Planning Committee Wednesday 10 February 2016 at 7.00 Pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

Planning Committee

Wednesday 10 February 2016 at 7pm

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

1. Apologies for absence.  2. Declarations of interest (completed forms to be handed to the committee clerk).  3. Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 22 December 2015 and 13 January 2016.  4. Applications for planning permission, listed building consent, building  regulation approval and appeal information.*  5. Tree Preservation Order - 62 High Street, Ecton  6. Any other items that the Chairman decides are urgent.

 *The reports on this agenda include summaries of representations that have been received in response to consultation under the Planning Acts and in accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015. Full transcripts and copies of the disclosable representations can be obtained from the Council’s website:http://www.wellingborough.gov.uk/viewplanningapplications and are also obtainable from the planning case files, which are available for inspection on request by ringing 01933 231514.

Site viewing group for 9 February 2016 will be Councillors Morrall, Ward, Griffiths and Maguire

John T Campbell Chief Executive

Date issued: 2 February 2016.  Enclosed. For further information about this agenda, please contact Fiona Hubbard on 01933 231519 or [email protected].

Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire NN8 1BP Tel: 01933 229777 Fax: 01933 231684 www.wellingborough.gov.uk

If you wish to address the committee on an agenda item you can register by:  completing the form on the council’s website at www.wellingborough.gov.uk/speakersform; or  completing the appropriate form which is available at reception desks or  contacting Fiona Hubbard as detailed above.

Membership: Councillor Morrall (Chairman), Councillor Ward (Vice Chairman), Councillors Aslam, Bell, Ekins, Griffiths, Hallam, G Lawman, Lloyd, Maguire and Scarborough (11).

Agenda item 4

Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Committee Wednesday 10 February 2016 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

INDEX Application Location Page No.

WP/15/00126/FUL 1 Finedon Hall Mackworth Drive Finedon Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN9 5NL 4 Site Viewing Group

WP/15/00646/FUL Fox Covert Overstone Road Sywell Northampton Northamptonshire 15 Site Viewing Group

WP/15/00685/FUL B569 Junction With Podington Road Irchester Road Wollaston Wellingborough Northamptonshire 26 Site Viewing Group

WP/14/00794/OUT Land At Rear And Adjacent Of 75 York Cottage 75 Easton Lane Bozeat Wellingborough Northamptonshire 31

WP/15/00572/OUT Land Opposite Millglade Mill Lane Isham Kettering Northamptonshire 44

WP/15/00635/FUL The Ten O Clock 42 Main Street Little Harrowden Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN9 5BB 63

WP/15/00661/FUL 31 - 32 Church Street Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 4PA 71

Planning Committee 1 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00664/FUL 86 Orlingbury Road Isham Kettering Northamptonshire NN14 1HW 77

WP/15/00669/FUL 17 & 18 High Street Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 4JU 82

WP/15/00705/OUT Land Corner London Road And Gipsy Lane London Road Little Irchester Wellingborough Northamptonshire 88

WP/15/00713/FUL Land Fronting 14 To 38 Davy Close Wellingborough Northamptonshire 108

WP/15/00779/CRA Rowangate Primary School Finedon Road Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 4EB 116 County Matter

WP/15/00791/CRA Earls Barton Spinney Quarry Grendon Road Earls Barton Northampton Northamptonshire 119 County Matter

WP/15/00763/EXT Land Adj Glebe Farm Coventry Road Lutterworth Leicestershire 121 Other Borough

WP/15/00790/EXT Land To The South Of Lower Ecton Lane Great Billing Northampton 124 Other Borough

WP/15/00792/EXT Hanwood Park Barton Road, Warkton Lane & Cranford Road (Land Off) Barton Seagrave 127 Other Borough

WP/15/00804/EXT Nene Park Station Road Irthlingborough Northamptonshire 129 Other Borough

WP/15/00805/EXT Five A Side Pitch Diamond Way Irthlingborough Northamptonshire 132 Other Borough

Planning Committee 2 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00819/EXT Land Adjacent Skew Bridge Ski Slope Northampton Road Rushden Northamptonshire 135 Other Borough

WP/15/00552/EXT Hyde Farm Warrington Road Olney MK46 4DU 140 For Information

WP/15/00755/CRA Earls Barton Quarry Grendon Road Earls Barton Northampton Northamptonshire 145 For Information

Planning Committee 3 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

Site Viewing Group (Date of visit Tuesday 9 February 2016 at 10:15am)

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Erica Buchanan WP/15/00126/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 2 March 2015 3 March 2015 28 April 2015 Finedon Finedon

Applicant Mr G Roach

Agent Mr Barry Waine

Location 1 Finedon Hall Mackworth Drive Finedon Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN9 5NL

Proposal Erection of single dwelling. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND AMENDED PLANS.

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00126/FUL Determination pending. Erection of single dwelling. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND AMENDED PLANS.

WP/2011/0240 Approved with conditions 14.07.2011 Conversion of garage to accommodation with linked extensions to house including enclosing swimming pool area

BW/1976/0078 Approved with conditions 10.08.1976 Conversion of the existing hall and outbuildings into 30 flats and the erection of 40 flats in the grounds including the demolition of the listed gateway arch and its re-erection within the proposed development.

WP/1993/0255 Approved with conditions 26.07.1993 Stone ball coping on two gate piers

BW/1985/0118 Approved with conditions Refurbishment of Hall to create 7 apartments and alterations to courtyard wall.

Planning Committee 4 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00126/FUL

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/15/00126/FUL - 1 Finedon Hall, Mackworth Drive, Finedon

BW/1985/0117 Approved with conditions 5 Dwellings and refurbishment of Hall into 7 apartments.

BW/1976/0952 Approved with conditions 23.02.1977 Proposed conversion of the hall to an antiques centre with 3 flats the stable block into 8 houses the erection of 25 houses in the grounds and the conversion of the Ice Tower into a house, including alterations to existing access to Station Road affecting the listed gateway arch. (Section 52 Agreement)

BW/1990/0700 Approved 05.10.1990 Construction of conservatory

BW/1976/0079 Refused 23.04.1976 Proposed demolition of the entire hall and outbuildings and the erection of 70 houses and flats with the area edged red on the deposited plan.

WU/1973/0277 Application withdrawn/undetermined Arts Centre with living accommodation.

WU/1972/0219 Refused Site for residential development, use of hall as arts centre and conversion of stables into 4 dwellings

WU/1971/0160 Approved with conditions Change of use to Residential Country Club with ancillary garaging etc

BW/1982/1037 Refused 28.02.1983 Part demollition of Hall in connection with re-development proposals for Hall and grounds.

BW/1982/0981 Refused 28.02.1983 Alteration, conversion and part demolition to form four units of residential accommodation

BW/1980/0168 Refused 25.02.1980 Residential development comprising 10 units

BW/1978/0815 Refused 24.02.1978 Garden Centre and pleasure gardens

Planning Committee 5 of 146 10 February 2016

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

- The Parish Council have requested a site inspection; - The Parish Council have raised objection to the proposal; - The application has attracted more than 3 objections.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site forms part of garden land for 1 Finedon Lodge which is a single storey detached property that lies in extensive grounds. The application is mainly laid to grass within mature landscaping and the topography of the site is a substantial gradient lying from north to south.

To the south of the site are open fields and to the north of the site is Finedon Hall, a grade II listed building, and to the north east are Church House and St Marys Church - both being grade II* listed buildings. Within the application site itself in the south east corner is a stone bridge which is also grade II listed.

Access to the site is via a private drive off Mackworth Drive. There are currently 2 vehicular accesses to Finedon Lodge and a laurel hedge bounding the application site with the driveway to Finedon Hall.

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL The application site itself formed part of the historic landscaped garden of Finedon hall and as such has important landscaped features such as a stone grotto and pond constructed C19 and a distinctive yew tree circle. The stone bridge is the former carriage bridge being the remnants of the hall drive/south avenue entrance from the junction of Harrowden Road with Wellingborough Road to Finedon Hall. The mature trees within the garden are subject to a tree preservation order.

