanent accommodation at the end of three years.
2.3 The mobile home is currently being stored on the site and is not being used as accommodation for the applicants. Photos have been submitted with the application showing its appearance rather than elevational drawings.
3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The application site is located in the open countryside to the west of Slipton and is currently in agricultural use. There is a public Right of Way located at the entrance to the site.
3.2 The site is currently used for the farming of livestock. The most recent statement submitted by the applicants' agricultural consultant sets out the numbers of livestock as: • Over 50 sheep; • 45 cattle; • 10/20 pigs; • 200 free range hens; • 100 turkeys; • Much of the livestock is rare breeds.
3.3 There is an existing building on the site which was erected after 2009 when it was considered by the local planning authority to be permitted development (09/01293/PNA).
Development Control Committee 15 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
4 Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework Planning Policy Statement 7: Annex A
4.2 East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 1 - Regional Core Objectives Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development Policy 13b - Housing Provision (Northamptonshire) Policy 18 - Regional Priorities for the Economy Policy 24 - Regional Priorities for Rural Diversification On 10th November 2010 the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State's decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies was unlawful as it had been taken without primary legislation. A statement was then issued by the Government reiterating their intention to remove RSSs and that this should be treated as a material consideration. Despite a further legal challenge, it has now been confirmed that the Government's intention to abolish RSSs is a material consideration which should be taken into account when determining a planning application. Whilst the Localism Bill has now received Royal Assent, Regional Strategies have not yet been revoked.
4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 - Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 7 - Delivering Housing Policy 8 - Delivering Economic Prosperity Policy 9 - Distribution and Location of Development Policy 10 - Distribution of Housing Policy 13 General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction
4.4 Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan Policy 1 - Settlement Roles Policy 6 - Residential Parking Standards Policy 8 - Housing Mix Policy 23 - Rural Buildings - General Approach Policy 25 - Farm Diversification
4.5 Other documents Local Highway Authority Standing Advice for Local Planning Authorities
5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 09/01293/PNA Erection of agricultural building. PERMITTED
5.2 12/01348/PNA Erection of livestock building. PERMITTED
6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbours: No nearby neighbours.
6.2 Parish Council: No objection.
6.3 Local Highway Authority: No objection.
6.4 Rights of Way Officer: It is necessary to ensure that the public Right of Way NH12 does not get obstructed during the use of the private access road in the long term. The location of the promoted temporary dwelling is divorced from the designated route NH12 and would not appear to be affected by the siting of this unit in its promoted location.
6.5 Council's Senior Planning Policy Officer: Comments can be summarised as:
• The NPPF emphasises a presumption in favour of sustainable development. More
Development Control Committee 16 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
detailed policy is set out under a range of themes including 'Building a strong, competitive economy' which states that 'significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system'. The NPPF also promotes the development of agricultural and other land based rural businesses. • Paragraph 55 states that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the open countryside unless there are special circumstances such as the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. Annex A of the former PPS7 provides a useful set of criteria for assessing whether the need is essential. • The Council therefore need to be satisfied that there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at their place of work. • Policy 1 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy focuses development principally towards the urban core, however allows for limited development to meet the needs of rural communities. Policy 9 of this document also allows flexibility stating that new development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled rather than entirely restricted. • Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy sets general sustainable development principles and any development should ensure that it conserves and enhances the landscape character as well as being of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings and be in accordance with the environmental character of the area. • Policy 1 of the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan states that in the open countryside, housing development will not normally be permitted, which allows a degree of flexibility. This policy states that certain types of activity will still be appropriate in the countryside; however, it does state that it is necessary for this to be controlled in order to conserve the environment of the countryside and amenity that also contributes towards sustainability. • In principle there is no planning policy objection as long as the local planning authority is satisfied that there is an 'essential need' and that the sustainable development principles of policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy are fully satisfied.
6.6 Ramblers Association: No comments to make.
6.7 Site notice posted: 31 May 2012 on the gate at the entrance to the site.
6.8 'An appraisal of the need for a dwelling at Vanish Point Farm' was submitted by the applicants' agricultural consultant with the application. The Council consulted their own agricultural consultant, Mr Williams, to establish if there is an essential need for an agricultural dwelling at this site. Following Mr Williams response, the applicant’s agricultural consultant provided further information. Mr Williams was then contacted for further advice regarding the additional information. All of this information is summarised below and is important for later in the report when the principle of development is evaluated. A copy of both consultants’ responses can be found appended to this report.
'An appraisal of the need for a dwelling at Vanish Point Farm' received by the local planning authority on 27 April 2012.
• The applicants purchased the land in 2008 with the intention of developing a small mixed farming business to produce livestock products for sale to local businesses and at farmers markets. Most of the land was cleared and sown with grass. The applicants intend on purchasing another 10 acres of land which adjoins the existing land and that would also be sown to grass. • Propose to build up a number of livestock enterprises including breeding sheep, pig finishing, calf rearing, free-range laying hens, turkey rearing and incubation of eggs. Much of this livestock will be rare breeds. • The first livestock was brought to the farm in 2011. Five of the pigs were stolen in October 2011 just before they were due to be sold. On the day of the site visit 3 Manx
Development Control Committee 17 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Loaghton ewes; 1 Manx Loaghton ram; 1 lamb; a breeding pair of Naraganzette turkeys; a breeding trio of Bronze turkeys; and 3 Guinea fowl were present. In addition to this 15 rare breed hens were being kept at Miss Storey's parents' property and 10/12 weaner pigs were about to be purchased. • The proposal is to build up the sheep flock to 20 breeding ewes, producing 35 lambs per year, to rear 30 cattle per year, finish 30 pigs per year, to expand the free range laying hens to 200 birds (including some rare breeds), finish about 100 turkeys each year and to incubate hen and turkey eggs to produce young birds for sale. If the extra 10 acres of land can be rented then the number of sheep will be increased. • There is a building on site, and if livestock numbers increase then it will be necessary to install a cold store and freezer cabinets within the building to store meat. A second building is proposed in which to house livestock (this has since been issued approval under reference 12/01348/PNA). • Water has been connected to the site and electricity will be connected depending on whether or not planning permission is granted. Money has been spent on erecting fencing and cleaning out ditches, levelling ground for the new building and constructing the new farm road. • The applicants own a number of pieces of machinery, a full detailed list can be found in the appraisal. • The labour requirements of the business will increase as it develops and livestock numbers and attendance at farmers markets increase. Miss Storey will work full time on the farm with Mr Willis helping out as and when required. Some casual labour may be taken on from time to time to help with busy periods. • The applicants live in rented accommodation in Thrapston. In order for the business to be built upon it is essential for the applicants to live on the holding. • The annual standard labour requirements of the system have been calculated at 144 Standard Man Days (SMD) which is the equivalent of just over half of a standard full time worker. However that figure does not allow anything for supervising the incubation of eggs nor for all the extra work of taking stock to the abattoir, collecting the meat from the abattoir, packing and pricing meat, attending farmers markets or delivering produce to customers. These figures do not take into account for having to deal with a large number of small enterprises. E.g. the calculations only allow for 14 man days per year for looking after the hens which equates to 18.4 minutes per day. • In practice Mr Willis and Miss Storey will probably have to spend about two hours per day looking after hens and rearing birds. This is because the rare breed hens will have to be penned separately. The nature of the hen enterprise is that it is likely to require 8- man days more than those included in the calculations. This would increase the labour to over 0.8 men. The extra work required for the incubation of eggs and dealing with the retail sale of produce will increase the labour requirement of the proposed business to well over a full time worker. • Whilst this application is for a temporary dwelling, the proposed farming system will provide full time work for more than one person and would satisfy the criteria of Annex to PPS7 for a permanent dwelling in that the proposal relates for the need for a full time worker. • There are no accounts available to show the potential which can be achieved from the business. A budget is proposed which shows that a net profit of £33,314 will be achieved before deducting wages. This would satisfy the requirement of Annex A in that the unit and agricultural activity concerned have been established for at least 3 years, have been profitable for at least one of them, are currently financially sound and have a clear prospect of remaining so. • The requirement of PPS7 for a temporary dwelling are that there should be clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned and that there is clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis. The applicant's consultant believes that these requirements are satisfied. • A budget sheet has been attached to the report. This can be found in the appendices. • There is a need for supervision of livestock including: lambing; to prevent pig fighting; pig breeding; supervision of calves to prevent death by illness; laying hens and
Development Control Committee 18 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
turkeys and potential attack by foxes; egg collection; to ensure that machinery which incubates the eggs does not malfunction; to ensure that dogs being walked through or adjacent to the site do not attack animals; and for inspection of all animals. • There is a need for supervision of equipment. For example there will be fridges and freezers on the site to store meat etc. These need to be monitored to ensure that potential profits are not destroyed by malfunction. • Security is required to prevent theft of machinery. • Intruders could disturb or steal livestock. • Mr Willis and Miss Storeys have been subject to a number of criminal activities in the past so need to live on site to ensure that the site is secure.
6.9 East Northamptonshire Council's Agricultural Consultant's response to 'An appraisal of the need for a dwelling at Vanish Point Farm', received by the local planning authority on 14 June 2012. • The response has regard to the Design and Access Statement; the site and location plans; and an appraisal of need for a dwelling written by Peter R Sharpe 15 March 2012. • The applicants purchased the land in 2008 and the field had been abandoned for several years and was agriculturally unproductive. • In January 2012 the following livestock were noted: 3 Manx Loaghton ewes and 1 ram; 1 lamb; 5 turkeys; and 3 Guinea fowl. • The following enterprises are proposed: a flock of 20 breeding ewes; finish 15 store cattle; sell 15 store cattle; finish 30 store pigs; finish 100 turkeys; 200 free-range laying hens; and incubate hen and turkey eggs. • The applicants' aim is to retail the produce at the farm gate or through farmers' markets. It is anticipated that Miss Storey would be occupied full time on the holding and Mr Willis part time. The couple currently live in rented accommodation in Thrapston approximately 5 miles away. The applicants own a wide range of machinery including four tractors, a bulldozer and a digger. It is proposed that the applicants live for a period of three years in a mobile home in order to prove the long term financial viability of the proposed enterprise. • Following the introduction of the NPPF, East Northamptonshire Council does not have any specific policy within its Local Plan or the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy which relates to agricultural dwellings. Therefore paragraph 55 of the NPPF is relevant. There continues to be a presumption against the construction of new dwellings in the open countryside unless there is a strong case presented for an essential need for a rural worker to live at or near their place of work. The underlying theme for the provision of such a dwelling is one of sustainability. • There is no reference in the NPPF for the provision of temporary dwellings for new businesses, although this continues to be the most appropriate means to prove the long term financial sustainability of a rural enterprise business proposition. This appraisal therefore examines the appropriateness of the application for a dwelling to service the needs of the holding in the context of the NPPF. • The functional test requires the establishment of an essential need for suitably qualified workers to be at the site at most times through the day and night in case animals or agricultural processes requiring short notice. • Having read the applicants' consultant's report it is difficult to comprehend why there would be a year round requirement to live on site. • It is normal practice for lambing to take place over a 6 week period, especially for flocks as small as 20 ewes. In such cases the intensity of lambing is not great. Requirement for shepherd intervention varies between breeds. The Manx Loaghton is a hardy native breed which is renowned for its survival instincts. The society website states that "The Loaghton is hardy and has good survival instincts with little intervention generally required by the breeder at lambing time". As with any animal giving birth, complications can occur, due to the fact that lambing is over a short duration and the lower level of intervention required, overnight surveillance would usually be provided by overnight stays in a caravan under Part 5 of the GPDO. This states that caravans
Development Control Committee 19 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
are allowed in special circumstances where a license is not required, but once no longer required the land should be restored. • The requirement to live on site to monitor weaner pigs in the case of fighting is not accepted. The rarity of such events and the fact that the pig numbers are so small can not justify a farm workers dwelling on the site. There are only likely to be about 8-10 pigs on site at any one time. • With regards to the calves, once again, the numbers are so small that there can not be a justification for living on site. There will only be 4-5 calves up to the age of 5 weeks on the holding at any one time. It is appreciated that the first 5 weeks of life are the most vulnerable; however, a calf does not generally transfer from a status of good health to one of life threatening in a matter of a few hours. A good stockperson will detect such changes during the twice daily feeding and monitoring during the normal working day. • Store cattle are often housed in buildings some distance from a farm dwelling due to the modern future of expanding farm businesses. This is not considered poor practice. The Welfare of Farmed Animal England Regulations 2000 Schedule 1 paragraph 2 states that "All animals kept in husbandry systems in which their welfare depends on frequent human attention shall be thoroughly inspected at least once a day to check that they are in a state well-being". There is no expectation that these animals should be inspected every few hours throughout the day and night. • The collection of eggs is a pre-determined task undertaken twice daily during normal working hours. • The securing of pens against predators is a relatively simple task, especially for small pens, and would not warrant an on-site presence at all hours. • The number of eggs is low and could easily be incubated with a minimum amount of frequent intervention by use of a single incubator which turns eggs automatically. It would be considered unusual to spend several thousand pounds installing a mobile home when an incubator could be purchased for several hundred pounds. It could be possible to incubate the small number of eggs proposed at the applicants' existing dwelling in Thrapston. • Modern systems for heating and incubation have alarms which can convey fault information to mobile phones and have automatic start generators which activate upon failure of mains electricity. Such systems are very reliable. • With regards to storage of meat in fridges or freezers, high street butchers do not expect to live on site to monitor their cold stores so it is not clear why the applicants would need to live on site either. • Whilst PPS7 is no longer an operational policy, it is widely held that security and theft may contribute towards the need for a dwelling, but is not an over-riding justification. • From the information supplied it is evident that the proposed business will operate on a small scale, requiring a stated annual labour requirement of approximately 0.5 of a standard full time worker, according to the business appraisal by the applicants' consultant. However, he asserts that labour requirements will be much higher than 0.5 full time workers due to the lack of economies of scale available to the average size farm. Furthermore it is asserted that extra work is required for the incubation of eggs and retail of the produce. • In order for a rural worker to live at or near their place of work it is implicit that the work should be full time and throughout the year, otherwise that there would not be a sustainable need to live on the site. Labour requirements are referred to as Standard Man Day (SMD) and this is compared to an availability of 275 SMDs per annum per worker. Data is obtained from the John Nix Farm Management Pocketbook 42nd edition. The Council's Agricultural Consultant has calculated that the proposed farm would equate to 141SMDs which falls considerably short of one full time worker. This figure could be enhanced by attendance at farmers' markets and retailing of the meat, both of which are time consuming, but do not take place on the farm and therefore do not require a dwelling. The scale of onsite operations is too small to warrant a dwelling. • There is no guidance as to how the financial sustainability of a rural-based enterprise should be assessed. However, recourse is often had to a methodology described by
Development Control Committee 20 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
the former Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in an advice note to local planning authorities in 1992. This stated that "for a holding to be considered financially sound and to assess whether it can be sustained for a reasonable period of time it is necessary to ensure that it can be shown to provide a reasonable return on the land, labour and capital used in the business". This methodology demonstrates that an enterprise should provide a reward to the labour input on the holding, equating to minimum agricultural wage; a reasonable return to capital employed in the agricultural sector would be 2.5%; and a reasonable return to land would be a notional rental value. • There is no evidence to demonstrate that the holding would be economically sustainable. • A search of properties available for sale shows that there were two properties for sale on Slipton Lane, which are beyond the affordability of a farmworker. However, there were ten properties within 1 mile of the site that were available for purchase between £74,950 and £160,000. These would be close enough to serve the needs of a farm.
6.10 'An Appraisal of the need for a dwelling at Vanish Point Farm Supplementary Report' received by the local planning authority on 26 September 2012. • The numbers of livestock are smaller than an average farm, however most farms concentrate on a single livestock enterprise. Mr Willis and Miss Storey are planning to have four different livestock enterprises. There are likely to be over 50 sheep, 45 cattle, 10/20 pigs, 200 free range hens and 100 turkeys on the farm at any one time. These animals will require more than the average amount of supervision. • The poultry unit requires the breeding of a number of rare birds and the sale of hatching eggs, new born chicks and reared poults. These need to be kept separate from one another. • The numbers set out in the earlier report shows that the proposed numbers of livestock should be sufficient for the business to be viable and produce a satisfactory profit. Numbers could well be much higher than this but it was considered unwise to propose much higher livestock numbers at this stage in order to avoid criticism when a future application is made for a permanent dwelling. • Checking on an animal once a day is not comfortable for a farmer who has an injured or ill animal. Because of the smaller numbers of animals that the applicant will farm, the loss of a single animal is much more detrimental to them. Therefore their animals need greater more frequent attention. • There is no generator on the holding and the incubators are being operated at the applicants' home in Thrapston because they can not be left unattended at the farm. This is not a practical long term solution and has already resulted in complaints of noise to the Council. Extra journeys are required to look after poultry on the farm. • It is essential for the applicants to live on the farm for the incubation process. In the summer months they need to be on site till late at night as they can not close up the hen houses until dusk. • The local planning authority's Agricultural Consultant has not commented on the need for security at the site. The holding is sustainable so long as incidents of crime do not occur, which is why a dwelling is required. • The applicants need to be able to live on site to protect the contents of fridges and freezers as much of their produce will be sold at farmers markets and will therefore be stored on site beforehand. • The Council's Agricultural Consultant has significantly underestimated the labour requirement. Further calculations have been provided by the applicants' Agricultural Consultant which shows that the proposed farm would generate the equivalent of 256 SMDs which is the equivalent to 0.93 workers. In addition the market days will equate to 137.5 SMDs therefore the proposed business would clearly provide full time employment. The reason that the produce can not be sold on site is because of the site's hidden location. If the site was viable then a farm shop would have been an option. • The Council's Agricultural Consultant has said that the business needs to produce a profit of just under £16000 to be considered financially sustainable.