The site lies outside the village policy line and adjacent to Finedon Conservation Area.

Planning permission is sought for a single dwelling of contemporary design taken from Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater.

The house would be located centrally within the site and adjacent to the existing pond and grotto. The house has been designed to respond to the site topography and steps down the site, single storey at its lowest point to the north and three storeys at its highest point. The proposed access both pedestrian and vehicle would be along the private drive leading from Mackworth Drive.

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

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) 9 (Distribution and Location of Development) 10 (Distribution of Housing)

Planning Committee 6 of 146 10 February 2016

13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction) 15 (Sustainable Housing Provision)

Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policies: G4 (Development within the Limited Development and Restricted Infill Villages) G6 (Development within the Open Countryside) H4 (Housing Sites in Restraint Villages and the Open Countryside)

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) 2 (Historic Environment) 3 (Landscape Character) 4 (Biodiversity & Geodiversity) 8 (North Northamptonshire Place Shaping Principles) 9 (Sustainable Buildings and Allowable Solutions) 29 (Distribution of New Homes)

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Environment Agency - no objection - based on the information in the application surface water is shown to discharge via infiltration. You should be satisfied that infiltration drainage is feasible, can be adopted and properly maintained up to the design standard of 1%plus climate change critical storm.

2. Anglian Water - no comments.

3. NCC Surface Water Drainage - refer to standing advice.

4. NCC Archaeology - no objections subject to condition.

5. Northants Highways - no objection subject to standing advice. No further comments made on the amended plans.

6. BCW Landscape Officer - although there is much to recommend the design this is arguably not the right place and I am concerned that the landscape setting of Finedon Hall may not actually be enhanced if the proposed development is permitted. Conditions should be imposed to secure the best possible outcome for trees and landscape.

Planning Committee 7 of 146 10 February 2016

7. BCW Conservation Officer - the proposal causes significant harm to the setting of a listed building and should be refused.

8. JPU Landscaping - the scheme does not meet the stringent paragraph 55 criteria, how are the historical landscape and the existing features improved, enhanced, protected. There needs to be a much more considered approach to designing and or restoration within a sensitive or historic landscape and I would like to have seen more informed decisions based on historical context.

9. Parish Council - object to the application on the grounds of the building is outside the policy line and is not in keeping with its surroundings. It may also cause further development outside the policy line. They have requested a site viewing on the same grounds. Further comments made following the amended plans and additional information:- Objects to the application as they do not wish to see the hedge removed as it has become of important aesthetic value to the area the proposed property is not in keeping with the area, which is a conservation area and in the grounds of a listed building. They do not feel that it adds any architectural merit as it does not enhance the area. The parish council would like the application to go before the planning committee.

10. Finedon Hall Limited - Design is unsympathetic and inappropriate to its surroundings Detrimental to landscape to landscape and ecology Access narrow no footpath and used for both vehicular and pedestrians Concerns of increased traffic Drive is private access unclear if additional dwelling has a right of access.

11. Neighbours - objections received from nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 10, 11 Finedon Hall, 4 Dolben Close, 1 Church Hill. Out of character with surroundings Visually intrusive Impact on wildlife Loss of trees Visual views of historic gardens from Finedon Hall not considered Contravenes policy no special grounds given Harms setting of listed building Scale and design inappropriate Loss of privacy Ecology survey incomplete If approved could set a precedent Any development should be sympathetic to the environment Amended scheme only minor changes

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

- Conformity with the development plan and material considerations; - Design, layout and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, - Effect on heritage assets; - Effect on ecology and wildlife;

Planning Committee 8 of 146 10 February 2016

- Effect/impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and the future occupiers of the development; - Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to (the proposed access arrangement and parking provision);

Conformity with the Development Plan and Material Considerations Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise."

Policy 13 of the NNCSS and the SPD on sustainable design require new development to be of a high standard of design, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings, and not result in an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties or wider area; by reason of noise, loss of light or overlooking and to conserve and enhance the landscape character, historic landscape, designated built environmental assets and their settings, and biodiversity of the environment and makes reference to the environmental character assessment and green infrastructure Sstrategy.

Policy 1 of the NNCSS states that in the rural areas development will take place on sites within village boundaries, subject to criteria to be set out in development plan documents and policy 10 states that there should be limited development in villages and restricted development in open countryside.

With regards to the local plan, Finedon is defined as a limited development village by saved policy G4 where it states that development will be granted planning permission if it is within the village policy line as defined on the proposals map (1) and would not have an adverse effect on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs (2).

The site lies outside the village policy line and is therefore contrary to policies 1 and 10 of the NNCSs and saved policy G4 of the LP.

The NPPF sets out the government's planning policy for England and is a material consideration in determining planning applications and paragraph 17 sets out the 12 core principles one of which is to seek to secure high quality design and good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers, paragraph 49 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and paragraph 50 seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, and the creation of mixed communities and paragraph 56 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development

Chapter 12 of the NPPF sets out the government's advice on conserving and enhancing the historic environment and paragraph 109 states that the planning system should protect and enhance valued landscape, paragraphs 128 and 129 state that in determining applications the applicant should describe the significance of a heritage asset and how the proposal would affect the setting and at 131 it states that local authorities should take account of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinction.

Planning Committee 9 of 146 10 February 2016

Paragraph 55 of the NPPF is key to the consideration of this application as the site lies outside the village boundaries and as such is considered as being in "open countryside."

Paragraph 55 states that isolated new homes should be avoided unless there are special circumstances such as an essential need for a rural worker, where it would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting or is of exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.

Although the site is considered to be "open countryside" it is currently seen in the context of an edge of village location and forming part of the village and therefore the proposed new dwelling cannot be considered as an isolated dwelling in the countryside and therefore paragraph 55 does not apply.

Further consideration to the proposal is at paragraph 63 which states that great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area. Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

Design, Layout and the Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Area The proposal has been submitted as a paragraph 55 dwelling and the applicant states that it reflects the highest standards in architecture, enhances its immediate setting and is sensitive to the defining character of the locality.

The style of the property is based on Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater a 1930s house built in the mountains above a waterfall in Pennsylvania.

The proposed dwelling is of horizontal and vertical lines with mono pitched roofs, the proposed materials would be Finedon stone and the rendered panels and balconies would match the Weldon stone colour. It is proposed to have green roofs.

The applicants have submitted the scheme to OPUN, a design review panel, twice. Following the first review the scheme was amended to reflect the recommendations of the panel.

The panel highlighted the importance of the introduction of a new building into the countryside, (in particular a non-traditional building) and the impact on the local environs. The form of the house is a result of the site topography, landscape features and views available from the site.

The amended scheme relocated the garages in a detached and semi buried location using the natural slope of the site to reduce the impact as requested by the design panel.

Planning Committee 10 of 146 10 February 2016

It is considered that whilst the proposed dwelling is a contemporary building and inspired by an iconic 1930's, it is not considered to be in keeping with the historic character of the area or how the site is considered in its historic link to the hall.

Effect on Heritage Assets: Setting of Listed Buildings, Archaeology and historic landscape The council is required by section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirably of preserving the setting of a listed building.

The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) was submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2015. Examination hearings took place in November 2015. It is clear that the strategy is at an advanced stage and therefore significant weight can be accorded to its emerging policies.

The strategy at policy 2 sets out its historic environment requirements on the protection, preservation and enhancement of heritage assets such as Listed Buildings.

Paragraph 129 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) and they should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

Although the listing designation does not refer to its setting, the former landscaped gardens that form part of the application site contribute to the character and significance of the building, and add to the understanding of the heritage asset. As part of the landscaped grounds of the hall the site is an important part of the hall and its setting.

Therefore consideration of the proposal is on the impact of the setting of the listed buildings and the historic environments surrounding the application site.

The application site was originally part of the Finedon Hall Estate and adjacent to the former South Avenue being the main entrance to Finedon Hall. The site was part of the landscaped gardens and the historic features that remain comprise of a pond with stone grotto and artificial ruin, now much overgrown. A little further to the south west is a flight of stone steps and a small grove of yew trees. The proposed dwelling would be sited immediately adjacent to the landscaped features and would require partial infilling of the pond and concerns have been raised as to the impact the proposal would have on these non-designated heritage assets.

The new dwellings to the west of the hall which was a 1980s enabling development and included the two lodges. The south front of the hall faces the application site and had three stories vista of the garden area as originally viewed when it was part of the landscaped garden of the hall. Currently only the second and third floors still have that vista as the site is bounded by a laurel hedge. The west front has oblique views of the site.

It is considered that the views across the application site from the hall would be substantially harmed by the introduction of a new dwelling within this viewpoint which

Planning Committee 11 of 146 10 February 2016

gives the context of the historic setting of the landscaped gardens with the backdrop of open countryside of the Finedon Hall estate.

OPUN had suggested details should be summited how the current design proposal links to the historic Iandscape in terms of the interpretation it provides of the history of the estate, particularly critical in the sense that it sits at the core of the woodland gardens associated with its Victorian heyday and the mid 19C rebuilding of the Hall by EF Laws.

The councils landscape officer has stated that the proposed dwelling would intrude into the surrounding landscape of the garden and parkland and is not convinced that the dwelling is of such innovative design to outweigh the factors which mitigate against it.

Although the proposed building is not on the actual alignment of the original grand approach over the bridge it is only divided from it by a group of trees. The proposed building would be in a clearing which is a vista to and from the hall. The photomontage view from Harrowden Lane illustrates this.

Although the building would be cut into the land form with a green roof it would still be partially above the ground level of the hall and would be visible in this important vista from the hall.

The trees within the Lodge garden are within the area referenced A1 in the tree preservation order. Some of the trees are in decline and there have been some casualties in the past few years. The number of trees shown as being proposed for removal includes a number which would not have to be removed in order to build the proposed house. Some of the trees which would be removed are given a good rating. The observation that they are not of visual amenity value could be challenged especially if the very significant cut-leaved beech tree which would provide the most screening was to be removed. The pattern of internal decay revealed by the picus tomograph certainly raises a question about the longevity of this tree. If it was to be removed the proposed building would be even more visible.

The proposed layout has been amended to bring the garage in front of the main building cutting into the land form and would be within the root protection area identified in the arboricultural report and some damage would be unavoidable. Damage within the root protection area of the cut-leaved beech if it is retained would be an issue.

Effect on Ecology and Wildlife An ecological report has been submitted as additional information which identified that there is potential for birds nesting within the site and has recommend that any works should be carried out outside the bird nesting season.

Whilst no specific evidence of protected or notable species was recorded on site, there remained medium-high potential for great crested newts, reptile, roosting bats, hedgehog, polecat and nesting birds to be using the site for breeding, foraging, shelter or hibernation. In addition to this, badgers had been confirmed to be using the site.

The proposed dwelling located adjacent to the pond and stone grotto would directly impact the lawned area of low ecological value, but may also impact the edges of the pond and surrounding mature trees, as well as increase any disturbance to the remains

Planning Committee 12 of 146 10 February 2016

of the grotto and has the potential to adversely affect great crested newts by impacting their pond and by removing habitat immediately adjacent to a pond, which is typically critical to the favourable conservation status of that population.

The works could impact sheltering reptiles, if trees or the ground are not cleared with care and trees removed from around the pond could increase the light and noise disturbance to any animal using the pond or the remains of the grotto. It may also change the microclimate around retained trees with potential bat roosts, or within the remains of the grotto which could support hibernating bats and could cause the bats to abandon such roosts. Inappropriate lighting has the potential to cause similar levels of disturbance around the ponds.

The felling of trees or lopping of branches on trees with category 1 or 1* bat potential within the site could result in the loss of bat roosts.

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development The location of the new dwelling is central to the application site and due to its siting and orientation it is not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties it terms of overlooking loss of light and noise however this does not provide an overriding reason to allow a development that would result in the harm to the setting of the listed building and the historic environs.

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety in Relation to (the Proposed Access Arrangement and Parking Provision) The vehicular access to the site along the drive within the hall grounds does not comprise highway maintainable at the public expense. The highway authority has stated that applicant should confirm that sufficient rights are held to make use of this means of access.

Paragraph 32 of the Framework states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the impacts would be severe. Therefore, and taking into account the modest number of traffic movements likely to be generated, it is considered to be unreasonable to refuse the proposal for reasons of highway safety

CONCLUSION It is considered that the proposed dwelling is not of an innovative design as it replicates an existing dwelling albeit in another country. The proposal does not integrate into the historic environment of the surrounding area and is considered to substantially harm the setting of the listed building.

RECOMMENDATION Refuse for the following reasons.

REASONS

1. The proposed dwelling by way of its design, form, massing and location represents an incongruous form of development that would cause substantial harm to the setting of the listed building, conservation area and wider historic environs contrary to policies 13 (h and o) of the NNCSS, policy 2 and 3(c) of the JCS and paragraphs 63

Planning Committee 13 of 146 10 February 2016

and 133 of the NPPF.

2. The proposal site is adjacent to an existing settlement, and is not therefore in an isolated location as defined by paragraph 55 of the NPPF which contains a number of tests associated with dwellings in the open countryside. The proposal replicates the design of an existing building and is therefore not considered to be innovative or outstanding, it does not enhance the character of the area and as a result does not help to raise the standard of design more generally in the area as defined by paragraph 63 of the NPPF and Policy 13 (h) of the NNJCS.

3. The proposal represents unacceptable development in the open countryside. It does not satisfy the criteria for excepted development outside the village confines. It does not involve the re-use of buildings, is not required in order to meet local need, is not small scale and is not solely for affordable housing. It is therefore contrary to policies 1, 9 and 10 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, saved policies G4, G6, H4 and H9 of the Wellingborough Local Plan and Policies 11 and 13 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

4. The proposed dwelling by way of its siting would result in the loss of trees that form part of the historic landscape and provide good visual amenity value and is contrary to policy 13 (h and o) of the NNCSS and paragraph 118 of the NPPF.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant provisions in the framework.

2. This decision relates to plan numbers: Building location plan, 309/P1, 309/P2, 309/P3 received 3 March 2015 and amended plans 551/05c, 551/06, 551/10c, 551/11c received 18 December 2015,

Planning Committee 14 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

Site Viewing Group (Date of visit Tuesday 9 February 2016 at 10:55am)

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Paul Bateman WP/15/00646/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 13 Oct 2015 14 Oct 2015 9 Dec 2015 Harrowden & Sywell Sywell

Applicant Mr Colin Clayson

Agent Mr Barry Waine

Location Fox Covert Overstone Road Sywell Northampton Northamptonshire

Proposal Erection of a single dwelling, vehicular access and private access road

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00646/FUL Determination pending. Erection of a single dwelling, vehicular access and private access road

WR/1965/0094 Refused 12.08.1965 Housing site

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration

- Due to the nature of the application, it is recommended that the application site be the subject of a visit from the planning committee's site viewing group to enable members to fully assess the design of the proposed development in its open countryside setting.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site is a large parcel of land which in the main comprises of an area of rough grass which is surrounded by numerous trees and shrubs which are of various ages and in differing states of vitality. There are a number of trees on the site which are subject to tree preservation orders, in addition, a large part of the site is covered by an area tree preservation order.

The site slopes down in places from the north-east to the southwest and there is a ditch close to the eastern boundary.

Planning Committee 15 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00646/FUL

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. This map is accurate Legend 1:2,500 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/15/00646/FUL - Fox Covert, 42 Main Street, Little Harrowden

There is an existing access into the site at the end of Park Close which is a private road with no footpaths.

The application site lies entirely outside of the Sywell village policy line.

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL In accordance with paragraph 188 of the NPPF the applicant sought pre application advice from the council.

The plans which accompany the application depict a large detached dwellinghouse which would be set in an extensive hard and soft landscaped area.