Development Control Committee 21 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
• Further justification is given for the prices quoted in the original appraisal submitted as part of the initial application. The budgeted figures show a profit potential of £33,314 which is well in excess of what would be financially sustainable. • The properties which the Council's Agricultural Consultant refers to are outside of a 1 mile radius rather than within the 1 mile.
6.11 East Northamptonshire Council's Agricultural Consultant's response to 'An appraisal of the need for a dwelling at Vanish Point Farm Supplementary Report', received by the local planning authority on 16 October 2012. • Further regard has been had to a letter from Andrew Middleditch of Bletsoes 25 September 2012 and a Supplementary Report written by Peter R Sharpe 23 September 2012. • The Supplementary Report from Dr Sharpe provides extra detail on the proposed operations at Vanish Point Farm. A number of changes have been noted in the number of animals that the farm would accommodate. • Whilst it is appreciated that there are a number of elements to the enterprise, it can not be asserted that the sum of labour requirements are greater than the total number of parts. Many livestock enterprises have several elements of production within them. • If the applicants are on site for the whole day then the livestock and poultry are likely to receive sufficient monitoring over the space of the whole day without recourse to additional routine night time monitoring. It would not take long to cover a small site such as this. This, in addition to monitoring during feeding, would generally provide adequate guidance to the health of the stock for a competent person to know if an animal is likely to be ill in the forthcoming 8-10 hours. • The notion that low stock numbers generates a greater need to live on site because loss of one animal is more detrimental than a conventional farm is not supported. • Low stock numbers are less likely to have an emergency requirement to be on site than large numbers. • Whilst PPS7 has been superseded by the NPPF, some of the latest appeal decisions still rely upon the principals within PPS7 in order to reach a conclusion. However, it has become noticeable that there is no requirement in the NPPF for the need to relate to a full time worker and in that small area of policy change it is perhaps less crucial that the applicant demonstrates this element. • With regards to site security, many poultry farms now have electrified fencing around the perimeter or near the poultry housing in addition to secure chicken netting in order to prevent predation. Similarly locked gates, stock proof hedgerows and secure locked buildings can deter opportunist theft, especially if combined with audible alarms and possibly remote sensing. Living approximately 5 miles away, the applicants' response time to alarms would be slow. Nevertheless the fact that the applicants live in rented accommodation gives them more flexibility to move closer to the site. • It should be noted that the proposed stocking rate is very close to (but within) the limit for stocking in a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) in which the holding is located. Any further expansion is therefore not possible without additional land. • The recalculated need for a worker comes out at 212 SMDs which equates to 0.8 persons. This is still short of a full time worker. • There is still inadequate evidence to demonstrate that the holding would be economically sustainable. • There are sufficient properties within a 1 mile radius of the site that would provide suitable accommodation for the applicants.
7 Evaluation 7.1 The following considerations are relevant to the determination of this application.
7.2 Principle of development 7.2.1 Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states that "To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will be enhance or maintain the vitality of rural
Development Control Committee 22 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 communities…Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside".
7.2.2 The application seeks temporary consent for a dwelling for three years and therefore does not comply with paragraph 55 of the NPPF in the respect that it would be temporary. If an essential need can be demonstrated then a temporary consent may be appropriate to allow time for the enterprise to become established before a permanent solution is sought.
7.2.3 Annex A of PPS7 is still a useful tool in establishing whether a need is essential. This states that if a new dwelling is essential to support a new farming activity it should satisfy the following criteria: • Clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned; • A functional need (A functional test is necessary to establish whether it is essential for the proper functioning of the enterprise for one or more workers to be readily available at most times); • Clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis; • The functional need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit, or any other existing accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation by the workers concerned; and • Other planning requirements are satisfied.
7.2.4 The Council's Agricultural Consultant studied the application to assess whether the proposal complied with the above criteria. He concluded that the proposed enterprise comprises low numbers of livestock which do not warrant a continuous presence on site throughout the year; the forecast income and profit from the holding is unrealistic; and that there appear to be several suitable dwellings to purchase or rent which are available within one mile of the application site which could satisfy the needs of the holding. Therefore based on this response, the local planning authority does not consider the need to be essential as there are alternative options available to the applicants, all of which the Agricultural Consultant has outlined. The proposal is therefore contrary to the NPPF which strictly controls new development in the open countryside.
7.3 Visual impact 7.3.1 The proposed mobile home would not be visible from the adopted highway and would therefore not result in a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. However, views may be possible from the public right of way which travels in a south east to North West direction across the central point of the vehicular access. The proposed dwelling would measure approximately 11 metres by 6 metres and would be located next to a large bund. Therefore the proposed dwelling would not appear prominent. It would also appear temporary in nature and could be removed from site easily with the land being restored to its original state. For these reasons the proposed dwelling would not result in a detrimental visual impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area or the open countryside.
7.4 Impact on neighbouring amenity 7.4.1 There are no nearby residential properties and therefore the proposal would not result in any overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact.
7.5 Impact on highway safety 7.5.1 The site would utilise an existing access which provides access to the farm. The proposal would result in an intensification of use of this access. No details have been provide of the access, but it is considered that if the existing access is not wide enough, it could be widened to a minimum width of 4.5 metres for the first 10 metres from the highway. The proposal would therefore not result in a detrimental impact on highway safety. The Local Highway Authority Officer has also confirmed that he has no objection to the proposal.
Development Control Committee 23 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
7.6 Public Right of Way 7.6.1 The Rights of Way Officer has commented that it is necessary to ensure that the public Right of Way NH12 does not get obscured in the long term. They have confirmed that the proposed dwelling would be far enough away from the Right of Way and therefore the proposal would not result in a diversion to the public Right of Way.
8 Other issues 8.1 Access for Disabled - The proposed dwelling would not be subject to any public access and therefore does not raise any concerns.
Recommendation
That permission be REFUSED for the following reason:
Conditions/Reasons -
1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate an essential need for an isolated new dwelling in the open countryside and as such the proposal is contrary to guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, guidance contained in Annex A of PPS7, Policies 9 and 10 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy 1 of the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan.
Informatives
1. The NPPF requires the delivery of sustainable development in a proactive and positive way in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187. Regard has been had to the 12 core planning principles in the NPPF and the more specific policies. In addition, the Development Plan and other material considerations have been taken into account as required by Section 54a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The following specific guidance in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted:
Paragraph 55 of the NPPF specifically states that new isolated dwellings in the open countryside will only be permitted where there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is an essential need and does therefore not satisfy the criteria of the NPPF.
The applicant was given time to produce a response in relation to the Council's Agricultural Consultant. Whilst additional information was submitted, it did not overcome the objection in principle to the proposal. In order for a scheme to be acceptable it would have to meet the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF. In order to ensure that there is an essential need for a dwelling in this location, the attention should be drawn to the methods as set out in Annex A of PPS7 as this provides a useful reference to establish how to determine if a need is essential. The Agricultural Consultant's comments also provide useful guidance as to why an essential need has not been demonstrated.
Development Control Committee 24 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Committee Report Committee Date : 6 February 2013 Printed: 23 January 2013
Case Officer Mr Joe Mitson 12/01464/FUL
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 6 September 2012 13 September 2012 8 November 2012 Oundle Oundle
Applicant The Midlands Cooperative
Agent Marrons Solicitors - Mr David Prichard
Location Co-Operative Retail Services Ltd St Osyths Lane Oundle Northamptonshire PE8 4BG
Proposal Ground floor extension at the rear of the building adjacent to the existing warehouse area and alterations to the car park elevation at the rear of the building to facilitate the creation of mezzanine floor
The application is brought to Development Control Committee because of an objection from Oundle Town Council.
1. Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.
2. The Proposal The application seeks full planning permission for a ground floor extension at the rear of the building adjacent to the existing warehouse area and alterations to the car park elevation at the rear of the building to facilitate the creation of a mezzanine floor. 2.1 The ground floor extension would have a footprint of 12.62 metres by 12.7 metres and would incorporate a flat roof at a height of 3.4 metres. The ground floor extension would provide an additional 160 square metres of gross floor space for retail use with the mezzanine floor providing an additional 260 square metres of gross floor space for back of store facilities. The mezzanine floor would measure 35.29 metres by 6.97 metres.
3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The building comprises a stone and slate structure abutting St Osyths Lane with a covered access leading to the car park at the rear. The building has pitched roofs to the front elevation with a mix of flat and pitched roofs to the rear. The site is also accessed from East Road and the existing service yard is accessed from the car park to the south-east of the site.
3.2 The site is surrounded by residential properties along East Road with commercial properties on St Osyths Lane. 21 Osyths Lane is a grade II listed building and borders the site to the south.
4. Planning Policy 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012.
4.2 On 10th November 2010 the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State's decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies was unlawful as it had been taken without primary legislation. A statement was then issued by the Government reiterating their intention to remove RSS's and that this should be treated as a material consideration. Despite a further legal challenge, it has now been confirmed that the Government's intention to abolish RSS's is a
Development Control Committee 25 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
material consideration which should be taken into account when determining a planning application. Whilst the Localism Bill has now received Royal Assent, Regional Strategies have not yet been revoked.
Policy 1 Regional Core Objectives Policy 2 Promoting Better Design Policy 3 Distribution of New Development Policy 18 Regional Priorities for the Economy Policy 22 Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development Policy 26 Protecting and Enhancing the Region's Natural and Cultural Heritage Policy 27 Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment Policy 38 Regional Priorities for Waste Management Policy 39 Regional Priorities for Energy Reduction and Efficiency Policy 43 Regional Transport Objectives
4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008)
Policy 1 Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 8 Delivering Economic Prosperity Policy 9 Distribution and location of Development Policy 12 Distribution of Retail Development Policy 13 General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction
4.4 Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan (adopted 2011)
Policy 1- Settlement Roles Policy 9 - Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest Policy 12 - Considerate Construction Policy 16 - Protected Employment Areas Policy 18- Town Centres
4.5 Supplementary Planning Document
Planning out Crime Parking Sustainable Design SPD
5. Relevant Planning History: 5.1 There is a detailed history on the site relating to alterations to the shop front, access, signage and an ATM.
6. Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbour comments: Two letters raising the following concerns:
• Delivery vehicles would have to drive right up to 21 Osyths Lane in order to reverse into the new delivery door putting the building and its foundations at risk; • Delivery vehicles would have to drive right up to 21 Osyths Lane in order to reverse into the new delivery door putting the building and its foundations at risk; • Delivery wagons which arrive early have automatic reversing alarms which will be • closer to the adjacent dwelling compared to the current situation; • The new extension will require excavations and pile driving which could damage the adjacent property; • The new building will adversely affect the light of the adjacent dwelling; • It appears there are no plans for gates to the service yard; • The area immediately adjacent to no.21 could attract vermin; • Questions where the air conditioning units will be positioned; • Questions the capacity of the adjacent transformer;
Development Control Committee 26 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
• Concerns regarding the increase in large articulated lorries delivering to the store, at the current level there has been damage to vehicles and East Road is becoming busier by the week; • Traffic will increase as a result of the Waitrose/Herne Road/Ashton Road developments and any increase in traffic will bring closer a serious accident.
6.2 Oundle Town Council: Object due to concerns about deliveries to the revised store and the possible impact upon the town car park. Requires information about the stores distribution and supply chain particularly as to how the proposed extension will impact upon the frequency and/or timing and/or handling of deliveries and seek reassurance that the application will not impact upon the current car park footprint in order to determine whether any conditions should be attached to any possible grant of planning permission. Pending receipt of this information the Council requests that the application is deferred whilst at present objecting on the basis that there is inadequate information available to enable us to determine it.
6.3 Environmental Protection: Concerns raised about noise from the loading bay which is now on a different elevation of the building and directly opposite residential gardens and building facades. Also state light pollution may be an issue with the proposals.
6.4 NCC Highways: Requested a Transport Assessment due to the increase in floor space, additional staff and additional traffic movements including HGV's. The Transport Assessment was submitted and the Highway Authority has no objection in principle to the development on highway related issues.
6.5 Conservation Officer: No comments.
6.6 Waste Manager: No comments.
6.7 NCC Sustainable Development: No comments.
7. Evaluation 7.1 The following considerations are relevant to the determination of this application:
7.2 Principle of development: 7.2.1 The proposal relates to the extension of the existing supermarket to provide additional sales floorspace to the ground floor with additional back of shop accommodation on a new mezzanine first floor. The site has an overall area of approximately 0.55 hectares and the current store has a gross area of 1173 sqm and a net sales area of 728 sqm.
7.2.2 The application site occupies a town centre location with a car park to the rear providing 105 spaces. The store currently employs 45 full time and 31 part time staff, a total of 76 staff. The proposal would result in the employment of 55 full time and 51 part time staff, a total of 106.
7.2.3 The policy backdrop to the application includes the NPPF. This states that the vitality of town centres should be recognised and that Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test which requires applications for town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations. The Regional Plan states that the vitality and viability of existing town centres should be promoted.
7.2.4 The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Evidence Base states under Policy 1 that development in the rural north east will be mainly directed to a rural service spine comprising the Rural Service Centres including Oundle. This designation results in Oundle providing the main focal points for infrastructure and development in the rural north east. An implication of this is the consolidation and enhancement of Oundle's successful
Development Control Committee 27 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 town centre. Policy 12 amplifies this and states that the rural service centres will consolidate their roles in providing mainly convenience shopping and local services. It goes on to say that the scale of retail development should be appropriate to the role and function of the centre where it is to be located.
7.2.5 The site is located within the designated Oundle Town Centre in the Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan. Oundle is a Rural Service Centre and in addition to Policy 18 which seeks to encourage retail A1 uses in such locations, there is a policy thrust to positively and proactively support the town centres by encouraging uses, activities and investment that will sustain or enhance their character, attractiveness, vitality and viability. As such, the proposal of expanding the retail facilities in this location is supported in principle by national and local policies.
7.3 Visual Impact 7.3.1 The existing building has a prominent façade fronting onto St Osyths Lane and it covers the majority of the site along the western boundary. This limits clear views into the car park and service area to the rear from the site frontage. The proposed ground floor extension is to the rear of the building on the south-east corner of the supermarket and would infill the existing space resulting in a predominantly rectangular building. The extension would cover a moderate footprint compared to the existing and would not be unduly prominently sited. Views would be possible from East Road but the building is set well away from that boundary. Although the extension would incorporate a flat roof there is already a two storey flat roof element to the building.
7.3.2 The proposed modifications to the first floor would result in the removal of the existing pitched roof and the creation of a further area of flat roof at two storey level. This would continue the existing flat roof through to the rear elevation. Although the existing rear elevation is preferred the proposed alterations would be to the rear elevation and given the existing two storey flat roof area it is not considered the proposal would be unduly harmful given that it is to the rear of the building and given the visual appearance of the existing building from the rear.
7.3.3 The site is within the conservation area. The existing building is of limited historic or architectural merit but has a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Although the proposed ground floor extension would introduce a further area of flat roof to the building it would be sited in a relatively secluded location within the site and would not have a significant visual impact when viewed from beyond the confines of the site. That part of the site currently accommodates the supermarket service area and therefore contributes little to the conservation area. The proposed first floor alterations would be more visible but could be considered subservient to the remaining pitched roof element of the building. On balance it is not therefore considered that the character or appearance of the conservation area would be harmed as a result of the proposed extension.
7.3.4 The site is adjacent to a Grade II listed building, 21 St Osyths Lane. The protected building has its façade on St Osyths Lane with a range of outbuildings to the rear at an angle along the northern elevation. The proposed single storey extension to the supermarket would be in close proximity at its most western point but the space between the buildings would then increase due to the position of the outbuildings. Given the relatively small scale of the extension and the established relationship between the supermarket and the building it is not considered the setting of the listed building would be harmed. Furthermore, the alterations to the first floor would be on part of the building set further into the site and a significant distance from the boundary with no.21. As such it is not considered the impact would be undue on the setting of the listed building.
7.4 Neighbouring Amenity 7.4.1 The single storey extension would be located on the side of the building closest to 21 St Osyths Lane and would build on an existing undeveloped space. However, the land is
Development Control Committee 28 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 currently used as the service yard and as a result already has an impact on the residential amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposed extension would cover a relatively small area compared to the overall site and building and would have a limited height incorporating a flat roof. Furthermore although the extension would be in close proximity at its most western point to the boundary with no. 21 it would angle away by its most eastern point. It is not considered the extension would have an undue impact on the amenity of no.21 or any other neighbouring property. In addition the alterations at first floor level would be set well away from the site boundaries and the limited nature of the works would ensure there would be no undue impact on amenity through the built form of the proposed works.
7.4.2 The proposal would increase the retail area of the supermarket and as a result could have a greater impact in terms of noise, disturbance and vehicular movement. However, it is acknowledged that when food stores increase in size they tend to generate limited additional traffic. This is substantiated by the findings of the Transport Assessment submitted with the application which concludes the proposal will lead to one additional vehicle trip per hour. Furthermore, any increase in impact from the servicing of the expanded supermarket must be viewed in the context of the existing operation and the fact that the store has been over trading, in part due to lack of a viable market competition. This situation may alter with the pending Waitrose supermarket.
7.4.3 Environmental Protection raised concerns about noise from the loading bay. This is based on the fact that the loading bay is currently accommodated on the eastern elevation. This would be replaced by the proposed single storey extension with the service bay being relocated further along the southern elevation. However, the existing warehouse is already accessed close to the boundary with no.21 St Osyths Lane whereas the proposed relocated warehouse would be set further into the site. It is acknowledged that HGV's would still be in close proximity to the boundary with the neighbouring dwelling; however, it is considered that the impact would not be such that the proposal could reasonably be resisted.