The design of the proposed dwellinghouse has been described as being influenced by the 'arts and crafts movement' which reverted back to an english vernacular style before the adoption of classicism. The application includes details of extensive discussion with the council and OPUN prior to submitting the application, and continued dialog during the determination period with OPUN.

OPUN offers a design support service serving councils in the East Midlands.

The site is one of the clearings in the extensive and largely unmanaged wood which straddles the boundary of Wellingborough and Daventry district councils. It is at the end of Park Close and rear gardens of properties in Ecton Lane back onto it. It is not therefore completely secluded. It has a pleasant quality the enjoyment of which by the general public is limited by the fact that there is no public access.

A tree preservation order covers the woodland and some individual trees on the site which have not been specifically identified, but the intention is to retain and protect the existing trees and plant a number of new trees as part of an attractive landscape plan.

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

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) 1 (strengthening the network of settlements) 4 (enhancing local connections) 6 (infrastructure delivery and developer contributions) 7 (delivering housing) 9 (distribution and location of development) 10 (distribution of housing) 13 (general sustainable development principles) 14 (energy efficiency and sustainable construction) 15 (sustainable housing provision)

Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) H4 (housing sites in restraint villages and the open countryside)

Planning Committee 16 of 146 10 February 2016

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) 1 (presumption in favour of sustainable development) 3 (landscape character) 4 (biodiversity & geodiversity) 8 (north northamptonshire place shaping principles) 9 (sustainable buildings and allowable solutions) 29 (distribution of new homes) 30 (housing mix and tenure)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - development and implementation principles, Sustainable Design Biodiversity Planning Out Crime Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Sywell Parish Council - has no objections, but feels it is of the upmost importance that the concerns of Park Farm Close residents be taken into account because they will be most affected by the application. The parish council also state that it is opposed to any further build at Fox Covert on land owned by the applicant.

2. Daventry District Council - no comment received.

3. Northamptonshire Highways - 27 October 2015 - refer to its standing advice for guidance. Mentions the need for the applicant to confirm that there is an adequate right of access and the access road will not be considered for adoption as highway. The company identifies that the total length of drive exceeds 45m and mentions the need to meet the requirements of the building regulations relating to access and facilities for the fire service. For the same reason, the company also advises the applicant to discuss refuse collection arrangements with Wellingborough Norse. - 13 November 2015 - lodged the following comments regarding the intended rebuilding of the bus shelter: - position should not adversely obstruct the public highway or detrimentally interfere with visibility - the position of the shelter must be identified on a plan to the satisfaction of the local highway authority - structure appears to be located in the public highway and details concerning ownership and maintenance must be agreed with the company's regulation team.

4. Northamptonshire County Council lead local flood authority - no objection.

5. Natural England - has no comments to make on the application.

6. The Wildlife Trust - identifies the site is not within the Nene Valley Improvement Area or any existing green infrastructure corridor route. The trust goes on to recommend that ecological planning conditions should be imposed on any permission and native species should be planted wherever possible in the soft landscaping scheme.

Planning Committee 17 of 146 10 February 2016

7. BCW Landscape Officer - gives a brief description of the site and mentions that there is no public access to it. The landscape officer identifies the presence of trees which are the subject of tree preservation orders and recommends the imposition of a tree protection condition. Also recommended is a landscape planting condition to ensure the delivery of the submitted landscape scheme.

8. BCW Environmental Protection Service - no comments.

9. BCW Conservation Officer - gives a brief overview of the setting of the site and precis of the proposal. Detailed design advice offered and opinion expressed that the design does not go far enough to address the nearby local historic environment.

10. Neighbours - there have been a number of comments from residents which generally fall into four categories: no objection, support, concern/caveats and objection. support - development would provide an outstanding, pleasing and architecturally interesting conclusion to Park Close - design and position is exceptional in accord with paragraph 55 of the NPPF and will not impact on any neighbouring properties - development will fit in well with the landscape and be beneficial to the character of the local area -one dwelling cannot cause adverse impact or strain on local services or traffic concern/caveats - highway safety and access issues - ability of sewerage system to cope with extra demand - necessary repairs to road and verges to protect a gas main and convenience of neighbours - suggested access restriction into the site and single dwelling only - improvements to the bus shelter will be welcomed and should be completed - effect on wildlife objection - application site is outside the village envelope on designated woodland - previous application for development in 1990 on the site was refused because Park Close was considered unsuitable for any further development and situation has not changed.

11. The Applicant - has submitted detailed justification information to counter criticism of the dwellinghouse design and has also supplied background papers as evidence of the ongoing discussion with OPUN.

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

- conformity with the development plan and material considerations - design - effect on the landscape - effect on biodiversity - effect/impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers

Planning Committee 18 of 146 10 February 2016

- effect/impact on highway safety - crime and disorder

The comments regarding possible further future development in the area are noted. However, it is the case that if any application comes forward for more development on the site it will be determined in accord with the development plan in force at that time and taking into account any material planning considerations.

The NNCSS sets out a clear hierarchy for development with respect to its distribution and location. New housing is to be focussed primarily at the three growth towns; Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. Modest growth will be permitted at the smaller towns in North Northamptonshire, followed by limited development in villages and restricted development in the open countryside.

Policy 1 of the NNCSS states that in the rural areas development will take place on sites within village boundaries, subject to criteria to be set out in development plan documents and policy 10 relates to the distribution of housing. Policy 1 of the NNCSS also states that development adjoining village boundaries will only be justified where there are exceptional circumstances.

Sywell, excluding the Old Village is a restricted infill village by saved policy G4 where it states that development will be granted planning permission if it is within the village policy line as defined on the proposals map (1) and would not have an adverse effect on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs (2). The site lies outside the village policy line and as such is in the open countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 1 and 10 of the NNCSS and saved policy G4 of the local plan.

Policy 13 of the NNCSS and the SPD on sustainable design require new development to be of a high standard of design, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings, and not result in an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties or wider area; by reason of noise, loss of light or overlooking and to conserve and enhance the landscape character, historic landscape, designated built environmental assets and their settings, and biodiversity of the environment and makes reference to the 'environmental character assessment' and the 'green infrastructure strategy.'

Paragraph 17 if the NPPF sets out the 12 core principles one of which is to seek to secure high quality design and good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers, paragraph 49 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and paragraph 50 seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, and the creation of mixed communities and paragraph 56 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

Planning Committee 19 of 146 10 February 2016

The emerging NNJCS was submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2015. Examination hearings took place in November 2015. It is therefore at an advanced stage. Whilst there are unresolved objections to the overall housing numbers, there are fewer objections to the core policies. The spatial strategy is also largely the same as the adopted strategy in that it prioritises development in the urban areas, thereby adopting a sustainable distribution of development. The policies are consistent with the policies in the NPPF and should therefore be given significant weight in making a decision. Rural exceptions policy 13 of the strategy indicates that an exception to the restrictive open countryside policies can be made for individual dwellings of exceptional quality or innovative design.

With specific regards to the saved local plan policy H4, it sets out a number of criteria which development in the open countryside should meet to be acceptable in terms of planning policy. In brief they relate to dwellings:

- that are essential for agricultural or forestry workers - to replace existing dwellings - which are affordable on the edge of villages

The NPPF is a material consideration and at paragraph 55 seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas, by ensuring that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as an essential need for a rural worker, where it would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting or is of exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a desigh should:

- be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; - reflect the highest standards in architecture; - significantly enhance its immediate setting; and - be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area

Although the site is considered to be in 'open countryside' it is currently seen in the context of an edge of village location and forming part of the village. Therefore the proposed new dwelling cannot be considered as an isolated dwelling in the countryside and therefore paragraph 55 does not apply. Even if paragraph 55 were to apply, it is not considered that the 'tests' for design have been met. Further information is at paragraph 63 of the NPPF which states that great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area. Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

Planning Committee 20 of 146 10 February 2016

Design Policy 13(h) of the NNCSS requires new development to be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings.

The applicant as well as engaging with the council at the pre application stage regarding the design of the dwellinghouse has worked with OPUN which is an organisation which collaborates with east midlands councils to promote good design practice.