7.4.4 Environmental Protection also raised concerns in relation to potential light pollution. No lighting details have been submitted as part of the application and it is considered this issue can be dealt with by a condition.
7.4.5 Notwithstanding the objections and concerns received it is considered any issues relating to unreasonable noise generation or problems arising from waste can be dealt with under powers available to the Environmental Protection Section. Furthermore, any development which could be harmful to existing neighbouring properties is governed by the Party Wall Act where applicable.
7.5 Highways Access and Parking 7.5.1 Following initial consultation with NCC Highways the applicant submitted a Transport Assessment. This used the recent Waitrose application traffic flows as base flows for this proposal which was agreed by the Highway Authority. The report concluded that the proposal would result in one additional vehicle per hour during peak times. As such it found the traffic generated by the development would be extremely low. The Highway Authority raised no objection to the proposal on the basis of the Transport Assessment. It is therefore considered the development would not have any detrimental impacts on the operation of the site or the local highway network.
7.5.2 The proposal would not result in a change to the available parking spaces which would remain at 105. As the Transport Assessment concludes the additional number of car movements resulting from the development would be low it is considered the current parking provision would be satisfactory.
7.5.3 Notwithstanding the concerns raised by neighbours pertaining to highway issues it has been demonstrated by the Transport Assessment that the impact would be acceptable on the locality and local highway network.
Development Control Committee 29 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
8. Other Issues 8.1 Access for Disabled - it is not considered there are any issues relating to access resulting from the development. The applicant has confirmed that the existing level access to the foodstore with automatic door operation will be unaffected by the proposal and as such the accessibility of the building will remain.
8.2 Crime and Disorder - it is considered that there are no crime and disorder issues relevant to this application.
Recommendation That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.
9 Conditions/Reasons -
1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To ensure compliance with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The works hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following approved plans: 12042.101 - Site Location Plans, 12042.103 - Proposed Block Plan, 12042-106A - Proposed Floor Plans and 12042-107B - Proposed Elevations. Reason: In order to clarify the terms of the planning permission and to ensure that the development is carried out as permitted.
3. The net sales floorspace of the supermarket shall not exceed the figure stipulated in the submission to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To define the permission and ensure that any impact on other centres is controlled in line with the NPPF.
4. No development shall take place until a scheme of external finishes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this shall include the submission of details/samples of all materials to be used on the external elevations. The work shall be executed in accordance with the approved scheme and retained in perpetuity thereafter. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory elevational appearance for the development.
5. Prior to the first use of the store hereby approved, a scheme detailing the provision and maintenance of external lighting, which shall include light level calculations in designated areas rather than the overall areas, switching/dimming and uniformity details, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved details shall be installed prior to commencement of use and no other external lighting shall be provided. Reason: In order to ensure adequate safety and security on site.
Informatives
1. In reaching this decision this Council has implemented the requirement in the NPPF to deliver sustainable development in a positive and proactive way in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF. Regard has been had to the 12 core planning principles in the NPPF and the more specific policies. In addition, the Development Plan and other material considerations have been taken into account as required by Section 54a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The specific policies relevant to this decision are: NPPF paragraph 17; Policies 1, 2, 3, 18, 22, 26, 27, 38, 39 and 43 of the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009; Policies 1, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008, policies 1, 9, 12, 16 and 18 of the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan and Highway Authority Standing Advice for Planning
Development Control Committee 30 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Authorities, Revision Draft October 2012.
Having regard to these, the representations received and any other material planning reasons, the main issues are the principle of the development, visual impact, the effect on heritage assets, the impact on neighbouring properties and highways matters.
The development accords with the development plan and thus satisfies the NPPF for the reasons set out below: - The principle of the development is acceptable and is consistent with the development plan and guidance contained in national planning policy framework. Paragraph 17 advises that planning should proactively drive and support economic development to deliver the homes that the country needs. - The proposal comprises the development of land already used by the supermarket in a sustainable location within the town of Oundle. - The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the local highway. - The scale of the buildings is acceptable and the development would not harm the visual amenity or character of the area, including the setting of the adjacent listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area. - The proposal would not have a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
Development Control Committee 31 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Committee Report Committee Date: 6 February 2013 Printed: 24 January 2013
Case Officer Amie Baxter 12/01517/FUL
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 13 September 2012 24 September 2012 19 November 2012 Rushden Sartoris Rushden
Applicant Carn Homes Ltd
Agent Greenspace Solutions Ltd - Mr S Bratby
Location Land Rear of 23 And 25 St Marys Avenue Rushden Northamptonshire
Proposal Proposed four bedroom bungalow for residential use with integral double garage and landscaping (Re-submission of 11/01981/FUL)
1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.
2. The Proposal 2.1 The application is for the erection of 1.5 storey dwelling.
2.2 The proposed dwelling would accommodate four bedrooms, a lounge, a kitchen and dining area, a study and a double garage.
3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The application site is currently garden land for 23 and 25 St Mary's Avenue.
3.2 The immediate area is characterised by a mix of semi-detached and detached dwellings. Numbers 57 and 57a St Marys Avenue are bungalows and number 59 is a two storey dwelling. There is also planning permission to construct a dormer bungalow in the rear garden of number 57.
3.3 The site is accessed via a private road (also a public right of way) which connects onto Brooke Close to the north and St Marys Avenue to the south. The highway is hard surfaced until it reaches the end of Brook Close and is then un-surfaced up to the application site. Although the most likely link to the application site would be from Brook Close, the site could also be accessed off St Marys Avenue, via an existing un-surfaced track (which begins between 1 Hall Avenue and 55 St Mary's Avenue) running along the rear of numbers 59- 31 St Mary's Avenue towards the application site.
3.4 Rushden Hall is a grade II* listed building and is positioned in the distance to the south east of the site.
4 Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework
4.2 East Midlands Regional Plan, 2009 On 10th November 2010 the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State's decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies was unlawful as it had been taken without primary legislation. A statement was then issued by the Government reiterating their intention to remove RSSs and that this should be treated as a material consideration. Despite a further legal challenge, it has now been confirmed that the Government's intention to abolish RSS's is a material
Development Control Committee 32 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 consideration which should be taken into account when determining a planning application. Whilst the Localism Bill has now received Royal Assent, Regional Strategies have not yet been revoked.
Policy 2 - Promoting Better Design Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development Policy 13b - Housing Provision (Northamptonshire) Policy 29 - Regional Priorities for Energy Reduction and Efficiency Policy 45 - Regional Approach to Traffic Growth Reduction Policy 48 - Regional Car Parking Standards
4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, 2008 Policy 1 - Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 9 - Distribution and Location of Development Policy 10 - Distribution of Housing Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction
4.4 Other Documents Highway Authority Standing Advice for Planning Authorities, 2008 Design SPD, 2009
5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 07/02178/OUT. Erection of bungalow on a neighbouring site at 37 St Mary's Avenue, to the south west of the current application site. This application was refused under delegated powers because it was considered to have a poor means of access and as it would be out of character with the layout of the surrounding area. The application was subsequently allowed by the Planning Inspectorate at appeal, with the Inspector stating that the proposed dwelling would relate to the quite different character of the access lane and that the access lane provides an adequate means of access from St Mary's Avenue and Brooke Close.
5.2 11/00874/FUL. Erection of a detached dwelling at 57 St Mary's Avenue. Permitted on 08.08.2011 under delegated powers. This site is to the south west of the current application site and could be accessed from either St Mary's Avenue or Brooke Close.
5.3 11/01981/FUL. Erection of a detached dwelling at the rear of 23 and 25 St Mary's Avenue. This application was recommended for approval by officers, based on the previous Inspector's conclusion that the impact on character and the proposed access is acceptable, but refused by the Development Control Committee. The refusal reason was worded as follows:
The proposed access to the application site would be unacceptable in terms of width, gradient and construction to enable vehicles to pass each other safely (without needing to perform a reversing manoeuvre), it would not allow a safe refuge for pedestrians using the public right of way nor would it allow access for emergency vehicles. As such, the proposed development would contravene the advice contained within PPS1, PPS3, East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 2, North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 and Highway Authority Standing Advice 2008.
5.4 This current application is exactly the same as the proposal submitted under ref: 11/01981/FUL.
6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbours: Comments have been received from neighbours at 25, 27, 31 and 59 St Marys Avenue. Their concerns are as follows: • There are no precedents set by existing planning permissions because this site would make use of a different access to those proposals (it would use Brooke Street instead of St Mary's Avenue)
Development Control Committee 33 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
• The application particulars state that a new access would be created but the development would use an existing access lane. • There is no existing drainage or service system close to the site. • The proposed development would increase the likelihood of surface flooding. • Wildlife has been seen to use the site. • There are trees within the site. • Rushden does not need any more housing as there are many vacant properties. • The proposal would not improve health and wellbeing as required by the NPPF. • The development would not give priority to pedestrians and cycles. • The access drive is an un-adopted private road which is not suitable for any further traffic and visibility is poor. • The previous appeals inspector acknowledged that the Brooke Road end of the access road was in poor condition and noted that this would discourage occupiers from using it. • The NPPF needs to be used to assess the proposal. • The proposed dwelling would have two storeys and would overlook the garden of 27 St Mary's Avenue. • The access is not wide enough for emergency or refuse vehicles. • The footpath is often used by walkers, children and groups and the development would make this lane unsafe. 6.1.1 A letter of support for the development has been received from the occupier of 4 Ellison Close in Raunds, noting that the proposed dwelling would be able to connect to existing services on St Mary's Avenue and that the development would be beneficial in making use of a declining area.
6.2 Rushden Town Council: Object to this application as it is considered to be back land development. Also, concerns are raised about the use of an unmade, un-adopted road as the access road is in very poor condition. Drainage is also a concern.
6.3 Local Highway Authority: Object to the proposal because, in its current form, the proposal would create a potential source of danger between emerging drivers, pedestrians and all other highway users, with the formation of an intensified access, lacking adequate measures in which to allow a HGV to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.
7 Evaluation 7.1 The following considerations are relevant to the determination of this application:
7.2 Principle of development 7.2.1 The principle for the erection of a dwelling to the rear of the existing properties along St Mary's Avenue was taken into consideration by the Planning Inspectorate when outline permission was granted at appeal for a dwelling at the rear of 37 St Mary's Avenue (Ref: 07/02178/OUT). The Inspector's decision on this neighbouring application is relevant to the determination of this application as it sets the precedent in principle for the erection of a dwelling fronting onto this un-adopted lane. The application also needs to be assessed against the new National Planning Policy Framework which has come into use since the previous applications were considered.
7.2.2 The previous Inspector's decision notes that a dwelling positioned to the rear of the existing dwellings along St Mary's Avenue would be acceptable in principle, in terms of the impact on the character and layout of the area. The Inspector concluded that a dwelling fronting onto the private lane would instead relate to the quite different character of that lane and Rushden Park beyond, rather than the proposal having an adverse effect on the existing character and layout of St Mary's Avenue. In light of this decision, planning permission for a further dwelling to the rear of 57 St Marys Avenue has also been granted (ref: 11/00874/FUL)
7.2.3 Like the dwellings permitted at number 37 and 57 St Mary's Avenue, the proposed
Development Control Committee 34 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 development as part of this current application would also front onto the private lane and would relate to the different character of that private lane. Given the similarities between this application and the previously approved dwellings at number 39 and 57, it would be difficult to argue that the proposed development would not be acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and layout of the area.
7.2.4 Similarly, the Inspector considered whether the use of the existing un-adopted access track was appropriate. The Inspector noted that whilst the route towards St Mary's Avenue would be the preferred route due to its better condition, she made reference to the route towards Brooke Road being acceptable also. Therefore, the previous inspector's decision would mean that, whilst narrow and unmade, the proposed access route to the application site is therefore considered to be acceptable and fit for purpose.
7.2.5 With reference to guidance contained within the NPPF (paras. 17 and 49) and bearing in mind the site's location within a primarily residential area, as well as there being consent for similar development which sets the precedent for development facing onto the right of way to the rear of St Mary's Avenue, the principle of development on this site is acceptable.
7.2.6 Paragraph 35 of the NPPF seeks to prevent the inappropriate development of garden land. However, the previous appeal decision has already established that such development along the access track would not be inappropriate.
7.3 Visual impact 7.3.1 The proposed dwelling would not be visible from St Mary's Avenue but would be visible from the private access track to the rear of the dwellings along St Mary's Avenue. The proposed dwelling would not be in a prominent location and would have limited impact on the overall character of the access track.
7.3.2 The design and scale of the proposed dwelling is modest and as such would remain in keeping with the simple form and scale of neighbouring properties. The proposal is for a bungalow with rooms in the roof which would again be in keeping with the height of the two neighbouring properties at 57 and 57a St Marys Avenue. A condition which requests the submission of external materials for approval is recommended to ensure that a high standard of design is achieved.
7.4 Impact on neighbouring amenity 7.4.1 The proposed dwelling would be located approximately 43 metres away from the nearest properties at 23 and 25 St Mary's Avenue. This distance is great enough, along with the modest ridge height of the proposed dwelling at 6.5 metres, to ensure that there would be no overbearing impact or overshadowing on neighbouring occupiers. There would be no windows which overlook neighbouring dwellings. It is recommended however, that a condition is used to remove the permitted development rights, including for the insertion of windows, for the resultant property.
7.4.2 The proposal would not therefore have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.
7.5 Impact on the adjacent Grade II* listed building 7.5.1 The proposed dwelling would be located over 100m metres away from the adjacent listed building at the nearest point. This distance is sufficient to prevent any harm to the character or setting of the listed building.
7.6 Impact on Highway Safety 7.6.1 The applicant proposes to create a new block paved driveway and parking area for two vehicles off the private road, towards the southern corner of the plot. The Highways Officer has objected to the proposed development because of the limited width of the private road leading to the site and as the private road would be un-surfaced and unsuitable for HGV's.
7.6.2 The recent appeal decision at 39 St Mary's Avenue is relevant again in terms of the
Development Control Committee 35 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 acceptability of the proposed access. Bearing in mind the Inspector's view that it is appropriate to use the private road (whilst recognising that it is also a public right of way) as a vehicular access to the site at 39 St Mary's Avenue, even though it was substandard in terms of width, surfacing and visibility, it would be difficult therefore, to conclude that the private road is unacceptable for this current application. For this reason and for consistency, officers came to the same view as the Inspector but Member's may wish to take a different view.
7.6.3 Furthermore, the proposed development would be positioned closer to the adopted highway than the previously approved applications (although at the opposite end of the track) and therefore, vehicles would not need to travel so far on the un-surfaced part of the access road to reach the site. It is unlikely that HGV's will need to access the site once the construction of the dwelling has taken place and so this concern bears little weight.
7.6.4 A condition is recommended to ensure that the proposed parking and turning area is retained in perpetuity, to prevent the need for parking outside the application site.
7.6.5 A pair of gates is proposed at the front of the site. In the interest of the safety and convenience of other users of the public right of way, a condition is recommended to require the gates be positioned 5.0 metres back from the public right of way and be designed to open in-wards only.
7.6.6 Subject to the above conditions, there would be no adverse effect on the public right of way or the adopted highway.
8 Other issues 8.1 Amenity space - The proposed dwelling would have sufficient amenity space and the resultant gardens for 23 and 25 St Mary's Avenue would also be adequate.
8.2 Withdrawal of permitted development rights - Given the proximity of the development to the surrounding neighbouring properties and the size of the site, it is recommended that permitted development rights be removed from the proposed dwelling (in respect of extensions, outbuildings and roof alterations) so that any future extensions or alterations could be properly considered by the local planning authority.
8.3 Waste and recycling storage - There is sufficient space for the storage of waste and recycling bins within the garden of the proposed dwelling. Bins would need to be presented adjacent to the public highway for collection.
8.4 Drainage and Services- The proposed dwelling would be linked to existing service and drainage networks. Land ownership (in order to agree the installation of such services) is not a material planning consideration.
8.5 Access - The application particulars note that a new access is to be created. This is correct as a new access point would be created within the rear boundary of the application site. This would lead onto the existing track running parallel with the dwellings fronting onto St Mary's Avenue.
8.6 Flooding - A neighbour is concerned that the proposal would lead to surface flooding. It is standard practice to impose a condition to ensure that the applicant submits further details, prior to the commencement of development, as to how the proposed scheme would manage surface water.
8.7 Wildlife - The application site is currently a garden in an urban area and so will accommodate a variety of wildlife. The proposed development would not alter this use and the site would still benefit from wildlife common to urban areas.
8.8 Trees - The trees within the site are not protected and the site is not within a conservation area. Also, given their small size, the trees are not of any substantial visual or
Development Control Committee 36 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 amenity value in this location. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent the applicant from felling the trees. It would therefore be unreasonable to insist that the trees are kept.
8.9 Health and Wellbeing - The NPPF encourages developments which contribute to good standards of living. The proposed development would have an adequate area of amenity space and a good sized garden would remain for the original properties at 23 and 25 St Mary's Avenue. The proposal would not prevent local occupiers from having a healthy lifestyle and there is no reason to refuse the application on that basis.
Recommendation That the application be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
Conditions/Reasons -
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Statutory requirement under provision of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Notwithstanding the submitted details, full details of the method of the treatment of the external boundaries of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, implemented prior to the occupation of the building hereby permitted and retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the boundaries of the site are properly treated so as to secure a satisfactory standard of development.
3. The sustainable construction techniques, provision for waste reduction and recycling, and water efficiency and recycling measures detailed in the submitted Sustainability Appraisal and Energy Statement (received by the local planning authority on 21 April 2011), shall be implemented, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable in accordance with national government advice contained in NPPF and Policy 14 of the adopted North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.
4. Before any work is commenced on the development the subject of this permission, details of the ground floor levels of the proposed building in relation to surrounding properties shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjacent properties.
5. Prior to the first use or occupation of the development hereby permitted a positive means of drainage shall be installed to ensure that surface water from the vehicular access or private land does not discharge onto the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
6. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
7. Notwithstanding the submitted information, prior to the commencement of development, a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include planting plans, schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, an implementation programme and the retention of as many as possible of the existing
Development Control Committee 37 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
trees on the site. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season following the occupation of the development. Any trees that die or become diseased within a 5 year period of implementation shall be replaced on a like-for-like basis. Reason: To ensure a reasonable standard of development.
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no windows or other form of opening, other than that shown on the plans hereby approved, shall be inserted in the north west elevation or roofslope of the dwelling hereby permitted, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure adequate standards of privacy for neighbours and in the interest of visual amenity.
9. Prior to the commencement of development hereby permitted, details of the surfacing of the vehicular access, parking facilities and all other hard-surfaced areas within the site shall have been submitted to and be approved by the Local Planning Authority. The vehicular access and the parking facilities shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details and the hard-surfaced areas shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the first occupation of the development. The garage and all hard surfaced parking areas shall thereafter be retained in perpetuity, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the protection of on-site trees, visual amenity and highway safety.
10. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 01/10/12 and 24/08/12, drawing number 003, 002, 006, 001B, 004, 005, , unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In order to clarify the terms of the planning permission and to ensure that the development is carried out as permitted.
Informatives
1. The NPPF requires the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and pro-active manner (paragraphs 186 and 187). Regard has been had to the 12 core planning principles in the NPPF and the more specific policies. In addition, the Development Plan and other material considerations have been taken into account as required by Section 54a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The specific policies relevant to this decision are: NPPF paras 17 and 49, Policies 2, 3, 13b, 29, 45 and 48 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, Policies 1, 9, 10, 13 and 14 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, Parking SPG 2003, Planning Out Crime 2004, Highway Authority Standing Advice Document 2008, Parking SPG and ENC Design SPD. The application, as first submitted, was adequate to describe the proposal and was deemed to be acceptable. As such no negotiations or changes were necessary
Development Control Committee 38 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Committee Report Committee Date : 6 February 2013 Printed: 23 January 2013
Case Officer Carolyn Tait 12/01535/FUL
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 14 September 2012 3 October 2012 28 November 2012 Rushden Spencer Rushden
Applicant Mr L Nichols
Agent P A Nichols
Location 5 Parkham Industrial Estate Wellingborough Road Rushden Northamptonshire NN10 6AY
Proposal Change of use from industrial to private gym (D2)
This application is brought before Development Control Committee because Rushden Town Council have objected to the proposal.
1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.
2. The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes a change of use from light industrial (B1) to a private gymnasium (D2).
2.2 The proposed gym would specialise in bodybuilding and visitors would require a membership. However, the applicant has stated that membership is not just available to bodybuilders.
2.3 The proposed hours of use are 8am to 8pm Mondays to Fridays, 9am to 4pm Saturdays and 10am to 3pm Sundays and Bank Holidays.
2.4 Visitors and staff to the gym would utilise existing parking spaces available in front of the site. This car park is shared with seven other existing units. The car park contains a total of 40 spaces for use by all eight industrial units. 21 of these spaces can be used by users of the gym as identified on the 'site plan and parking layout' drawing received on 8 January 2013.
3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The application site accommodates a former industrial unit within a larger industrial estate located off Wellingborough Road, Rushden. According to an email received from the landlord, the site has been difficult to lease and has remained vacant for some time, although he does not specify.
3.2 Access is gained off Wellingborough Road through a shared car park.
3.3 The applications site is surrounded by industrial units and is located on the outskirts of Rushden.
4 Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework
Development Control Committee 39 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
4.2 East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development Policy 18 - Regional Priorities for the Economy Policy 20 - Regional Priorities for Employment Land Policy 22 - Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development Policy 41 - Regional Priorities for Culture, Sport and Recreation Policy 45 - Regional Approach to Traffic Growth Reduction Policy 48 - Regional Car Parking Standards On 10th November 2010 the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State's decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies was unlawful as it had been taken without primary legislation. A statement was then issued by the Government reiterating their intention to remove RSSs and that this should be treated as a material consideration. Despite a further legal challenge, it has now been confirmed that the Government's intention to abolish RSSs is a material consideration which should be taken into account when determining a planning application. Whilst the Localism Bill has now received Royal Assent, Regional Strategies have not yet been revoked.
4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 8 - Delivering Economic Prosperity Policy 9 - Distribution and Location of Development Policy 11 - Distribution of Jobs Policy 13 General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction
4.4 Other documents Parking SPG Local Highway Authority Standing Advice for Local Planning Authorities
5 Relevant Planning History
5.1 81/01221/FUL Eight industrial units. PERMITTED.
5.2 81/01800/FUL Eight factory nursery units. PERMITTED.
6 Consultations and Representations
At the time of writing this report the deadline date for consultation responses had not passed, and therefore any additional comments to those noted below will be reported on the update sheet. 6.1 Neighbours: Comments received from No. 4 Parkham Industrial Estate, No.1 Parkham Industrial Estate, Central Auto Supplies, Stewart Road (Units 7 and 8) and White Arches Caravans Wellingborough Road. Their comments can be summarised as: • Would lead to an increase in parking that would cause congestion making it difficult for delivery vehicles. • Granting planning permission could have a detrimental impact on existing businesses within the industrial estate. • There is a clear planning policy regarding the use of the units in the site area. A change of use would be against the planning of industrial units in the complex. • The applicant does not specify the number of spaces that its membership would require at any one time. Neither is there any indication of their membership numbers. • It would not be possible for one tenant to control the parking facilities. • The photographs submitted with the application were taken at 1pm, which is contrary to when the applicant is stating that the gym's peak times will be. • Increase to highway safety at peak times. • The use would clearly be at odds with the industrial nature of the site. • The parking bays which are drawn are not large enough to accommodate large vans and motorhomes which are the types of vehicles using the industrial estate. • Large vehicles would not be able to turn and get out of the site.
Development Control Committee 40 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
• The sequential assessment states that they need parking for up to 40 people. The car park can not accommodate them. The proposed use would take away parking from the existing units. • Bicycle and motorcycle parking would block the entrance to unit 6. • Work has already commenced and is occupied with a large amount of gym equipment.
6.2 Rushden Town Council: Objection for the following reasons: • Members feel that this should remain as an industrial unit. • The site has insufficient parking spaces to accommodate the users of the existing unit and additional cars visiting a gym. • There is no detailed design statement indicating traffic movements that would result from the proposed change of use.
6.3 Council's Environmental Protection Officer: There are no obvious environmental issues; therefore there is no objection to the proposal.
6.4 Local Highway Authority: Comments can be summarised as: • No objections in principle. • The local planning authority should ensure that the designated parking bays do not obstruct the two way vehicle access (being shared by third parties) in the first instance. • A revised parking layout should be submitted.
Following these comments a revised parking layout has been submitted. The local highway authority has verbally confirmed that these plans are acceptable and have addressed their initial concerns. In addition the Local Highway Authority Officer has verbally confirmed that the car park only ever appears to be at half capacity and that the additional traffic generated by the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety.
6.5 Council's Senior Planning Policy Officer: Comments can be summarised as: • The local planning authority need to be satisfied that the sequential test has been adequately complied with. • The submitted sequential test helpfully sets out the specific requirements for the proposed body building gym. The operators of the temporary gym at East Northamptonshire Council have confirmed that this specification is reasonable and appropriate (e.g. in respect of ceiling height). • The list of sites/locations considered appropriately addresses the requirements of the sequential test and fulfils the spirit of paragraph 24 of the NPPF. • Further requirements of the NPPF and the adopted North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy would need to be taken into account; not least the Government's commitment to ensure that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. • The North Northamptonshire Strategic Sports Facilities Framework identifies a current shortfall in health and fitness facilities within North Northamptonshire. • The applicant has fulfilled the NPPF sequential test.
6.6 Comments were also received from Councillor Underwood. These can be summarised as: • Could permission for a temporary period be granted? • Parking problems; • No lighting in the parking area; • The submitted parking survey is limited; • Articulated lorries deliver to other sites.
6.7 Site notice posted: 11 October 2012 at the front of the site.
Development Control Committee 41 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
7 Evaluation 7.1 The following considerations are relevant to the determination of this application.
7.2 Principle 7.2.1 A gymnasium is defined as a main town centre use as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
7.2.2 Paragraph 24 of the National Planning Policy states that a sequential test should be applied to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up do date Local Plan. Applications for main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. Paragraph 27 states that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have a significant impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment and/or town centre vitality and viability, then permission should be refused.
7.2.3 Based on the requirements of the National Planning Policy, the applicant has carried out a full assessment of alternative sites within the town centre of Rushden and has given a justification for each to explain why they are not suitable for the proposed use. This information was received by the local planning authority on 19 December 2012 and identifies 15 possible sites within the town centre and 4 possible sites in edge of centre locations. The Council's Senior Planning Policy Officer is satisfied with the submitted sequential test and the reasons put forward.
7.2.4 The justification for this particular site is that a minimum floor space of 400 sqm is required to be able to hold a class for up to 30 body builders with enough room for working space and equipment around the edge. This space also allows for changing facilities for males and females as well as a small amount of administration space. A minimum floor to ceiling height of 3.5 metres is required to accommodate specialist equipment. Staff at the temporary Nene Centre have verbally confirmed that this is an acceptable height for the type of equipment used. There is also a requirement for windows to be above 2 metres from ground level and for there to be a car park within walking distance. The sequential test identifies that there are no other sites within the centre of Rushden or on the edge of the centre.
7.2.5 Policy 3 of the East Midlands Regional Plan states that priority should be given to making the best use of vacant or under-used buildings. Policy 9 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that priority will be given to the reuse of suitable previously developed land and buildings within the urban area and that preference will be given to areas that are accessible by a choice of means of travel. This proposal would utilise a vacant building and therefore complies with these policies. The application site is accessible by car, foot, bicycle and bus (to Crown Park, Waitrose) and therefore complies with policy 9.
7.2.6 Policy 11 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that existing employment areas will be safeguarded for employment use. The proposal would not result in a loss of employment floorspace.
7.2.7 Overall, it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that there are no suitable sites within the town centre of Rushden or in edge of centre locations. The proposal would create employment in an existing employment area. The proposed gym would not significantly harm the vitality or viability of the town centre. The proposed use could have the potential for its members to use Rushden town centre as visitors are likely to travel from a bit further given the specialist nature of the site. Therefore the principle of development is considered to be acceptable.
7.2.8 Rushden Town Council has objected to the proposal because they consider that the building should remain in industrial use. The landlord of the site states in an email that the
Development Control Committee 42 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 unit has been difficult to let and has been vacant for some time. Whilst this may be so, no marketing information has been submitted with the application to demonstrate this. However, the proposal would ensure that the unit remains in an employment generating use. It would also provide a leisure use for local residents, and the site could be converted back to an industrial use in the future as no physical changes to the building would occur.
7.3 Visual impact 7.3.1 There are no external changes proposed to the existing building and therefore the proposal would not result in a detrimental visual impact.
7.4 Impact on neighbouring amenity 7.4.1 There are no nearby residential units and as such there would be no issues of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact.
7.4.2 Given that the site is located within an existing industrial unit and there are no nearby residents, noise is not likely to be a concern. In addition, the Council's Environmental Protection Officer has raised no objection to the proposal.
7.5 Highway safety 7.5.1 The application site accommodates approximately 40 parking spaces, some marked and some unmarked. The applicant has access to 25 of these spaces. The car park is shared by eight industrial units. The Parking SPG states that 18 spaces should be provided for the proposed use (based on 400 sqm floor space). The applicant has carried out a parking survey. This took place on a Friday between the hours of 12.15pm and 2.15pm, a Monday between 8.30am and 10.30am, a Wednesday between 4.30pm and 6.15pm and a Saturday between 10am and 11.15am. This survey shows that the car park is only ever at half capacity maximum, and is not ever full. Given that only 18 spaces are required for the proposed use, these would not push the car park beyond full and as such would not result in a detrimental impact on highway safety.
7.5.2 A local Councillor and neighbouring businesses have commented that the submitted parking assessment is not sufficient as it does not demonstrate how many users of the gym there will be and the number of parking spaces they expect to be used at any one time. Since these objections have been received the applicant has confirmed in an email dated 21 January 2013 that is likely that the maximum number of users at any one time would be 30 although this could be increased in evenings and weekends when the other units are closed. This figure has been given as this is the number of users that the amount of equipment would allow for and membership is also restricted by the number of staff present on site. However, the applicant has also confirmed that this figure is not definite and is an estimate. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted that the proposal complies with the adopted Northamptonshire Parking SPG, which states that only 18 spaces are required for a unit of this size in D2 use.
7.5.3 The Local Highway Authority Officer has no objection in principle to the proposal, but requested that the spaces adjacent to the access are not used by anyone in connection with the proposed gym. The applicant has provided a site plan which shows the shaded spaces which will be used by gym users. None of the spaces would block the access into and out of the site. The Local Highway Authority Officer has advised that a copy of this should be displayed inside the gym to ensure that any members and staff are aware of their responsibility not to block the access to the site. This can not be conditioned as it is not enforceable, however, the applicant may wish to take this into consideration.
7.5.4 A local Councillor has also raised concerns that lorries need access to the site. Given that the above assessment shows that there is sufficient parking, there is no reason to believe that the proposal would impact upon the lorries which already deliver to the site. One neighbour has also objected stating that lorries would not be able to turn within the site. The proposal does not propose and alterations to the existing parking arrangement and would therefore not impact upon lorry movements within the site.
Development Control Committee 43 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
7.5.5 The parking SPG states that the proposal should provide cycle storage for anyone who chooses to cycle to the premises. The storage should contain enough space for 5 bicycles, according to the Parking SPG which states that 1 bicycle space per 75 metres squared of floor space should be provided. The applicant has identified that there is a space in front of the building for this storage to be located. However, details of this are recommended as part of a condition. One neighbour has objected to the proposal on the grounds that the proposed cycle parking would block the entrance to unit 6. The submitted plans show that it is a possibility that unit 6 could be blocked based on the drawing provided, however, details submitted in order to discharge the relevant condition would need to ensure that the covered cycle storage does not block the entrance to this neighbouring unit.
7.5.6 One neighbour has objected that the existing parking spaces are not large enough for motorhomes or vans. These are existing parking spaces and therefore this objection is not relevant to the change of use application, as it does not change the layout of the existing car park.
7.5.7 One neighbour has commented that it is not possible for one tenant to control the car park. It is not clear what this statement means as the car park is shared by all users of the industrial estate and the applicant has not stated in his application that he is solely responsible for its use.
7.5.8 One neighbour has commented that the photos submitted with the application were taken at 1pm when the proposed use would not be at its busiest. These photos as well as the submitted parking survey carried out by the applicant demonstrate that the car park does not reach full capacity and would therefore have sufficient space. Particularly, in the evenings and early mornings, which are outside of the operating hours for the industrial units.
8 Other issues 8.1 Crime and Disorder - Neighbours and the local Councillor have objected to the proposal because there is no lighting within the car park. This does not raise any concerns as existing units on the site currently have no lighting and it would therefore be unreasonable to refuse the application on these grounds. However, a condition is recommended for details of lighting to be submitted should the applicant wish to install any in the future.
8.2 Access for Disabled - The building would be subject to public access. However, disabled access would be covered by Building Regulations and therefore does not raise any planning concerns.
8.3 One neighbour has objected, stating that work is already being undertaken to the building. It is believed that the equipment has been moved to the unit but that the unit is not currently in use. Even if the unit were in use, there is no restriction against submitting a retrospective planning application and this is not a material planning consideration.
8.4 A number of neighbours have stated that the proposed use would detract from the existing businesses on the industrial estate. Competition is not a material planning consideration and therefore this comment can not be considered.
Recommendation
That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
Conditions/Reasons -
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Statutory requirement under provision of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Development Control Committee 44 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
2. Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2010, (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the premises shall be used only as a gymnasium and for no other purpose (including any other activity falling within class D2 of the Order). Reason: To ensure that the use of the premises does not change in a manner which could detract from the amenity of the area.
3. The use hereby permitted shall only operate between the hours of 08:00 to 20:00 Monday to Friday, 09:00 to 16:00 Saturdays and 10:00 to 15:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: To ensure that the use of the premises does not result in any impact on nearby amenity.
4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 26 September 2012, 12 November 2012 and 8 January 2013, drawing numbers: 2 Site plan and parking layout, 3 Floor plan, 4 Parking layout highlighting the available spaces and 5 Internal floor plans, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In order to clarify the terms of the planning permission and to ensure that the development is carried out as permitted.
5. Full details of facilities for the secure and covered parking for five bicycles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development hereby permitted, provided prior to the development being first brought into use and retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate facilities.
6. No floodlighting or other means of external illumination shall be provided in connection with the development other than strictly in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and residential amenity.
Informatives
In reaching this decision this Council has implemented the requirement in the NPPF to deliver sustainable development in a proactive and positive way in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187. Regard has been had to the 12 core planning principles in the NPPF and the more specific policies. In addition, the Development Plan and other material considerations have been taken into account as required by Section 54a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The relevant specific policies identified were the National Planning Policy Framework, the East Midlands Regional Plan policies 3, 18, 20, 22, 41, 45 and 48, the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy policies 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14, Northamptonshire Parking SPG and the Local Highway Authority Standing Advice for Local Planning Authorities.