The design now under consideration is the latest iteration of a concept which reflects the arts and crafts movement which OPUN commends. However, OPUN does make the proviso that it feels insufficient information has been provided to it to demonstrate that the final design would achieve the highest architectural standards. In response to OPUN's comments the applicant has submitted an addendum to the design philosophy document to further explain the scheme, and in addition, has supplied further supporting information and concludes that OPUN has a clear presumption in favour of contemporary architecture.

The conservation officer notes that the historic designed wooded parkland of Overstone Hall, within which the proposed scheme is set, consists of a number of rides, walks and avenues and was part of the medieval park used in association with the hunting lodge and kennels of the Hall, which were laid out predominantly during the 19th century.The proposal relates to the insertion of an arts and crafts style mansion into what appears now to be a clearing within this historic wooded parkland landscape, which has suffered from the amelioration of its character by the development of modern properties along the line of Park Close. The former ride from Sywell to St Nicholas' Church forms the northern boundary of the site, and a number of paths would have crossed it. The significance of the impact of this property on the historic landscape of the Park is considered to be minor and can be mitigated through landscape design - it is suggested that the location and orientation of these former paths could be incorporated into the landscaping plan.

With reference to the design detailing of the proposed property, there is concern expressed by the conservation officer over the choice of style, and of materials, in this setting, where there are simple and obvious historic vernacular design references in close vicinity, especially those buildings which are listed as of historic significance associated with the Park and its use for recreation - the Kennels being the most obvious of these. She concludes that the design does not go far enough to address this aspect of paragraph 55, in as much as it seems to have placed a heavily designed historic replica building into a setting without regard to the historic environment within which it sits. There is insufficient interpretation of the local style in the design of the property, which pushes contemporary architecture to a new level of aesthetic.

The design of the new dwelling replicates an almost identical house agreed in Daventry District Council in 19 February 2014. This was considered acceptable under section 55 of the NPPF. Given that this scheme has been designed by the same architects, the very fact that this design is a near replica of another scheme elsewhere means that this is not innovative, since it is not new or novel; by way of its form, detailing, and external elevations. Whilst it may well employ quality traditional materials, it is not considered to be truly outstanding. The form and layout of the building does not relate to existing

Planning Committee 21 of 146 10 February 2016

traditional housing around it, and could not therefore raise the standard of design or highest standards of architecture in this rural area, because it does not mirror the form or design characteristics of the local area.

It is noted that the scheme includes extensive landscaping proposals. The applicants assert that this would significantly enhance its immediate setting enabling the dwelling to harmoniously integrate into the countryside. However, this is not considered to justify setting aside the restrictive policy considerations in the open countryside by approving the scheme

Taking into account the plans which illustrate the proposed development and the submitted supporting evidence it is considered that the design of the building cannot be considered to be exceptional and as such fails the tests which are necessary for the scheme to be considered to be an exception to the normal restrictive open countryside planning policies.

Effect on the Landscape Policy 13(o) of the NNCSS requires new development, amongst other things, to conserve and enhance the landscape character; historic landscape designated built environmental assets and their settings.

The application is accompanied by a landscape plan which has been produced by Illman Young, a leading company of landscape designers. The council's landscape officer has supplied an overview of the landscape context of the site together with a brief assessment on how the proposed development affects the trees on the site which are subject to tree preservation orders.

The council's landscape officer goes on to recommend the imposition of conditions which would require further details to be submitted for approval of the intended planting scheme and a tree protection scheme in accordance with BS5837.

Whilst it is recognised that the extensive landscaping of the site may assist in enhancing the setting of the proposed dwellinghouse, this does not outweigh the material consideration of the house not being considered to meet section 55 of the NPPF.

NNCSS policy 13(o), amongst other things, requires new development to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

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

Natural England has no comment to make on the application; the wildlife trust has studied the application and recommends conditions be imposed on any permission to

Planning Committee 22 of 146 10 February 2016

promote biodiversity. In any approval, a landscape scheme should include a significant proportion of native plant species which would be beneficial for wildlife by providing food and habitat.

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety Policy 13(d) of the NNCSS says that new development should provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards. Policy 13(n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

Comments have been received which identify highway safety as an issue of objection/concern. The planning history where a previous application on part of the application site and another development nearby which would have taken access off of Park Close have also been mentioned. The concerns regarding highway safety are noted, however, the contemporary advice from the local highways authority does not oppose the application and in the absence of a robust reason for refusal from the statutory consultee it is thought that increased danger to highway safety should not be used as a reason for refusing the application.

With regards to the company's comment concerning the applicant having the necessary right of access over Park Close to access the public highway, this is seen as private matter.

The need to comply with the building regulations falls outside of the scope of planning. In addition, the county council's fire and rescue service has been directly consulted with the application, but no objections has been received.

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of Neighbouring Occupiers The CSS policy 13(l) says that proposed development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking.

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

It is considered that the effects of this scheme on the neighbours' existing standard of residential amenity would not be so significant to warrant recommending this application for refusal due to the intervening distance between the application dwellinghouse and the nearest dwellings.

Crime and Disorder Policy 13(b) of the NNCSS says that development should seek to design out antisocial behaviour, crime and reduce the fear of crime by applying the principles of the secured by design scheme.

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

Planning Committee 23 of 146 10 February 2016

No crime and disorder issues have been identified.

Other Issues The applicant has indicated that a nearby bus shelter would be rebuilt as part of the development. This intention is noted, but it is considered that it should not be accorded any weight in the determination of the application because it is not a necessary requisite for the development to be permitted.

Northamptonshire highways has identified that the shelter would be located in the highway and would be subject to agreement with its regulations team. In addition, the shelter is considered to be permitted development by virtue of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, part 12 development by local authorities, class a(b).

CONCLUSION The proposed development does not conform to the existing development plan policies regarding new dwellings in the open countryside. In addition, it is not considered that the scheme is of exceptional quality or innovative to make the proposal truly outstanding and its harm to the local landscape and being situated in the open countryside is of overriding importance. Whilst it is noted that the the emerging JCS and the provisions of the NPPF exceptional design, and carry sufficient weight, in this instance this is not considered to be sufficient to outweigh the supremacy of the existing restrictive development plan policy. In the circumstances, it is recommended that this proposal be refused.

RECOMMENDATION Refuse planning permission for the following reasons.

REASONS

1. The proposal site is adjacent to an existing settlement, and is not therefore in an isolated location as defined by paragraph 55 of the NPPF which contains a number of tests associated with dwellings in the open countryside. The proposal replicates the design a building approved by a neighbouring authority and is therefore not considered to be innovative or outstanding, it does not mirror the form or design of neighbouring properites and as a result does not help to raise the standard of design more generally in the area as defined by paragraph 63 and Policy 13 (h)of the NNJCS of the NPPF.

2. The proposal represents unacceptable development in the open countryside. It does not satisfy the criteria for excepted development outside the village confines. It does not involve the re-use of buildings, is not required in order to meet local need, is not small scale and is not solely for affordable housing. It is therefore contrary to policies 1, 9 and 10 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, saved policies G4, G6, H4 and H9 of the Wellingborough Local Plan and Policies 11 and 13 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and

Planning Committee 24 of 146 10 February 2016

187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant provisions in the framework.

2. This refusal is based on the following plan numbers: BS 5837 2012 Tree Survey, 21503/01 C, 21503/04, 21503/06, 21503/07, IYLD 21503-SK03 , revised site location plan, 2296/1 B, 2296/10, 2296/2 B, 2296/3 B, 2296/4 B, 2296/5 B, 2296/6 B, 2296/7, 2296/8 , 2296/9.

Planning Committee 25 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

Site Viewing Group (Date of visit Tuesday 9 February 2016 at 11:45am)

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Andrew Mackriell WP/15/00685/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 23 October 2015 23 October 2015 18 December 2015 Wollaston Wollaston

Applicant Mr Andrew Yates

Location B569 Junction With Podington Road Irchester Road Wollaston Wellingborough Northamptonshire

Proposal Erection of an enclosed electrical 33Kv switchgear housing

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00685/FUL Determination pending. Erection of an enclosed electrical 33Kv switchgear housing

NOTE Deferred at Planning Committee on 13 January 2016 for Site Viewing Group to visit.