The development accords with the development plan and thus satisfies the NPPF for the reasons set out below.
The principle of development is acceptable as it complies with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. The applicant has submitted a sequential test which demonstrates that there are no other sites within or on the edge of the town centre that are suitable for the proposal. The proposed use would also generate employment and would provide a leisure use for local residents as well as those from outside of Rushden.
There would be no physical changes to the building and it would therefore not result in a detrimental visual impact.
Development Control Committee 45 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
There are no nearby neighbours that are likely to be impacted upon by the proposal, however, a condition is recommended to limit the opening hours to ensure that occupiers of the nearest properties are not impacted upon by cars leaving the site etc.
The existing parking facilities which serve all 8 units within Parkham Industrial estate would be sufficient to accommodate the proposed increase in vehicles using the site.
East Northamptonshire Council have worked with the applicant to address issues that could have potentially led to a refusal of planning permission. Advice was given to the applicant on how to compile the evidence for the sequential test and how to address the concerns of the local planning authority. Given that a planning consultant was not used by the applicant, the application was allowed to go beyond the 8 week determination date to enable the applicant to have sufficient time to provide the necessary information.
Development Control Committee 46 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Committee Report Committee Date : 6 February 2013 Printed: 25 January 2013
Case Officer Amie Baxter 12/01557/FUL
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 19 September 2012 4 October 2012 3 January 2013 Irthlingborough Waterloo Irthlingborough
Applicant Persimmon Homes Midlands - Mr A Lord
Agent Norton Design Company - David Somerville
Location Laundry 259 Addington Road Irthlingborough Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN9 5US
Proposal Erection of fifty seven residential dwellings with associated garages, roads, sewers, landscaping and ancillary works
This application is brought to the Development Control Committee in accordance with the scheme of delegation as it is for a development of over 10 dwellings.
1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the signing (within 6 months of the committee resolution) of a section 106 agreement to secure the required developer contributions, in addition to the imposition of the recommended conditions.
2. The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes a residential development of 57 dwellings off Addington Road in Crow Hill. The proposed housing mix is as follows: • 18 x 2-bed dwellings • 35 x 3-bed dwellings • 4 x 4-bed dwellings
2.2 All dwellings would be 2 storeys except six, which would be 2.5 storeys (on plots 10, 11, 46, 47, 50 and 51). There would be a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings.
2.3 The proposed dwellings would be arranged in an inward facing 'U' shaped configuration and a new access would be created at the north eastern corner of the site. There would also be a pedestrian link from the development to Addington Road close to the southern corner of the site.
2.4 A row of trees is proposed along the front of the site and additional planting would reinforce the northern and southern boundaries.
3. The Site and Surroundings • The site is positioned to the north western side of Addington Road and is square in shape. • The site currently accommodates a partially demolished building which was formally used as a commercial linen washing facility. An original chimney stack still stands. • There are two existing vehicular access points along the south eastern boundary. • There is open countryside to the north and residential development in all other directions.
Development Control Committee 47 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
• There is a brick wall along the front boundary and all other boundaries are marked with hedging and fencing.
4 Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework
4.2 East Midlands Regional Plan 4.2.1 On 10th November 2010 the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State's decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies was unlawful as it had been taken without primary legislation. A statement was then issued by the Government reiterating their intention to remove RSSs and that this should be treated as a material consideration. Despite a further legal challenge, it has now been confirmed that the Government's intention to abolish RSS's is a material consideration which should be taken into account when determining a planning application. Whilst the Localism Bill has now received Royal Assent, Regional Strategies have not yet been revoked.
4.2.2 Relevant Policies from the East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 1 - Regional Core Objectives Policy 2 - Promoting Better Design Policy 13b - Housing Provision (Northamptonshire) Policy 14- Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing Policy 48- Regional Car Parking Standards
4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008 Policy 1 - Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 7 - Delivering Housing Policy 9 - Distribution and Location of Development Policy 10 - Distribution of Housing Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Policy 15 - Sustainable Housing Provision
4.4 Other documents of relevance Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2012 Planning Out Crime SPD, 2004 Northamptonshire Space and Movement Guide, 2008 ENC Developer Contributions SPD, 2006
5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 12/00094/QRY. Pre-application advice request for the erection of 51 dwellings. The response acknowledged that the site would fall outside the proposed settlement boundary that was suggested in the Three Towns Preferred Options Document but this plan has not been progressed towards adoption and therefore holds little weight for a development such as this. In addition, the site falls within the existing built up area of Crow Hill and the development could therefore relate well to the existing built form of the settlement.
6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbours. 2 letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 225 Addington Road and 20 Noble Avenue. Their comments are as follows: • The density of the development is too great • There would be an increase in traffic • Medical, dental and educational facilities are already stretched. • The proximity and height of the proposed dwellings would result in the loss of privacy for the occupier of number 20 Noble Avenue.
6.2 Irthlingborough Town Council: No general objections noted.
Development Control Committee 48 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
6.3 NCC Highways- No objection, but make the following additional points: • The applicant has produced a robust Transport Assessment which looks at various scenarios. It concludes that, at worst, the proposal would generate a similar volume of traffic to that experienced with the previous use and at best, the proposal would result in a reduction in traffic. • The turning head near to plots 30 and 34 should be widened to accommodate refuse vehicles. • A condition is recommended to ensure that all driveways are constructed to the minimum standards. • Standard pedestrian and vehicular visibility conditions should be imposed, with particular reference to the boundary treatment in-between plots. • Comments are made regarding the width of the cycleway in terms of crime. • The recently published Department for Transport recommended conditions should be imposed. • Since the Highways comments were received, the applicant has made the amendments suggested above and the Highways Authority have confirmed that the amendments are appropriate.
The applicant is currently in the process of providing amended plans and an update on this will be provided as part of the update sheet.
6.4 ENC Housing Strategy Team: No objection • The proposal provides a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bed properties and complies with the requirements on large schemes of 50 plus dwellings. The Strategic Market Housing Assessment concludes that smaller units are required and it is good to see that a significant percentage of 2 bed dwellings are proposed. • Due to the existing provision of rented accommodation in Crow Hill, it has been agreed to waive the need to provide affordable housing. A suggestion was put forward that money could instead be put towards community facilities. • It is anticipated that the market value of the proposed dwellings would be at a level which would make them available to a wide range of potential purchasers.
6.5 ENC Design Officer- No objection. • The proposed development would continue the existing frontage along Addington Road and the use of focal buildings within the site is encouraged. • Existing hedgerows are to be retained which is beneficial. • Development along Addington Road could be amended to better reflect the design of the dwellings near by. • Some parking bays could perhaps be created off Addington Road, in the front part of the site. • No distinction is made between the materials of the focal buildings and those which would be more subservient.
6.6 ENC Waste Management: A swept path analysis must be provided for the access road, with particular attention being made to the road outside plot 29 as there are concerns that the proposed road may be too narrow or not provide adequate turning space.
6.7 ENC Environmental Protection (contamination): No objection, subject to conditions requiring that the site is investigated for contamination and remediation is carried out if necessary.
6.8 ENC Environmental Health (air quality): No objection.
6.9 Wildlife Trust: No objection subject to a condition which would ensure the recommendations made in the submitted ecology report are implemented.
6.10 NCC Education: Required contributions for primary education would be £165,999 and
Development Control Committee 49 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 for secondary education would be £129,992 (Total sum: £295,991)
6.11 NCC Libraries: The total contribution required towards libraries is £5,244.
6.12 NCC Fire and Rescue: The total contribution requested towards fire and rescue is: £5,171.
6.13 Public Transport (NCC): Request a contribution of £850 per dwelling towards strategic bus service enhancements to serve Irthlingborough in line with the approach taken in the Four Towns Plan area. In addition, the local community has requested a bus shelter and monies to fund this project could also be requested as part of the public transport contribution. A commuted sum of £5,000 would need to be paid by the developer, unless Irthlingborough Town Council would take ownership and maintenance responsibility for the shelter (where no maintenance monies would then be requested).
7 Evaluation 7.1 The main considerations in the determination of this proposal are the principle of development; housing density and mix; design and visual impact; impact on neighbouring properties; highway matters, wildlife and other matters.
7.2 Principle of Development 7.2.1 The site would fall outside the settlement boundary as was proposed in the Three Towns Preferred Options Document but this plan has not been progressed towards adoption and therefore holds little weight for a development such as this. However, the site falls within the existing built up area of Crow Hill as it is a previously developed site and is surrounded on three sides by existing housing development. The development would therefore relate well to the existing built form of the settlement. The local planning authority has previously explored the possibility of obtaining a mixed use development at this site but it has become apparent that the most sustainable and viable development of this site would be for residential. This view is of course, subject to an assessment against the relevant policy and subject to the satisfaction of all other material planning considerations.
7.2.2 The NPPF states that all applications should be assessed from the beginning with a presumption in favour of sustainable development (para.11) and that pursuing sustainable development involves pursuing positive improvements in the built environment, by replacing poor design with better design and by widening the choice of high quality homes (para. 9). Further, it states that Local Planning Authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area and that planning permission should be granted for development unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (para. 14).
7.2.3 One of the core planning principles set out in the NPPF encourages the effective use of land through the re-development of previously developed sites (para 17).
7.2.4 Policy 1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) states that for residential development to be successful they should address the needs of local people, make efficient use of land and provide high quality design which reflects local distinctiveness.
7.2.5 Policy 1 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) notes that Irthlingborough is a secondary focal point for development (secondary to the larger growth towns of Corby, Wellingborough and Kettering).
7.2.6 Policy 9 of the CSS notes that priority will be given to the re-use of previously developed sites within urban areas. In this case, the site would fall within an existing established residential area on the periphery of the settlement. The site would have a contiguous boundary with the surrounding development and, given that it is a previously developed site it would therefore be classed as being an integral site within this established built up area. The proposal would also tidy up and make use of a derelict site.
Development Control Committee 50 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
7.2.7 Policy 9 of the CSS also highlights the importance of providing development which is well connected. The application site would benefit from an existing bus service (service numbers 45 and 206) which gives access to the neighbouring towns of Rushden, Wellingborough, Northampton and Peterborough. There is also a well used footpath from the site into Irthlingborough town centre.
7.2.8 Policy 13 of the CSS suggests that development should meet local needs for housing and community facilities, raise standards in terms of design and character and protect assets such as wildlife and residential amenity. The proposed development would broadly comply with this policy.
7.2.9 On balance, with the significant contribution to low cost housing provided by the proposed development, the benefits would outweigh the peripheral location. Overall then, the proposed development would be acceptable in policy terms, subject to the material considerations explored below.
7.3 Housing density and mix 7.3.1 The proposal for 57 dwellings on this 1.15 hectare site gives a density of 49 dwellings per hectare, which is relatively high. However, the density figure should not simply be discounted for being high without having considered how the development would manifest itself on the ground.
7.3.2 The scheme has been designed to make the best use of the space within the site, accommodating adequately sized dwellings and private gardens which are commensurate with the size of each dwelling. The proposed dwellings would have two parking spaces each and an appropriate amount of landscaping would also be included as part of the layout.
7.3.3 The main reason that the density figure is high is because the development would not include any public open space within the site. However, a contribution is requested in lieu of off site provision, towards community facilities, as discussed in more detail below. There is an area of open space known as Irthlingborough Recreation Ground which is a 5 minute walk from the site, off Fettledine Road.
7.3.4 No affordable housing units are included as part of the proposed development but, as the market value of the dwellings would be relatively low (given the location and size of the proposed dwellings) they would in effect provide low cost housing and cater for people seeking more affordable units. This approach has been supported by the Council's Housing Officer. The Housing Officer is also satisfied that the housing mix is appropriate to serve local needs and the inclusion of a significant percentage of smaller units is welcomed.
7.3.5 Overall, although the density is high due to the lack of on site open space, the development would not appear out of character with surrounding development. Similarly, the proposal at this density would not result in a cramped or overdeveloped site as it has been well designed and set out to make efficient use of all areas of the site. The proposed dwellings would contribute to the stock of low cost housing units in the district
7.4 Design and Visual Impact 7.4.1 The surrounding area accommodates dwellings of a wide variety in character and design, together with a broad palette of materials. Brick and render are however the most predominant materials in the area and concrete roof tiles are common. The scale and layout of surrounding dwellings is uniform and all dwellings along Addington Road front onto the street with a strong and rhythmic building pattern. There are several other developments which run back from Addington Road, with the Alexander Road development enveloping the application site along its south western side.
7.4.2 The application site itself is square in shape and would have a frontage to Addington Road. The development would then extend back into the site creating a large cul-de-sac.
Development Control Committee 51 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
One vehicular access point would be created to serve the development and the access road within the site would form a 'U' shape with the 57 dwellings arranged around it.
7.4.3 The layout of the proposed development would incorporate reasonably sized private gardens to the rear of each dwelling and small front gardens consistent with the form of development in the surrounding area. Small parking courts would be scattered around the site to prevent the development from becoming car dominated in a visual sense and the wide access road would introduce a spacious feel. The footpath link to Addington Road would ensure that the development would be easily accessible for pedestrians.
7.4.4 The proposed mixture of grass verges, hard standing, soft landscaping and tree planting would soften the overall visual impact of the development and the council's landscaping officer has confirmed that the proposed landscaping scheme is broadly acceptable. A line of trees is proposed for the front of the site (adjacent to Addington Road) and the frontage plots would be set well back to retain the open nature of the road. A condition is recommended to ensure that the proposed landscaping is implemented in accordance with the submitted plans.
7.4.5 The applicant has reacted positively to the comments made by the Council's Design Officer by creating feature buildings at points throughout the site. A feature is to be made of plots 44 and 45, and the dwellings on these plots are to be set back allowing an area of soft landscaping to the front. Other plots would be made more prominent through the use of contrasting materials.
7.4.6 The dwellings would be constructed from a mix of brick, render and concrete roof tiles to echo the character of the nearby dwellings.
7.4.7 The visual impact of the proposed development would be positive, with the inclusion of modest design features, dwellings of an appropriate scale and layout and a good amount of landscaping. The development would tidy up a derelict site which is an eyesore at present and the scheme would therefore have a positive visual impact.
7.5 Impact on neighbouring properties and residential amenity 7.5.1 The new dwellings would be sufficiently separated from all neighbouring dwellings, ensuring that there would be no overbearing or overshadowing impact on either the existing or proposed dwellings. The proposed residential development would be compatible with the surrounding land use.
7.5.2 The back to back distance between dwellings along Alexander Road and plots 22-29 would be acceptable at 35 metres and likewise, the back to back distance of dwellings along Noble Avenue and plots 8 to 21 would be a minimum of 44.5 metres. Plot 21 would be positioned slightly closer to dwellings along Alexander Road (Number 12 in particular) but a distance of 23 metres would still remain. This coupled with a back to side relationship would result in an acceptable level of impact in terms of overshadowing and the potential for an overbearing impact. Plot 33 would be positioned in-line with the existing dwelling at 257 Addington Road to prevent any overshadowing or an oppressive impact. A condition is recommended to ensure that no windows are inserted at first floor level of plot 21 or 33, without the local planning authority having first assessed the likely impact.
7.6 Highways and Parking 7.6.1 There are two existing vehicular access points along the eastern boundary of the site. The access close to the north eastern corner of the site would be stopped up and a new access would be created in a similar but new position. The existing access to the south eastern corner of the site would be stopped up also but a pedestrian only link would be created in its place.
7.6.2 The proposed access and internal layout has been altered in-line with the consultation
Development Control Committee 52 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 comments received from the Highways Authority and they have been consulted on the amended layout. Their comments will be included as part of the committee update sheet. Otherwise, the Highways Authority is content with the proposed development, subject to standard conditions regarding visibility splays, drainage, gradient and road width being imposed. The distance between the proposed vehicular access and the existing pedestrian crossing is adequate and the proposed pedestrian link into the site would be well placed for access from the crossing. A dwarf wall would be erected at the entrance to the pedestrian link to prevent vehicles using this area.
7.6.3 The Highways Authority has noted that the proposed development is unlikely to result in a significant increase in traffic when compared to the former use of the site. It could be possible that the proposal would result in a decrease in the number of daily trips to the site from that experienced when the site was in use as a commercial laundry. More domestic types of vehicle would be likely with the development, as opposed to commercial and industrial traffic noted whilst the laundry was operational.
7.6.4 A suggestion was made by the Design Officer to present some of the required parking spaces to the front of the site with a separate driveways being made off Addington Road. This idea was discussed with the Highways Authority but it was concluded that this would result in too many access points being placed along a short stretch of road, particularly when considering the proximity to the existing pedestrian crossing.
7.6.5 The development would provide two parking spaces for each dwelling, including some with single garages. This number is adequate in comparison to the size of the dwellings and considering the location of the side outside the main town of Irthlingborough.
7.6.6 The applicant is aware of existing problems with speeding cars and has therefore offered to fund the erection of a traffic sign along Addington Road. The precise details and location of the sign has not yet been agreed and as the sign has not been requested as a necessity by the Highways Authority it can not be included as part of the requirements of an approval, as a condition or part of the S106 agreement. Therefore, the developer would provide this as a gesture of goodwill.
7.7 Ecology 7.7.1 The Wildlife Trust have confirmed that the Ecological Report submitted with the application constitutes a thorough assessment of the site and puts forward some good recommendations of ways to protect and encourage wildlife within and around the site. A condition is recommended to ensure that these recommendations are implemented.
7.8 Developer Contributions and Viability 7.8.1 Given the limited return likely to be collected from the sale of the proposed dwellings and as the developer would need to undertake expensive demolition works to prepare the site, the viability of the proposed development is affected. The developer has therefore produced an open book assessment detailing all likely costs and yield figures to demonstrate the level of funds available to put forward for S106 contributions. The Council's Housing Officer has assessed the viability figures and is confident that the open book assessment is a realistic reflection of the developer's position.