Previous officers report 13 January 2016

Reasons for Committee consideration:

- The Parish Council have requested a site inspection - The Parish Council have raised objection to the proposal - The application has attracted more than 3 objections

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The site is located in open countryside to the north-east of Wollaston, and on the eastern edge of the Borough. The application site is on highway land and is within the triangle of land forming the highway verge on the east side of the B569 highway adjoining the junction with Podington Road running south.

Planning Committee 26 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00685/FUL !

! ))

)) ! !

! 1.22m RH

1.22m RH ! !

EER & ! !

Co Const ! Bdy

! ! E! UA Bdy ) ! )

93.6m !

) !

! EER & Co Const Bdy !

! IRCHESTER ROAD ! !

! EER, Co Const & UA Bdy

! Def !

! B 569

Def !

! 95.2m Track ! E!

! ) )

94.7m ! E! !

E 95.5m !

! 90.5m

! EER, Co Const & UA Bdy

CR !

! 94.5m ! !

Built Environment ! © Crown Copyright !

! and database right 2015. ! !

! Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. ! Legend !

This map is accurate !

Cities Revealed !

1:3,000 to the scale specified ! Aerial Photography copyright: ! when reproduced at A4 WP/15/00685/FUL B569 ! Junction with Podington Rd, Irchester Rd, Wollaston GetMapping PLC 1999 ! !

! ± ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL Western Power Distribution propose to erect a detached building to house electrical switchgear apparatus in connection with their electricity network. The proposed brick- built building would have a 'footprint' of 6740mm x 5840mm with an overall height of 4510mm. There would be a vehicular access to serve the building with parking/turning head created off the Podington Road.

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

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policy 13 General Sustainable Development Principles

Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policy G6 Development within the open countryside

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) 3 (Landscape Character)

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Northamptonshire Highways - the application site has been discussed with the Accident Investigation Team. Whilst there are some concerns with a number of damage only incidents in the vicinity of the site it is not considered that the siting of the switching station will obstruct vehicle to vehicle visibility at the junction between Podington Road and Irchester Road and no objection is raised to the application on highway safety grounds.

As the application is by a statutory undertaker for the installation of apparatus within the highway the application has been forwarded to the New Roads and Street Works Team of the local highway authority. An appropriate informative for the carrying out of works within the highway is recommended.

2. Wollaston Parish Council - objects to the application and request a site visit. The parish council is concerned that the structure will obscure visibility of approaching traffic from Wollaston. The proposal would be better placed on the other side of the road.

3. Councillor Geoff Simmons - comments that the road called Podington Road is known locally as The Furze. There is danger that the structure will potentially obscure the view of traffic approaching from Wollaston when approaching the junction from the Furze. A better location would be on the other side of the road in Bedfordshire.

4. Neighbours - one objection from resident of Wollaston who agrees with Councillor Simmons that the structure would cause problems with visibility at an already difficult junction due to volume of traffic from Santa Pod via Irchester and Wollaston. Structure should be on Bedford side of the junction.

One objection from resident of York Road Wollaston who objects to a building close to the junction which is heavily used by Santa Pod traffic from both Irchester and

Planning Committee 27 of 146 10 February 2016

Wollaston direction.

Two letters have been received from the same address on Woodlands Road Irchester both objecting due to number of accidents at this location, the speed of traffic on the B569, the building will limit visibility, and an alternative location for the building should be considered.

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

- Conformity with the development plan - Design, layout and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area/landscape - Impact on highway safety in relation to the siting of the development and the proposed access arrangement - Impact on ecology and biodiversity

Conformity with the Development Plan and material considerations The specific development plan policies against which the application is to be judged are discussed below.

Design, Layout and the Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Area Due to its height, the proposed brick building will be relatively prominent in the immediate locality around the site adjoining the highway junction; however there would be little or no significant adverse visual impact on the wider area. The proposed building is essentially a low-key structure for a utility company that is unlikely to see intensive use or activity. The proposal is considered to accord with the relevant criteria of Policy G6 of the Local Plan (Development within the Open Countryside) because it involves no more than a limited number of buildings or structures and these are small scale; and it will neither individually nor cumulatively with existing or proposed development, result in a local proliferation of new buildings or structures.

As such the proposed development is justifiable in the open countryside and will not have a significant adverse or widespread environmental impact.

The proposal is therefore considered to be generally compliant with the aims of parts (h) and (o) of Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy which amongst other matters requires new development to be of a high standard of design, and conserve and enhance the landscape character of the area.

Impact on Highway Safety in relation to the siting of the development and the proposed access arrangement Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy requires new development to provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards.

Policy 13 (n) of the NNCSS states that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and should not prejudice highway safety.

Northamptonshire highways has raised no objections to the proposed development on

Planning Committee 28 of 146 10 February 2016

highway safety grounds and their comments are reported above.

Effect on Biodiversity and Ecology There are not considered to be any significant biodiversity or ecology issues relevant to the determination of this application.

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

CONCLUSION The proposed development is considered to be compliant with the aims and objectives of the relevant development plan policies and is consistent with the guidance contained in the NPPF. Although a number of local residents and the Parish Council have raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on highway safety the highways authority has made no objections to the proposal; therefore in the absence of any other material considerations of sufficient weight, it is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION Approve subject to the following conditions.

CONDITIONS/REASONS

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

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

2. This consent is based on Drawing No. NN80_11_001 Rev. 1.0 and the 1:10000 Location Plan received on the 23rd October 2015.

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

INFORMATIVE/S 1. The applicant is advised that planning permission does not automatically allow the construction of the vehicle crossing, details of which require the approval of the Highway Authority. All works within the highway must be carried out in accordance with the specification of the Local Highway Authority and subject to a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980. All operations should otherwise be subject to the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The applicant is advised to contact Northamptonshire Highways at Riverside House, Riverside Way, Northampton NN1 5NX.

2. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this

Planning Committee 29 of 146 10 February 2016

application and the accompanying proposals, the council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the approved development is consistent with the relevant provisions in the framework.

Planning Committee 30 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Paul Bateman WP/14/00794/OUT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 28 November 2014 3 December 2014 4 March 2015 South Bozeat

Applicant Gladman Developments

Location Land At Rear And Adjacent Of 75 York Cottage 75 Easton Lane Bozeat Wellingborough Northamptonshire

Proposal Outline Planning Application for a development of up to 75 dwellings with associated access and all other matters reserved

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/14/00248/SCQ EIA not required 23.04.2014 Request for a Screening Opinion

WP/14/00369/OUT Appeal dismissed 14.08.2015 Outline Planning Application for a development of up to 75 dwellings with associated access and all other matters reserved.

WP/14/00794/OUT Determination pending. Outline Planning Application for a development of up to 75 dwellings with associated access and all other matters reserved

WR/1972/0199 Refused 25.07.1972 Proposed housing site

WR/1965/0199 Refused 01.12.1965 Proposed housing site

WR/1971/0187 Refused 14.09.1971 Proposed housing site

BW/0088/0016 Application withdrawn/undetermined 17.02.1988 Site for erection of three dwellinghouses

BW/1988/1350 Refused 16.02.1989 Site for erection of four detached houses

Planning Committee 31 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/14/00794/OUT

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. This map is accurate Legend 1:3,000 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/14/00794/OUT - Lat at rear and adjacent of York Cottage, 75 Easton Lane, Bozeat

Reason for Committee Consideration

The applicant has submitted an appeal for non-determination of the application and as part of the appeal process the council is required to inform the planning inspectorate of the decision it would have taken on the application if it had proceeded to a determination.

In addition, objections have been received from the Bozeat and Grendon parish councils and a number of local residents.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The appeal site is an irregularly shaped area of grazing land which comprises of a roughly rectangular shaped parcel of land at its northern end which joins a smaller truncated triangular shaped area to the south.

The northern end of the site adjoins dwellings on Easton Lane, but the majority of the site adjoins properties that are located in Queen Street.

The western boundary of the site adjoins the curtilage of York Cottage and is also contiguous with agricultural land to the south-west. Further to the west is the Bozeat bypass.

APPLICATION PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND The application is as described with the access to be determined at this stage. The other matters: appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for subsequent approval.

A detailed access plan accompanies the application which illustrates how the access onto the public highway would be achieved. Also submitted are indicative plans which depict how the site could be laid out and how the development would affect the landscape. In addition, the applicant has supplied other supporting information to demonstrate the acceptability of the proposal.

The application was submitted as a 'twin tracker' to WP/14/00369/OUT on which the council did not issue a decision and which was subsequently taken to appeal for non- determination. The appeal was heard by way of a public inquiry in June and July 2015 and the inspector dismissed the appeal.

In brief, the inspector opined at the time that the council did not have a demonstrable five year housing supply, but nonetheless, dismissed the appeal due to the unsustainable location of Bozeat.

The appellant has applied to the high court for the inspector's decision to be quashed along with a claim for costs.

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

Planning Committee 32 of 146 10 February 2016

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) 4 (Enhancing Local Connections) 6 (Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions) 7 (Delivering Housing) 9 (Distribution and Location of Development) 10 (Distribution of Housing) 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction) 15 (Sustainable Housing Provision)

Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) G2 (Flood Protection) G6 (Development within the Open Countryside) H4 (Housing Sites in Restraint Villages and the Open Countryside) H8 (Affordable Housing) H9 (Affordable Housing)

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) 2 (Historic Environment) 3 (Landscape Character) 4 (Biodiversity & Geodiversity) 5 (Water Environment, Resources and Flood Risk Management) 7 (Community Services and Facilities) 8 (North Northamptonshire Place Shaping Principles) 9 (Sustainable Buildings and Allowable Solutions) 10 (Provision of Infrastructure) 11 Network of Urban & Rural Areas 13 (Rural Exceptions) 15 (Well Connected Towns, Villages and Neighbourhoods) 20 (Nene and Ise Valleys) 28 (Housing Requirements and Strategic Opportunities) 29 (Distribution of New Homes) 30 (Housing Mix and Tenure)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework; Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Biodiversity Trees and Landscape Planning Out Crime Parking Creating Sustainable Communities: Planning Obligations Framework and Guidance Affordable Housing

Planning Committee 33 of 146 10 February 2016

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Bozeat Parish Council - objects to this application for the same reasons it opposed WP/14/00369/OUT and refers to the Wiltshire principle. The parish council previously objected under the following broad headings: - existence of a five year housing supply - sustainability assessment - access to employment - public transport options - flood risk - education - village facilities - submitted planning statement - affordable housing - new homes bonus - residential amenity

2. Grendon Parish Council - considers the application should be refused for the following reasons: - contrary to planning policy - highway safety - effect on schools - flooding

3. Northamptonshire Highways - raises no objection on highway grounds, but makes comments regarding: - street lighting along Easton Way and width of footway - all works to be carried out at the applicant expense subject to highways specifications and being subject to a suitable agreement

The company says that it is not anticipated that section 106 powers will be used to deliver these works.

4. Northamptonshire County Council Archaeology - gives a brief overview of the site and thinks there is the need for the proposed development to be preceded by a programme of archaeological work. The consultee recommends a condition be imposed to require a programme of works be undertaken to investigate and record any remains that are affected.

5. Northamptonshire County Council Minerals and Waste - identifies that the site is within a mineral safeguarding area. Considers the evidence in the submitted desk based study satisfies policy 32 of the mineral and waste local plan.

6. Northamptonshire County Council Principal Project Officer - lodges a request for the applicant to contribute section 106 monies toward the provision of education, fire and rescue and libraries. Recommends a condition requiring the installation of fire hydrants.

With regards to broadband, it advises co-operation to enable the necessary ducting works.

Planning Committee 34 of 146 10 February 2016

7. Environment Agency - considers permission should only be granted if its suggested condition relating to water services is imposed. The agency goes on to point to the need for the council to be satisfied with the intended surface water drainage provisions in accord with the advice contained in the planning practice guidance and the national planning policy framework.

8. NHS England - lodges a request for a section 106 contribution towards providing primary care facilities at the Brookside medical centre.

9. Natural England - has no objection and refers to advice under the following headings:

Statutory nature conservation sites - no objection

Protected species - advises that the applicant be assessed against its standing advice on its website

Local sites - the council should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on local sites

Impact risk zones and sites of special scientific interest - refer to its website for further information

Biodiversity enhancements - suggests a number of enhancement measures

Landscape enhancements - identifies that the site may give opportunities for landscape enhancements

Natural England has also commented on the agricultural land classification of the site which it assesses as grade 3; however, it does not have information available to enable it to say whether the site is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10. Northamptonshire Police - does not object to the application but offers detailed crime prevention advice.

11. Borough Council of Wellingborough design and conservation officer - defers to the opinion of the design advice from the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit.

12. Borough Council of Wellingborough housing development officer - originally considered that the 30 per cent affordable housing to be acceptable, subject to a section 106 agreement.

13. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit design advisor - advises that the application should be refused for a number of reasons. - effect on the character of the village fringe - proposal is inconsistent with the linear form of the village and the existing green buffer - scheme does not reflect the historic grain of the village - masterplan proposes a series of cul-de-sacs which do not relate to each other or the village and fails to create a connected pattern of streets and open spaces - reachability of the village centre in terms of walking distance and lack of connectivity

Planning Committee 35 of 146 10 February 2016

- open spaces do not relate well to each other - reference to an inspectors decision at another site in Bozeat

14. Anglian Water Ltd - lodges a number of comments under the following headings: - Assets affected the company identifies that it has assets within or close to the site and requests the council to act as a conduit to liaise on its behalf with the applicant.

- Wastewater treatment Bozeat water recycling centre has capacity to accommodate the flows from the development

- Foul sewerage network there is capacity at present for the flows.

- Surface water disposal preferred method is by way of a sustainable urban drainage system with connection to a sewer as the last option. Reference to part h of the building regulations which includes a drainage hierarchy.

The part of the submitted surface water strategy/flood risk assessment relevant to the company is acceptable at a maximum rate of 13.7l/s which it requests is reflected in the planning approval.

The company recommends the imposition of a condition regarding the intended hard standing not being constructed until the surface water strategy works have been carried out.

15. Neighbours - objections have been received from many local residents who in the main cite the same reasons for opposing the application as mentioned by the Bozeat and Grendon parish councils, plus: - light pollution - water and sewage concerns - effect on wildlife - property devaluation - radon gas issue - belief that the application site is in the parish of Easton Maudit

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

- Conformity with the development plan, especially in relation to housing development in the open countryside and material considerations - Sustainability - Effect on the landscape and the character and appearance of the area - Effect on archaeology - Effect on biodiversity - Effect on the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers - Effect/impact on highway safety - Flood risk and drainage - Affordable housing

Planning Committee 36 of 146 10 February 2016

- Planning obligations

The main issue is whether the proposed development is acceptable in the open countryside in the light of development plan policies and the provisions in the national planning policy guidance (NPPF).

The development plan policies aim to focus growth in the town of Wellingborough and in villages that perform a sustainable local service centre role. Development adjoining boundaries will only be justified where it is required to meet a clearly demonstrated local need. New housing is expected to be focused in the growth towns, limited in the villages and restricted in the open countryside.

Saved policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough local plan supports development in limited development villages and restricted infill villages provided, amongst other things, the proposal site is within the village policy line. The application site lies outside the Bozeat village policy line and is therefore deemed to be in the open countryside where development would not normally be permitted due to the restrictive nature of saved local plan policy H4.