7.8.2 The developer is able to offer a maximum of £375,000 in developer contributions and it is proposed that this is to be split be split in the following way: • Education- The full required contribution of £295,991 would be put towards education.
• Libraries- The full required contribution of £5,244 would be put towards libraries.
• Community Facilities. The Case Officer approached Irthlingborough Town Council regarding a possible contribution from the developer (via S106) towards public open space. However, the Town Council was not able to identify either an existing or proposed area of public open space site which would be in close enough proximity to
Development Control Committee 53 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
the development site and which would benefit from a contribution. In order to ensure that sufficient benefit to the local community is achieved and in lieu of a contribution to affordable housing and public open space, a contribution towards community facilities has been sought instead. Town Council have put forward a request for £65,000, of which they would like £10,500 to be for a bus stop and bus shelter (including future maintenance) and £54,500 to provide changing facilities at Crow Hill.
• Healthcare- The Primary Care Trust has been approached regarding the possibility of a contribution but has so far not requested a sum of money. Without knowing of a specific, costed project that could benefit from contributions from the development, and without evidence to suggest that the proposed development would give rise to a need for this identified facility, the local planning authority is not in a position to seek a sum towards healthcare. Therefore, no contribution towards healthcare has been included. Officers are aware that there may be a need to improve the existing facilities of the existing doctor’s surgery in Irthlingborough but without the Primary Care Trust coming forward with evidenced details of this; officers have not been able to account for this.
• Fire and Rescue- Although a request of £5,171 was put forward by Northamptonshire County Council there is no provision within ENC's Developer Contribution SPD to justify seeking contributions towards fire and rescue. No contribution is therefore included.
The sum of all contributions as listed so far would be £377,235. There would be a remaining sum of £8,765.
7.8.3 A request from Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) towards public transport has also been received, for £850 per dwelling (totalling £48,450). Given the viability constraints mentioned above, this could not be achieved in full if all the above contributions are requested. Therefore, on the basis that a small contribution would be more beneficial than no contribution, a contribution of £7,765 would be put forward to go towards strategic public transport enhancements that are being pursued for the Four Towns area for public transport.
7.8.4 The above contributions would be secured by way of a Section 106 agreement between the relevant parties.
7.8.5 Officers recognise the difficulties in prioritising the limited pot of money that is available for developer contributions. However, the viability assessment submitted is robust and demonstrates the limited funds available for developer contributions. The above spread of contributions is a suggestion based on officers’ perception of the relative importance of each contribution.
7.8.6 There may however be the opportunity to re-order the priority given to the contributions and if split available monies differently according to Members understanding of the local need. If Members did wish to look closer at how the S106 monies would be apportioned, the officers suggestion is that the committee delegates the authority to the Head of Planning Services (in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair) to grant, subject to further negotiation on the apportionment of S106 contributions.
8 Other issues 8.1 Refuse and cycle storage - Storage can be accommodated within the private rear gardens of each plot. The applicant has indicated the intention that waste be collected from the front of each individual plot and is currently undertaking a swept path analysis using the dimensions of ENC's new waste collection vehicles. Any further information will be reported through the update sheet.
8.2 Sustainable Construction - a condition is recommended to encourage the developer to employ sustainable building practices and create energy efficient properties.
Development Control Committee 54 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
8.3 Contamination- ENC's Environmental Health Officer requires that a condition is included which would ensure that the applicant investigates and remediates against any contaminated land within the site.
8.4 Original Chimney- The applicant proposes to demolish the original chimney which still stands at the centre of the site due to the insurance difficulties, safety implications and cost which would occur if it was to be kept. Although the chimney would be a reminder of the site's former use, it is not considered to be overly valuable and is, in some parts, declining in structural condition. No objections to the removal of the chimney have been forthcoming and therefore no concerns are raised in this respect.
8.5 Crime-The Crime Prevention Design Officer has confirmed that crime is not a particular problem in Crow Hill and the crime figures have been relatively low over the last three years. Hit and miss fencing would be erected around most of the car parking courts to enable natural surveillance in the hope that it would act as a deterrent towards crime.
8.6 Greenway - Contributions have not been sought for a contribution towards the Greenway because the section of the Greenway route most relevant to the application site has already been completed.
8.7 Landscaping to the front of plots 44 and 45- There is to be an area of landscaping to the front of plots 44 and 45. The applicant proposes that this area is grassed however; ascertaining maintenance responsibilities would be difficult. Therefore, it is suggested that this area be planted with low level shrubs which require virtually no maintenance.
8.8 Dust and Noise- Although not specifically requested by ENC's Environmental Health Officer, it is recommended that conditions be imposed which limit the construction hours for the development and require that further information as to the control of dust be submitted. This is considered necessary due to the proximity of residential dwellings to the application site.
Recommendation It is recommended that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the prior signing of a section 106 agreement (within 6 months of the date of the decision) to secure all necessary developer contributions and the imposition of the recommended conditions.
Conditions/Reasons -
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Statutory requirement under provision of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Prior to the commencement of development, a schedule and samples of all external materials to be used within the development including facing, roofing and fenestration shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. A sample panel of the proposed elevation materials shall be constructed on site for the perusal of a representative from the local planning authority and approved as part of the discharge of condition prior to the commencement of development. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory elevational appearance for the development.
3. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a comprehensive scheme of landscaping for the site (which shall included details regarding the reinforcement of the existing boundary hedging
Development Control Committee 55 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
along the north, west and south boundary) , which shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season following the occupation of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a reasonable standard of development and to avoid detriment to the visual amenity of the area.
4. All planting, seeding and turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting season following the occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damage or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a reasonable standard of development and to avoid detriment to the visual amenity of the area.
5. Notwithstanding the submitted details and before commencement of development hereby permitted, a sustainable strategy satisfying the requirements of Policy 14 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy shall be submitted to and be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details so approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable in accordance with national government advice contained in the NPPF and Policy 14 of the adopted North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.
6. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design and type of boundary treatment to be erected or retained. Hit and miss fencing shall be used for the boundary treatment of the parking courts associated with plots 35 to 40 and 55 to 57 and knee-rail fencing shall be erected on the grass verge to the front of plots 44 and 45. The approved boundary treatment shall be completed before first occupation of the dwelling to which it relates and retained in that form unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure an acceptable form of development and in the interest of crime prevention.
7. Before any work is commenced on the development the subject of this permission, details of the slab levels of the proposed buildings in relation to the adjacent dwellings and the public highway shall have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, and the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development.
8. No development shall be commenced until full engineering, drainage, street lighting and constructional details of the streets proposed for adoption have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall, thereafter, be constructed in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety; to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the highways infrastructure serving the approved development; and to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and users of the highway.
9. No development shall be commenced until details of the removal of the existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses to the site and associated reinstatement to match adjacent layout have been submitted to and gained the written approval of the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved works have been completed. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
Development Control Committee 56 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
10. No development shall be commenced until an Estate Street Completion Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Estate Street Completion Plan shall set out how the development will be built out and the level of completion of the estate street prior to dwelling occupations. No dwelling shall thereafter be occupied until the estate street affording access has been completed to a level set out in the approved Estate Street Construction Plan. Reason: To ensure that the estate streets serving the development are completed and thereafter maintained to an acceptable standard in the interest of residential /highway safety; to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the highways infrastructure serving the development; and to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and users of the highway.
11. No development shall be commenced until details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development have been submitted to and been approved by the local planning authority. [The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a private Management and Maintenance Company has been established] Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the future management of the site.
12. Pedestrian splays of at least 2.4m x 2.4m (2m x 2m where there is turning space within the particular plot or parking area) shall be provided on each side of each individual access within the site. These measurements are taken along and to the rear of the access road within the curtilage of the site. The areas of land forward of these splays shall be reduced to and maintained at a height not exceeding 0.6m above carriageway level [All shared private drives should be a minimum of 4.5m wide for the first 10 m from the highway (existing or proposed)] Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
13. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, the private access road into the site shall be hard paved with no loose surfacing material and have a maximum gradient of 1 in 15 and be maintained as such. No dwelling shall be occupied until the proposed access, parking and turning facilities are provided for the dwelling and shall thereafter be set aside and retained for those purposes, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and visual amenity.
14. No dwelling shall be occupied until a positive means of access drainage has been installed to ensure that surface water from the access or private land does not discharge onto the highway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
15. Before any work is commenced on the development the subject of this permission, details of the provision of foul water installations to serve the development shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is brought into use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard public health and in the interest of residential amenity.
16. All works which cause any noise that is audible at the boundary of the site, or at any such other place as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be carried out only between the hours of 7:30am and 6.00pm Monday to Fridays, 8:00am and 1:00pm on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interest of residential and local amenity. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and residential amenity.
Development Control Committee 57 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
17. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of a comprehensive contaminated land investigation has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and until the scope of works approved therein have been implemented. The assessment shall include all of the following measures unless the LPA dispenses with any such requirements in writing: a) A Phase I desk study carried out to identify and evaluate all potential sources of contamination and the impacts on land and/or controlled waters, relevant to the site. The desk study shall establish a conceptual model of the site and identify all plausible pollutant linkages. Furthermore, the assessment shall set objectives for intrusive site investigation works/ Quantitative Risk Assessment (or state if none required). Two full copies of the desk study and a non-technical summary shall be submitted to the LPA without delay upon completion. b) A site investigation shall be carried out to fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of any land contamination and/or pollution of controlled waters. It shall specifically include a risk assessment that adopts the Source-Pathway-Receptor principle and takes into account the sites existing status and proposed new use. Two full copies of the site investigation and findings shall be forwarded to the LPA. Reason: To ensure potential risks arising from previous site uses have been fully assessed.
18. Notwithstanding the submitted details and before commencement of the development hereby permitted, a site waste management plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the development would meet the requirements Policy CS7 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Spatial Strategy and the Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable in accordance with national government advice contained in NPPF, Policy 14 of the adopted North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, Policy CS7 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Spatial Strategy and the Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008.
19. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations made in the submitted ecological assessment, bat report and reptile report (dated August 2012 and further work entitled ''Phase II Protected Species Survey Report", dated October 2012) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of local ecology and wildlife.
20. Notwithstanding the submitted information, no additional windows shall be inserted at first floor level in the southern elevation (side) of plot 33 or the southern (side) elevation of plot 21 without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. Reason: Interest of residential amenity.
21. Prior to the commencement of any part of the development [and demolition of the existing building] hereby permitted, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Construction Management Plan shall include and specify the provision to be made for the following:
i Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction; ii Control of noise emanating from the site during demolition and construction period; iii Hours of demolition and construction work for the development; iv Contractors' compounds, materials storage and other storage arrangements, cranes and plant, equipment and related temporary infrastructure; v Designation, layout and design of construction access and egress points; vi Internal site circulation routes; vii Directional signage (on and off site);
Development Control Committee 58 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
viii Provision for emergency vehicles; ix Provision for all site operatives, visitors and construction vehicles loading and unloading plant and materials x Provision for all site operatives, visitors and construction vehicles for parking and turning within the site during the demolition and construction period; xi Details of measures to prevent mud and other such material migrating onto the highway from construction vehicles; xii and other similar debris on the adjacent public highways; xiii Routing agreement for construction traffic. xiv Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development within the site;
The approved Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and the approved measures shall be complied with for the duration of the construction works.
22. The works hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans (1007/014/001, 1007/014/002, 1007/014/003, 1007/014/004, 1007/014/005, 1007/014/006, 1007/014/007, 1007/014/008, 1007/014/009, 1007/014/010, 1007/014/011, 1007/014/012, 1007/014/013, 1007/014/014, 1007/014/015, 1007/014/016, 1007/014/017, 1007/014/018, 1007/014/019, 1007/014/020, 1007/014/021, 1007/014/022, 1007/014/023, 1007/014/023, 1007/014/025, 1007/014/026, 1007/014/027, 1007/014/028, 1007/014/029, 1007/014/030, 1007/014/031, 1007/014/032, 1007/014/033, 1007/014/034, 1007/014/035, 1007/014/036), received on (19.09.12) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In order to clarify the terms of the planning permission and to ensure that the development is carried out as permitted.
23. Any gates to be hung at the access to each individual plot shall be hung to open inwards only, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
Informatives
1. The NPPF requires the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and pro-active manner (paragraphs 186 and 187). Regard has been had to the 12 core planning principles in the NPPF and the more specific policies relevant to this proposal. In addition, the Development Plan and other material considerations have been taken into account as required by Section 54a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The specific policies relevant to this decision are: NPPF paras 9, 11, 14 and 17, Policies 1, 2, 13b, 14 and 48 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, Policies 1, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, Parking SPG 2003, Planning Out Crime SPG 2004, Highway Authority Standing Advice 2008, ENC Design SPD, Northamptonshire Space and Movement Guide 2008, ENC Strategic Market Housing Assessment 2010, ENC Developer Contributions SPG and Natural England Standing Advice. The applicant and the Case Officer have worked closely together to resolve any issues or the concerns as they have become apparent and a close working relationship has been established. The applicant has co-operated with the local authority in terms of the necessary S106 contributions and as such, the application process has been thorough and timely. The development is acceptable because: The principle of development is acceptable with the relevant development plan. The proposal comprises the development of a previously developed site within an existing residential area. The proposal would be acceptable in terms of its impact on local wildlife. The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the local highway.
Development Control Committee 59 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
The development would improve the visual amenity and character of the area. The proposal would not have a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers The proposal would provide much needed low cost housing in line with the requirements of the area/district.
2. The drawings to which this decision relates are as follows: 1007/014/001 1007/014/002 1007/014/003 1007/014/004 1007/014/005 1007/014/006 1007/014/007 1007/014/008 1007/014/009 1007/014/010 1007/014/011 1007/014/012 1007/014/013 1007/014/014 1007/014/015 1007/014/016 1007/014/017 1007/014/018 1007/014/019 1007/014/020 1007/014/021 1007/014/022 1007/014/023 1007/014/023 1007/014/025 1007/014/026 1007/014/027 1007/014/028 1007/014/029 1007/014/030 1007/014/031 1007/014/032 1007/014/033 1007/014/034 1007/014/035 1007/014/036 Received by the Local Planning Authority on 19.09.12
Development Control Committee 60 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Committee Report Committee Date : 6 February 2013 Printed: 23 January 2013
Case Officer Carolyn Tait 12/01800/FUL
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 30 October 2012 6 November 2012 1 January 2013 Thrapston Lakes Thrapston
Applicant Society Of Merchant Venturers
Agent Carter Jonas LLP - Mike Robinson
Location Springfield Farm Oundle Road Thrapston Kettering Northamptonshire NN14 4PQ
Proposal Demolition of modern farm buildings and conversion of remaining traditional buildings to form 5 no. residential units with associated parking, turning, private amenity space, landscaping and the provision of a footpath link
This application is brought before Development Control Committee because it proposes five new dwellings in the open countryside.
1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That permission be GRANTED subject to conditions subject to the Waste Management Officer's concerns being addressed.
2. The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes the demolition of three modern agricultural barns to the North West and centre of the site and a conversion of the remaining barns to create five dwellings.
2.2 Ten parking spaces are proposed and all will be accessed off a private shared drive.
2.3 The proposed plots are as follows:
• Plot 1: Single storey L-shaped dwelling with three bedrooms, a living/dining room, a bathroom, an en-suite, a cloakroom and a kitchen. Two parking spaces are proposed to the rear.
• Plot 2: Single storey dwelling with one bedroom, a living/dining room, a kitchen and a bathroom. Two parking spaces are proposed to the rear.
• Plot 3: Single storey L-shaped dwelling with two bedrooms, a living/dining room, a kitchen, a WC, a bathroom and an en-suite. Two parking spaces are proposed.
• Plot 4: Two bedroom, L-shaped dwelling with three bedrooms, a bathroom, an en-suite, a living room, a dining room, a kitchen, a utility room and a WC. Two parking spaces are proposed.
• Plot 5: Two storey dwelling with two bedrooms, a bathroom, an en-suite, a living/dining room, a WC, a kitchen and a utility room. Two parking spaces are proposed.
3 The Site and Surroundings
Development Control Committee 61 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
3.1 The application site accommodates a mixture of traditional and more modern barns. The three more modern barns are to be demolished, leaving the other two for conversion. At the time of the site visit the site was still in use for agricultural purposes as cattle and sheep were present. The barns have been identified as undesignated heritage assets by the Council's Senior Conservation Officer as identified in paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3.2 The site is located outside of the settlement boundary of Thrapston as identified in the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan and is therefore classed as being in the open countryside. Springfield Cottage is located to the south west of the site and the remainder of the site is bounded by open countryside.
4 Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework
4.2 East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 2 - Promoting Better Design Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development Policy 13b - Housing Provision (Northamptonshire) Policy 17 - Managing the Release of Land for Housing Policy 26 - Protecting and Enhancing the Region's Natural and Cultural Heritage Policy 27 - Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment Policy 28 - Regional Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure Policy 29 - Priorities for Enhancing the Region's Biodiversity Policy 38 - Regional Priorities for Waste Management On 10th November 2010 the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State's decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies was unlawful as it had been taken without primary legislation. A statement was then issued by the Government reiterating their intention to remove RSSs and that this should be treated as a material consideration. Despite a further legal challenge, it has now been confirmed that the Government's intention to abolish RSS's is a material consideration which should be taken into account when determining a planning application. Whilst the Localism Bill has now received Royal Assent, Regional Strategies have not yet been revoked.
4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 - Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 5 - Green Infrastructure Policy 7 - Delivering Housing Policy 9 - Distribution and Location of Development Policy 10 - Distribution of Housing Policy 13 General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction
4.4 Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan Policy 1 - Settlement Roles Policy 2 - Windfall Development in Settlements Policy 6 - Residential Parking Standards Policy 8 - Housing Mix Policy 11 - Enhancing Biodiversity Policy 23 - Rural Buildings - General Approach
4.5 Other documents Local Highway Authority Standing Advice for Local Planning Authorities Designing out Crime SPG Domestic Waste Storage and Collection SPD
5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 49/0025//OTR Dutch barn. PERMITTED.
Development Control Committee 62 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
5.2 73/0153//OTR Covered yard. PERMITTED.
5.3 73/0215//OTR Dutch barn. PERMITTED.
5.4 11/01985/FUL Demolition of modern buildings and conversion of remaining traditional buildings to three office units. PERMITTED.
6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbours: No comments received.
6.2 Town Council: No objection.
6.3 Local Highway Authority: Comments can be summarised as:
• A dedicated footway link into the site would need to be formed; • The access gradient between the back of the highway boundary at a point 5 metres back, shall not exceed 1 in 15; • The intensified vehicular access shall be surfaced with a hard bound surface for a distance of 5 metres from the highway boundary; • The proposed access will be subject to a Section 184 licence and shall be constructed in accordance with the County Council's specification; • Any new sewer connections required for this development within the Public Highway where a Section 50 licence must be initiated, should comply with the New Road and Street Works Act 1991; • The Contractor undertaking works within the highway is to be fully conversant with 'The Traffic Management Act' and notice period, to enable works to be undertaken within the highway; • Any gates should be set back a minimum of 5.5 metres from the highway boundary (to the rear of the hedgerow) to enable a vehicle to stand clear of the highway before the gates are opened; • No objection in principle to the proposal subject to a number of conditions and informatives to be added to any decision issued.
6.4 Waste Management Officer: Comments can be summarised as:
• A site waste management plan shall be submitted and agreed in writing prior to the commencement of development. • Clarification is sought with regards to paragraph 3.9 of the Planning Statement submitted with the application. • It is understood that the bin store is a 'bin presentation area' where residents take their appropriate individual household wheelie bins on collection day. A residential development such as this is not suitable for a communal bin store, especially as each property has sufficient storage space for their own refuse/recycling bins. The applicant should confirm that this is the case. • With regards to the 'bin presentation area', a swept path analysis is required to show how refuse collection lorries would enter and turn within the site. Details of refuse collection vehicles can be found in the adopted Domestic Waste Storage and Collection SPD pg. 29. Conformation is also required that the surface of the private road would be constructed to a standard that would be capable of supporting the weight of the Council's refuse collection vehicles.
The applicant has been asked to confirm whether the proposed bin storage area is for individual households to take their wheelie bins to for collection. If this is the case then the agent has also been asked for a swept path analysis as well as details of the surface and if it is capable of holding a refuse collection vehicle's weight. This information will be reported on the update sheet.
Development Control Committee 63 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
6.5 Council's Senior Environmental Protection Officer: Comments can be summarised as:
• The applicant has submitted a Phase I environmental study in support of the planning application. This has identified potential significant pollution links from made ground, agricultural activities and storage tanks. The environmental engineer has recommended that further investigation of the site is necessary to assess these potential risks. • Under the NPPF soil contamination is a material consideration and the framework seeks to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and to ensure that development be appropriate to its location. Where a site is affected by contamination the responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner. • Measures can be secured through the use of planning conditions to secure the development is delivered safely. No objection subject to the use of conditions to ensure that contamination is investigated and remediated as necessary.
6.6 Wildlife Trust: Comments can be summarised as:
• Pleased to see the preparation of a Phase I Habitat Survey and Bat Survey. • Find the ecologist's own findings and conclusions to be acceptable and the ecologist's recommendations be applied to this case. • A selection of appropriate artificial roosting/nesting boxes for the benefit of both birds and bats should be installed in the local area. • Any landscaped areas should be provided for the use of native species only. • These objectives might be best achieved through the use of conditions. • The local planning authority and the applicant should consider if the Nene Valley Special Protection Area makes any material difference to the assessments made this far. • The development now also lies completely within the Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area. The NIA contains a fragmented ecological work of statutory and non-statutory sites, which in its current state can not sustain the biodiversity found there. • The site lies close to a Disused Railway Line Green Infrastructure Corridor route and to a major Strategic Sub Regional Green Infrastructure Corridor route. • Would want to see appropriate and long-term resources put against the mitigation and compensation measures required in relation to the impacts/ effects upon the local biodiversity, the local GI networks and the Nature Improvement Area.
6.7 Northamptonshire County Council Assistant Archaeological Advisor: Comments can be summarised as:
• The buildings to be converted are not listed but are shown on the Ordnance Survey First Epoch (1886) and their construction therefore pre-dates this survey. Their significance lies in their relatively unaltered state as well as their historic uses and their functional relationships to one another. The NPPF paragraph 141 states that the local planning authority should require the developer to record and advance understanding of the significance of the heritage assets to be lost due to development. In this case a programme of building recording to level 2 as defined in English Heritage: Understanding Historic Buildings (2006) is recommended. • Immediately to the north of the farm buildings is the site of Titchmarsh Roman town. This has been identified from cropmark evidence and surface finds, as well as limited archaeological excavation, and observation during quarrying. There is the potential for below ground archaeological remains to survive on the application site, albeit truncated by recent development. • In light of truncation an archaeological condition will be acceptable on any planning permission that is granted. This will allow for intensive monitoring of intrusive groundworks. • Evidence for the development and use of the building will be altered, concealed or lost during the alterations. The proposed development will have a detrimental impact upon
Development Control Committee 64 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
any archaeological deposits present. Therefore adequate provision should be made for the investigation and recording of any remains that are affected.
6.8 Site notice posted: 15 January 2013 to the front of the site.
7 Evaluation 7.1 The following considerations are relevant to the determination of this application.
7.2 Principle of development 7.2.1 Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as where such a development would represent the optimum viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting. The proposed buildings are considered to be non-designated heritage assets given their historic interest and the lack of alteration that has occurred to them over time. The proposal would secure the future of these buildings, ensuring that they do not fall into a state of disrepair. The proposed conversion would also re- use two under utilised barns and has the potential to improve the immediate setting by putting the buildings back into a better state of repair.
7.2.2 Policies 1 and 9 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy 3 of the East Midlands Regional Plan support the principle of development as they support the re- use of previously developed land and buildings.
7.2.3 Policy 1 of the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan (RNOTP) states that in the open countryside, housing development will not normally be permitted and the re-use of buildings will be judged against policies 23, 24 and 25. Only policy 23 is relevant as policies 24 and 25 cover replacement dwellings and farm diversification.
7.2.4 Policy 23 of this document allows for the adaptation or re-use of buildings in the countryside for employment generating or tourism, including tourist accommodation, or residential use where the location or building is more appropriate for such a use and provided that: a) The character of any buildings of historic or visual interest is conserved, with proposals supported by detailed drawings indicating the layout, design and external appearance of the building after conversion, the materials to be used, the means of access and landscaping proposals; b) Schemes are limited to situations where buildings are substantially intact, though structural surveys will be required for proposals relating to buildings which are unoccupied and show evidence of some dereliction; and c) Conditions are imposed withdrawing permitted development rights to prevent future extensions, where these would result in an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area.
The visual impact and character will be assessed later in the report and will therefore address criteria (a) of policy 23. A structural survey submitted with the application shows that the building is in a good state of repair and that very little work is required to convert the old farm buildings into modern dwellings. The proposal therefore satisfies criteria (b). Given that the barns to be converted are of historic interest a condition will be added to any permission granted to ensure that all permitted development rights are removed so that any alterations are not harmful to their character or that of the surrounding area.
7.2.5 Overall, it is considered that the proposal conforms with the relevant planning policies which relate to residential development in the open countryside, subject to all other material
Development Control Committee 65 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 considerations being satisfactorily addressed.
7.3 Impact on the non-designated heritage assets 7.3.1 The local planning authority has a duty to assess the particular significance of any potential heritage asset and to minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of a proposal. The NPPF states that great weight should be given to an asset's conservation. Guidance also states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining an application. A balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
7.3.2 The proposed development would utilise all of the traditional farm buildings and would demolish the more modern buildings. The traditional buildings would be converted using sympathetic materials and by introducing as few openings as possible in order to accommodate the proposed use. On balance it is considered that the proposal would make good use of two underused buildings, whilst preserving and enhancing them so that they do not fall into disrepair in the future. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwellings would not result in a detrimental impact on the character or setting of the non-designated heritage assets.
7.4 Housing mix 7.4.1 Policy 8 of the RNOTP states that new housing development should include a mix of housing types to take account of local need. Unless specific housing needs information is available to suggest a more appropriate mix, proposals for new housing (including affordable housing) should provide a mix of house types to include mainly 3, 4 or more bedroom dwellings on sites in Thrapston. The proposal includes: • 1 x one bedroom; • 3 x two bedroom; and • 1 x three bedroom. Whilst this does not comply with Policy 8, the proposal is for conversion of some underused buildings and is therefore constrained by the dimensions of the building. It is considered that the proposal makes the best use of the buildings and would prevent an undesignated heritage asset falling into a state of disrepair. Therefore, in this instance, it is considered that the Policy regarding housing mix should be given less weight.
7.4.2 The Council's Housing Enabling Officer has verbally confirmed that this approach is acceptable given the proposal would make good use of the existing buildings and therefore does not object.
7.5 Visual impact 7.5.1 The barns proposed for demolition are modern additions to the farm and are therefore not considered to be visually important. The demolition of these buildings therefore raises no concerns by Officers.
7.5.2 The proposed conversions would be carried out considerately to try and utilise existing openings where possible. Some new openings are proposed, but these are relatively few in number and would transform the buildings into accommodation that can be lived in. The large openings to the sides of barns would be infilled with glazing, and these would create visually pleasing features whilst still retaining the feel of the buildings as former barns. It is considered that the use of horizontal glazing bars is undesirable and would give the buildings a commercial appearance rather than domestic. Therefore the applicant has been advised that these should be removed and revised drawings should be submitted prior to the Development Control Committee meeting. Conservation roof lights are also proposed, therefore conserving the appearance of these historic buildings.
7.5.3 Overall, it is considered that this would be a very attractive conversion, which would make good use of the buildings, and bring an undesignated heritage asset back into use. The buildings' character would also be retained.
Development Control Committee 66 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
7.6 Impact on neighbouring amenity 7.6.1 Springfield Cottage is the nearest dwelling to the proposal. This is located approximately 30 metres away from plot 1. Therefore there would be no undue overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact on this neighbouring property.
7.7 Highway matters 7.7.1 The proposal would utilise the existing access. The proposal would result in an intensification of use of the existing access, which is already wide enough, at 6 metres, to accommodate this.
7.7.2 A new off site footpath is proposed to connect the site to the existing footpath. This would allow for pedestrians to walk to and from the site and allow residents to connect with Thrapston.
7.7.3 The Local Highway Authority Officer has no objection to the proposal subject to a number of conditions to ensure that the access complies with highway safety standards. These conditions include and access gradient of no more than 1:15; the scheme to be carried out in accordance with the submitted drawing OX70364-11-01; gates to be set back by 5.5 metres; and the access to be hard surfaced for the first 10 metres from the highway boundary.
7.7.4 The proposal complies with Policy 6 of the RNOTP which states that for new residential development, a maximum parking standard of two parking spaces per dwelling will apply.
7.8 Impact on biodiversity 7.8.1 A bat survey has been submitted as part of the application. This survey has identified that the brick and tiled roof structures have moderate to good potential to support bat roosts, whilst the remaining structures offer poor roosting opportunities. No evidence of roosting was found. Small numbers of bats use some of the buildings for feeding and foraging. Overall, the site has low value to bats other than one or two pipistrelle bats which exploit the conditions found within the voids of the larger buildings. The loss of bat foraging habitat may result in an adverse impact on individual bats but not the local bat population. Due caution is required during demolition/construction works on the brick and tiled roof buildings.
7.8.2 The Wildlife Trust has no objection to the proposal and agrees with the Ecologist's findings. They have said that the recommendations as put forward in the Ecologist's report should be carried out and therefore it is recommended that these conditions be worked in to suitably worded conditions and informatives. The Wildlife Trust have also asked for a landscaping scheme to show that only native species will be used for the proposal and that no species will be used that would be harmful to these. Therefore a landscaping condition is recommended. Natural England Standing Advice identifies that the report and its findings are acceptable and that the application should proceed and that mitigation measures should be secured by condition.
7.8.3 The Wildlife Trust have also identified that the site lies within the recently designated Nature Improvement Area and two Green Infrastructure Corridors. The site is also in the Nene Valley Special Protection Area (SPA). One of the objectives of the Nature Improvement Area is to restore and create a Biodiversity Action Plan habitat. By carrying out the recommendations as suggested by the Ecologist and the Wildlife Trust, the development would enhance wildlife habitats and would not contradict the objectives set by the NIA. SPAs have the same level of protection as internationally designated sites. The proposal would convert some buildings and improve the appearance of the site in general. It has also been established that no harm would be caused to protected species subject to conditions, and that enhancements could be made by conditioning landscaping and improvements. Therefore the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on the Special Protection Area.
Development Control Committee 67 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
7.8.4 Green Infrastructure - Policy 5 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that proposals affecting the SPA will need to satisfy the tests of the Habitats Regulations. The tests are that there are no satisfactory alternatives; the proposal would not be detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range and the proposal is in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment. Given that the Wildlife Trust support the findings of the ecologist, and that the proposal would provide for biodiversity enhancements, it is considered to pass the tests of the Habitats Regulations. Policy 5 also states that Sub-Regional Green Infrastructure Corridors connect locations of natural and cultural heritage, green space, biodiversity or other environmental interest. The proposal would not compromise the integrity of this Corridor and therefore the overall Green Infrastructure network, for the reasons already outlined.
7.9 Waste 7.9.1 The application details show that a bin store would be provided to the front of the site. It would appear that residents of the proposed dwellings would have to wheel their bins to this point ready for collection by the Council's refuse vehicles. However, no details have been provided with regards to how the waste collection vehicle would enter and exit the site including whether there is enough turning space or if the proposed surface is capable of carrying the load. The alternative to a vehicle entering the site would be for all residents to wheel their bins to the edge of the adopted highway for collection, perhaps with a hard standing being provided adjacent to the proposed footpath. Clarification on this matter has been sought from the applicant's agent and this will be reported on the update sheet.
8 Other issues 8.1 Amenity space - Each dwelling would have adequate private amenity space.
8.2 Crime and Disorder - This application does not raise any significant issues
8.3 Access for Disabled - The proposed dwellings would not be subject to any public access and therefore the proposal does not raise any concerns.
Recommendation
That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
Conditions/Reasons -
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Statutory requirement under provision of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development the subject of this planning permission shall be carried out using external materials matching those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory elevational appearance for the development.
3. No development shall take place within the area indicated until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded.
Development Control Committee 68 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
4. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of a comprehensive contaminated land investigation has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and until the scope of works approved therein have been implemented where possible. The assessment shall include all of the following measures unless the LPA dispenses with any such requirements in writing: a) A Phase I desk study carried out by a competent person to identify and evaluate all potential sources of contamination and the impacts on land and/or controlled waters, relevant to the site. The desk study shall establish a conceptual model of the site and identify all plausible pollutant linkages. Furthermore, the assessment shall set objectives for intrusive site investigation works/ Quantitative Risk Assessment (or state if none required). Two full copies of the desk study and a non-technical summary shall be submitted to the LPA without delay upon completion.
b) A site investigation shall be carried out to fully and effectively characterize the nature and extent of any land contamination and/or pollution of controlled waters. It shall specifically include a risk assessment that adopts the Source-Pathway-Receptor principle and takes into account the sites existing status and proposed new use. Two full copies of the site investigation and findings shall be forwarded to the LPA. This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s Model procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11. Reason: To ensure potential risks arising from previous site uses have been fully assessed.
5. Where the risk assessment identifies any unacceptable risk or risks, an appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred option to deal with land contamination and/or pollution of controlled waters affecting the site shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA. No works, other than investigative works, shall be carried out on the site prior to receipt and written approval of the preferred remedial option by the LPA. This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's Model procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11. Reason: To ensure the proposed remediation plan is appropriate.
6. Remediation of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved remedial option. No deviation shall be made from this scheme without the express written agreement of the LPA. Reason: To ensure site remediation is carried out to the agreed protocol.
7. On completion of remediation, two copies of a closure report shall be submitted to the LPA. The report shall provide verification that the required works regarding contamination have been carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement(s). Post remediation sampling and monitoring results shall be included in the closure report. Reason: To provide verification that the required remediation has been carried out to the required standards.
8. If, during development, contamination not previously considered is identified, then the LPA shall be notified immediately and no further work shall be carried out until a method statement detailing a scheme for dealing with the suspect contamination has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the LPA. Reason: To ensure all contamination within the site is dealt with.
9. No development shall take place until a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This landscaping scheme shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season following the occupation of the development. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. All planting shall consist of native species only.
Development Control Committee 69 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Reason: To ensure a reasonable standard of development and visual amenity for the area and to take account of Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
10. Notwithstanding the submitted details and before commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Site Waste Management Plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to demonstrate that the development would meet the requirements of Policy CS7 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Spatial Strategy and the Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable in accordance with national government advice contained in, Policy 14 of the adopted North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, Policy CS7 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Spatial Strategy and the Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008.
11. All vegetation clearance at the site shall only take place outside the bird breeding season of between March to August inclusive. Reason: To ensure adherence to legislation regarding protected species in line with the Wildlife and Countryside Act and to provide biodiversity mitigation and enhancements in line with the aims of Planning Policy Statement 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.
12. Prior to the commencement of development, a recording of the existing building shall be carried out and details of the recording of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The recording should be carried out to professional standards and to an appropriate level of detail proportionate to the assets likely significance, by an organisation or individual with appropriate expertise, the resultant records, artefacts and samples should be analysed and where necessary conserved, and the understanding gained should be made publicly available and an archive created and deposited for future use. Reason: In the interests of preserving the historic character, fabric and appearance of the building and its appearance.
13. No floodlighting or other means of external illumination shall be provided in connection with the development other than strictly in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and residential amenity.
14. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (or any order amending that order with or without modification), no extensions or other alterations under Classes A to F shall be undertaken without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of preserving the historic character, and appearance of the buildings.
15. Prior to the first use or occupation, the proposed vehicular access, parking and turning facilities shall not be provided other than in accordance with the approved plans and shall thereafter be set aside and retained for those purposes. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
16. Prior to the first use or occupation of the development hereby permitted, the means of access shall be of a minimum width of 4.5 metres and shall be paved with a hard bound surface for the first 5 metres from the highway boundary. The maximum gradient over the 5 metre distance shall not exceed 1 in 15. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Development Control Committee 70 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
17. Any gates shall be set back a minimum distance of 5.5 metres from the highway boundary and shall be hung to open inwards only. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
18. Prior to the first use or occupation of the development hereby permitted, pedestrian visibility splays of at least 2 metres by 2 metres shall be provided on either side of the vehicular access. These measurements are taken from and along the highway boundary. Any features within or affecting the resultant triangular areas shall not exceed 0.6 metres above access level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
19. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 30 October 2012, drawing numbers: OX70364-11-01 Site location plan, 1002306 01 Site plan, 1002306 01 Elevations Building A, 1002306 02 Units 1, 2 and 3 Plans and elevations, 1002306 02 Floor plan Building A, 1002306 03 Units 4 and 5 Plans and elevations, 1002306 03 Floor plans and elevations Building B, 1002306 04 Floor plans and elevations Building C, 1002306 05 Measured building survey Sections A-F, 1002306 06 Measured building survey Sections G-J and 1002306 07 Topographical survey, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In order to clarify the terms of the planning permission and to ensure that the development is carried out as permitted.
20. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations as set out in sections 4.2, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Extended Phase 1 Habitats Survey received by the local planning authority on 30 October 2013. The local planning authority shall be notified once these measures have been put in place. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.
21. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations as set out in sections 4.21, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 of the Bat Survey Report received by the local planning authority on 30 October 2013. The local planning authority shall be notified once these measures have been put in place. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.
Informatives
1. In reaching this decision this Council has implemented the requirement in the NPPF to deliver sustainable development in a proactive and positive way in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187. Regard has been had to the 12 core planning principles in the NPPF and the more specific policies. In addition, the Development Plan and other material considerations have been taken into account as required by Section 54a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The relevant specific policies identified were the National Planning Policy Framework, policies 2, 3, 13b, 17, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 38 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, policies 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13 and 14 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, policies 1, 2, 6, 8, 11 and 23 of the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan, Local Highway Authority Standing Advice for Local Planning Authorities, Designing out Crime SPG and Domestic Waste Storage and Collection SPD.
The development accords with the development plan and thus satisfies the NPPF for the reasons set out below.
• The principle of development complies with all relevant national, regional and local policy.
Development Control Committee 71 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
• The proposal would bring back into use two under utilised farm buildings by providing a use that would ensure that the buildings are maintained and do not fall into a state of disrepair.
• Whilst the housing mix does not comply with Policy 8 of the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan, the proposal includes two storey and single storey properties and a mix of room numbers. On balance it is considered that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the requirements of Policy 8.
• The proposed conversions would be sympathetic to the character of the existing buildings and a high quality housing development would result. Therefore the visual impact of the proposal is acceptable.
• There are no nearby neighbours that would be affected by the proposal.
• The proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on highway safety subject to a number of conditions being imposed on any planning permission that is granted.
• The proposal should be carried out in accordance with the recommendations as set out in the Bat Survey and Phase 1 Habitat Survey and would therefore not result in any harm to protected species.
• Subject to the agreement of bin storage details, the proposal would result in an acceptable development where residents would receive a bin collection service by East Northamptonshire Council.
2. No express works within the existing adopted highway may commence without the express written permission of the Highway Authority. This planning permission does not give or infer such permission. The Highway Authority, will only give consent to commence works subject to the completion of an appropriate agreement, within the Highways Act 1980. Full engineering, drainage, street lighting, and constructional details will be required to process such an agreement. Any details submitted will be subject to a technical and safety audit that may result in changes to the details of the street and junction etc. required to discharge the relevant condition above. The attention is drawn to the implementation of the Traffic Management Act 2004, where a three month notice period to allocate road space (for works within the highway) is formally given prior to the commencement of works.
Development Control Committee 72 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Committee Report Committee Date : 6 February 2013 Printed: 25 January 2013
Case Officer Carolyn Tait 12/02018/REM
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 17 December 2012 2 January 2013 27 February 2013 Higham Ferrers Lancaster Higham Ferrers
Applicant Mr Harvey Chattell
Agent Blueprint Architectural Design - Mrs Kelly Gorrie
Location Land Adjacent 93 Kimbolton Road Higham Ferrers Northamptonshire
Proposal Reserved matters: Residential development of up to two dwellings (EN/11/01526/OUT) dated 26.01.2012
This application is brought before the Development Control Committee because the previous application was determined by its Members.
1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That permission be GRANTED subject to conditions and no substantive objections raising new issues, being received before the consultation expiry date.
2. The Proposal 2.1 Outline planning permission was granted for the construction of up to two dwellings at the site under reference 11/01526/OUT.
2.2 The application seeks reserved matters approval for one dwelling for the access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping. The proposed dwelling would occupy the frontage of the site and therefore no future application for a second dwelling is likely.
2.3 The proposed dwelling would measure approximately 14 metres in width by 14 metres in depth by 8.2 metres in height and would accommodate a lounge, a dining room, a play room, a family room, a kitchen, a utility room, five bedrooms, a study, four en-suites, a shower room and a bathroom. A detached garage is also proposed which would provide parking for two cars.
3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The application site once formed part of an agricultural holding, but no longer appears to be used for agricultural purposes. It is currently laid to lawn. There is an existing vehicular access to the site which is gated.
3.2 There is residential development located to the west of the site and partially to the north. To the north and east of the site is open countryside, which is separated from the site by the A6. There are industrial units located to the south on the opposite side of Chelveston Road.
4 Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework
4.2 East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 2 - Promoting Better Design Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development
Development Control Committee 73 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Policy 13b - Housing Provision (Northamptonshire)
On 10th November 2010 the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State's decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies was unlawful as it had been taken without primary legislation. A statement was then issued by the Government reiterating their intention to remove RSSs and that this should be treated as a material consideration. Despite a further legal challenge, it has now been confirmed that the Government's intention to abolish RSS's is a material consideration which should be taken into account when determining a planning application. Whilst the Localism Bill has now received Royal Assent, Regional Strategies have not yet been revoked.
4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 - Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 7 - Delivering Housing Policy 9 - Distribution and Location of Development Policy 10 - Distribution of Housing Policy 13 General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction
4.4 Other documents Parking SPG Local Highway Authority Standing Advice for Local Planning Authorities
5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 02/00188/FUL Vehicular access. PERMITTED.
5.2 03/01221/OUT One residential dwelling with garage. REFUSED. This application was refused for two reasons. The first was that the proposal would have been contrary to policies H5 and AG7 of the East Northamptonshire Local Plan as it would not have been within the built up area of Higham Ferrers and no agricultural justification has been provided for a dwellinghouse in the open countryside. It was also refused as it was contrary to Policy H3 of the East Northamptonshire Local Plan which managed the release of housing. An appeal was submitted against this decision. It was dismissed.
5.3 04/00421/OUT Residential development. REFUSED. This application was refused for being contrary to Policy H3 of the East Northamptonshire Local Plan which sought to manage the release of housing. It was also contrary to Policy H5 of the County Structure Plan and H5 and H14 of the East Northamptonshire Local Plan by virtue of the location of the site in the open countryside. These policies sought to redirect new residential development into built up areas and aimed to prevent development in the open countryside.
5.4 11/01526/OUT Outline application for the erection of up to two dwellings. PERMITTED.
6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 The deadline date for consultation responses is 8 February 2013. This is after the Development Control Committee meeting. Any responses received up to the date of the committee meeting will be reported on the update sheet, and permission will only be granted after 8 February 2013, subject to no further objections being received following the decision made by the Committee Members.
6.2 Neighbours: No comments received at the time of writing this report.
6.3 Town Council: No comments received at the time of writing this report.
6.4 Local Highway Authority: No comments received at the time of writing this report.
6.5 Environmental Protection Officer: Comments can be summarised as:
Development Control Committee 74 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
• The noise assessment submitted in support of the outline permission recommended that either a system of passive ventilation or acoustic window vents are installed to all habitable rooms that front onto the A6 or B625. This allows for natural ventilation without any loss of amenity from traffic noise. • Details have been submitted for both passive vents and acoustic window vents as per the emails of 16 January 2013 and 19 January 2013. Both the proposed systems would offer the necessary levels of noise mitigation and as such would comply with the requirements of condition 12.
6.6 Waste Management Officer: No comments received at the time of writing this report.
6.7 The Wildlife Trust: No comments received at the time of writing this report.
6.8 Site notice posted: 18 January 2013.
7 Evaluation 7.1 The following considerations are relevant to the determination of this application.
7.2 Principle of development 7.2.1 The principle of residential development on this site was established by the original outline planning permission 11/01526/OUT. Therefore, only the following details are relevant to this reserved matters application: access, layout, scale and appearance, landscaping, parking, impact on neighbouring amenity, environmental issues and noise. Each of these is discussed in turn below.
7.3 Access 7.3.1 The Local Highway Authority Officer has not yet commented on the application. However, any comments will be reported on the update sheet.
7.3.2 The submitted drawing shows that the existing access to the site would be retained and would not be altered in any way. This existing access complies with highway safety standards. Any alterations to this access would be subject to a separate application as it is located off a classified road and is located on highway land.
7.3.4 A double garage is proposed as well as space for two vehicles in front of the garage. This is considered sufficient parking for a property of this size in this location and would not result in parking on the highway. A condition is recommended to ensure that the parking is retained. The proposed garage dimensions at 6.6 metres by 6.6 metres would be large enough to accommodate two vehicles.
7.3.5 The proposed driveway would be hard surfaced in either block paving or tarmac. This would comply with the requirements of the outline permission.
7.4 Layout 7.4.1 The proposed dwelling would be set back within the plot by approximately 7 metres at the south east corner of the site to 12 metres at the south west corner of the site. The building line would follow that of the adjacent property at 93 Kimbolton Road. There would be a drive and parking to the front and a large rear garden. This layout is similar to the neighbouring property at 93 Kimbolton Road and therefore would not result in a property which is not in keeping with the surrounding built form.
7.5 Scale and appearance 7.5.1 The proposed building would measure 14 metres in width by 14 metres in depth by 8.5 metres in height. This would comply with the maximum scale parameters set in the outline permission. The frontage of 93 Kimbolton Road is approximately 16 metres in width and therefore this large width would be in keeping with the neighbouring property.
7.5.2 The design of the building would also be in keeping with the neighbouring property.
Development Control Committee 75 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
Examples of this include the hipped roof, a central front door, the number and proportions of openings on the front elevation and the inclusion of chimney stacks.
7.5.3 Samples of the proposed materials have been submitted. These show that the proposed dwelling would be constructed from Bovington Berry Multi brick and a Redland Duoplain grey tile. Both multi coloured brick and grey tiles can be seen in the surrounding area, as this end of Kimbolton Road is characterised by a mixture of property types and materials.
7.5.4 The proposed dwelling would not appear prominent or obtrusive in the street scene and for the reasons stated above would not result in a detrimental visual impact on the character and appearance of the street scene or the surrounding area. The submitted levels show that the proposed dwelling would not sit any higher than the neighbouring property and this also ensures that the building is not prominent.
7.5.5 The proposed boundary screening would be acceptable and would not result in a detrimental visual impact. Vegetation surrounding the site would obscure views of the boundary screening and would ensure that it does not appear obtrusive.
7.6 Landscaping 7.6.1 The submitted landscaping plan shows that the front of the site would be hard paved/tarmacked and the rear would be laid to lawn. This is acceptable and would mirror that at the neighbouring property. Therefore the proposed landscaping does not raise any concerns.
7.7 Impact on neighbouring amenity 7.7.1 The nearest property to the proposal is No.93 Kimbolton Road. This property is located approximately 4.4 metres away at the nearest point. Whilst this neighbouring property has windows located within the eastern elevation to the first and ground floors, these windows are either secondary windows to habitable rooms or serve non-habitable rooms. Therefore there would be no undue overshadowing or overbearing impact.
7.7.2 A condition was placed on the outline permission for no windows to be located in the west elevation of the proposed dwelling. However, the submitted plans show that there would be seven windows located in this elevation - three to the first floor and four to the ground floor. The four to the ground floor would not result in any overlooking to this neighbouring property as views would be obscured by the proposed 1.8 metre high timber fence, and therefore they do not raise any concerns. The three windows to the first floor would serve the landing and a bedroom. The landing window would not create any overlooking as it does not serve a habitable room. The drawings show that windows P1 and P2 which would serve bedroom two would be obscure glazed to a height of 1.7 metres above floor level and would be top hung. However, one of these windows (P2) would be hung in order to allow for emergency exit with a restrictor in place to prevent the window opening any wider than 100mm unless in the event of an emergency. Window P2 would face the side elevation of the neighbouring dwelling rather than the rear garden, like P1, and would therefore be the most appropriate window of the two to have the emergency opening. This arrangement prevents any overlooking to the neighbouring property and therefore does not raise any concerns.
7.8 Environmental issues/noise 7.8.1 The site is adjacent to the A6 bypass which is a fast moving busy road. The issue of noise on the occupiers of the proposed dwelling was taken into consideration when the outline permission was granted. The Council's Environmental Protection Officer at the time commented that glazing would have gone some way to preventing harm caused by traffic, but that when windows were open it would not. Therefore a condition was added to the permission requiring details of alternative ventilation to be submitted and agreed by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The applicant's agent has submitted details of two types of ventilation which are acceptable to this authority and the Council's Environmental Protection Officer has confirmed that she is satisfied. Av condition is
Development Control Committee 76 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013 therefore recommended to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
7.9 Waste 7.9.1 The Council's Waste Management Officer has not yet commented on the proposal. However, the submitted layout shows that there is sufficient space within the site to accommodate the Council's waste bins and that it is possible for these to be taken to the edge of the highway ready for collection on a specified day.
8 Other issues 8.1 Amenity space - Adequate private amenity space would be provided.
8.2 Crime and Disorder - This application does not raise any significant issues
8.3 Access for Disabled - The proposed dwelling would not be subject to any public access and therefore does not raise any concerns.
Recommendation
That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions and no substantive objections raising new issues, being received before the consultation expiry date:
Conditions/Reasons -
1. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed using Bovington Berry Multi Brick and Redland Duoplain grey tiles as per the sample received by the local planning authority on 21 January 2013. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory elevational appearance.
2. Windows P1 and P2 shall be obscured as identified on drawing number 12-075-02B received by the local planning authority on 21 January 2013. The window P2 shall be fitted with a top hung restrictor to limit the opening to 100mm unless in the event of an emergency and window P1 shall be fixed shut up to a height of 1.7 metres. Reason: To prevent issues of overlooking to the adjacent property at No.93 Kimbolton Road.
3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 21 January 2013, drawing numbers: 12-075-01B Proposed block plan and site location plan and 12-075-02B Proposed plans and elevations, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In order to clarify the terms of the planning permission and to ensure that the development is carried out as permitted.
4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted ventilation information received by the local planning authority on 16 January 2013 and 19 January 2013 and as agreed by the Council's Senior Environmental Protection Officer in an email dated 21 January 2013. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to ensure that satisfactory ventilation is provided to the dwelling without the need to open windows and suffer noise.
Informatives
1. In reaching this decision this Council has implemented the requirement in the NPPF to deliver sustainable development in a proactive and positive way in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187. Regard has been had to the 12 core planning principles in the
Development Control Committee 77 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013
NPPF and the more specific policies. In addition, the Development Plan and other material considerations have been taken into account as required by Section 54a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The relevant specific policies identified were the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies 1, 7, 9, 10, 13 and 14 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, policies 2, 3 and 13b of the East Midlands Regional Plan, Parking SPG and the Local Highway Authority Standing Advice for Local Planning Authorities. The development accords with the development plan and thus satisfies the NPPF for the reasons set out below. The access arrangements are acceptable as the applicant has confirmed that no alterations would take place to the existing arrangements. The layout of the proposed dwelling would be acceptable and would not result in a detrimental visual impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The scale and appearance of the dwelling would be in keeping with the neighbouring property and would not result in a detrimental visual impact. The proposed landscaping is acceptable and would be in keeping with nearby properties. The submitted ventilation information is acceptable and would ensure that the occupiers of the dwelling do not suffer from noise disturbance as a result of being located adjacent to a main road. Subject to a condition restricting the opening of two windows located in the west elevation of the proposed dwelling, there would be no harm caused to the occupiers of the neighbouring property at No.93 Kimbolton Road. The site is large enough to accommodate the necessary waste storage facilities provided by East Northamptonshire Council.
Development Control Committee 78 of 78 25 January 2012 6 February 2013