In brief, saved local plan policy H4 says that planning permission for housing development will not be granted in the open countryside unless there are exceptional circumstances involving:

- a justified dwelling for an agricultural or a forestry worker - replacement dwelling - affordable housing

It can be seen that the proposal does not conform to the saved development plan policy.

The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (NNJCS) 2011 - 2031 (NNJCS) is the emerging strategic part 1 local plan for the borough and was submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2015.

Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

- the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); - the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and - the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

Planning Committee 37 of 146 10 February 2016

Examination hearings into the NNJCS took place in November 2015 and it is therefore at an advanced stage. As part of the evidence to the examination into the strategy the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit put forward a recently published updated assessment of housing land supply 2016-2021 for each of the four member boroughs/districts. This assessment identifies that there is an 8.56 years supply for Wellingborough when measured against the JCS housing targets. Whilst there are unresolved objections to the overall housing numbers, there are fewer objections to the core policies. The spatial strategy is also largely the same as the adopted strategy in that it prioritises development in the urban areas, thereby adopting a sustainable distribution of development. The policies are consistent with the policies in the framework and should therefore be given weight in making a decision.

The NPPF is a material consideration in all planning decisions. It retains the primacy of the development plan in the planning decision making process and promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development where the development plan is out of date.

The application is predicated on the applicants' belief that the council does not have a five year land supply and the development plan is out-of-date. The council disputes this assumption and because it considers that it has a five year housing supply the policies in the development plan are up-to-date and can be relied upon when taking decisions on planning applications. Because the council has a five year housing land supply the application should also be judged against the provisions of paragraph 55 of the NPPF which, in brief, requires new development in the open countryside to be:

- essential for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work - where development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets - where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting - of exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.

The application is outside the village policy line and the council can demonstrate a five year housing supply; therefore, the proposal as a matter of principle is not in conformity with the up-to-date development plan and is also inconsistent with the provisions of the NPPF national planning policy framework.

The other more specific development plan policies which the application falls to be judged against are discussed below.

Sustainability Notwithstanding the 5 year housing land supply argument, it is also imperative that development proposals are considered to be sustainable forms of development. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF sets out three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.

It is thought that this application is not a sustainable form of development in the proposed location and the council's settlement hierarchy background paper of December 2015 provides evidence for this. The paper forms a key part of the new local plan evidence base in which it categorises the borough's settlements to recognise their role and function. The paper identifies the functions of a sustainable settlement which

Planning Committee 38 of 146 10 February 2016

would provide good facilities and services and have the best infrastructure. Comparatively, the smaller settlements such as Bozeat have lesser functionality with less infrastructure and fewer transport links.

The settlement hierarchy background paper, which was approved at the services committee on 15 December 2015 as a basis for preparing a draft Plan for the Borough of Wellingborough, defines the village of Bozeat as being capable of accommodating limited to small scale development required to meet its own locally arising needs.

In addition to the earlier appeal decision on this application site, attention is drawn to another recent appeal decision for a scheme involving upto 36 dwellings at land off Hillside Close, Bozeat; WP/13/0332/OM refers. The inspector who heard this appeal decided that the appeal site which was also outside the village policy was unsustainable. The inspector concluded the proposal would add only to the housing stock without commensurate growth in the social, cultural, economic or employment opportunities in the locality. The appeal scheme would only reinforce the role of the village as a dormitory or commuter settlement, largely reliant on accessing jobs, shops, support services and recreation elsewhere by using the private car.

The application site lies outside the Bozeat village policy line in the open countryside and therefore, taking all the above factors into account, the proposal which comprise of upto 75 dwellings is not considered to be sustainable for the reasons set out above.

Effect on the Landscape and the Character and Appearance of the Area The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy policy 13 (h) says that new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and respects and enhances the character of its surroundings. Policy G4 of the local plan states that development will be granted planning permission if it will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the size, form, character or setting of the village.

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

The comments from the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit design advisor and the many objectors who think the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the village are acknowledged. However, the inspector who heard the appeal concluded at paragraph 44 of his decision letter that the proposed development 'would not significantly or unacceptably harm the general character or appearance of the surrounding rural area.'

In the circumstances, it is suggested that to refuse the application on harm to the character and appearance of the area would not be a robust reason for refusal.

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

Planning Committee 39 of 146 10 February 2016

With regards the NPPF section 12, this sets out the government's advice on conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Northamptonshire County Council archaeology has provided advice on the application and it recommends a condition be imposed to ensure a suitable programme of works are agreed and undertaken.

Effect on Biodiversity Paragraph 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, under the heading of 'duty to conserve biodiversity' states "every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity." o) Conserve and enhance the landscape character, historic landscape designated built NNCSS policy 13 (o), amongst other things, requires new development to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

The application is accompanied by an ecological appraisal and Natural England has not objected to the scheme. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is anticipated that the proposed development would not have a significant effect on any biodiversity matters of any recognized importance.

Effect on the amenity of the Neighbouring Occupiers The Core Spatial Strategy policy 13(l) says that proposed development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking.

The emerging JCSat policy 8e) requires the amenity of existing future residential occupiers to be protected from unacceptable levels of noise.

The inspector in paragraph 46 expressed the view that the effect of the development on residential amenity could be properly considered at the detailed application stage.

It is acknowledged that the development would have an effect on the standard of amenity which is currently enjoyed by the residential occupiers who live adjacent or close to the site. This would also include the effects of additional light emanating from the development. However, given the opinion of the inspector on this issue, it is considered that it would not be prudent to recommend the application for refusal due to the potential harmful effect on neighbours' amenity.

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that new development should provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with

Planning Committee 40 of 146 10 February 2016

adopted standards. Policy 13 (n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

Emerging JCSpolicy 8 (place shaping principles) gives a number of requirements that new development should achieve with regards to highway, pedestrian and other sustainable transport matters.

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

The concerns of local residents and the parish councils regarding this issue are noted; however, Northamptonshire Highways is satisfied with the proposed highway arrangements. The inspector at paragraph 50 accepted there would be additional traffic on the local roads, but identified there was no objection from the Northamptonshire County Council and the emergency services. The inspector at paragraph 51 also commented on the parking situation in Bozeat and Grendon and did not see this as a reason for dismissing the appeal. The inspector also thought that access concerns could be addressed by way of planning conditions.

It can be seen from the above the inspector found no highway related reason to dismiss the appeal, and therefore, it is suggested that to refuse the application on this issue would not be sound.

Flood Risk and Drainage The NNJCS at policy 13 (q) requires development not to cause a risk to increase the risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere, and where possible, incorporate sustainable drainage systems.

The emerging JCS at policy 5 sets out a raft of sub policies aimed at preventing or reducing flood risk.

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

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

The concerns of local residents and the parish councils regarding this issue are noted. However, the inspector at paragraph 49 identified that there was 'no technical evidence that the proposed scheme would aggravate the present situation (if at all) to the point where it would have to be rejected on these grounds.'

Affordable Housing Emerging policy 30 (housing mix and tenure) of the JCS requires, amongst other things, requires that schemes which propose 11 or more dwellings in the rural areas should be

Planning Committee 41 of 146 10 February 2016

40% affordable.

An up-to-date response from the council's housing strategy officer indicating that this percentage would be required if the appeal is allowed is awaited.

Planning Obligations The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 at paragraph 122 sets out limitations on the use of planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990, as amended, to secure community benefits for a scheme. It applies where a relevant determination is made which results in planning permission being granted for development.

Planning obligations mitigate the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if it meets the following tests. Is the obligation:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

In addition to the above regulations the government has recently updated its Planning Practice Guidance with regards to planning obligations.

There have been a number of requests lodged for section 106 contributions to mitigate for the effects of the proposed development. In addition, the applicant has submitted a heads of terms for a potential agreement which lists provision or contributions for: affordable housing (30%), open space and equipped children's play area, highways and public transport and education and other contributions as identified and being capable of passing the above tests.

The section 106 requests are noted, however, it is considered that the potential provision of facilities and affordable housing and contributions to other services in the village e.g. schools, GP surgery etc, do not result in the application being acceptable when the scheme is unacceptable as a matter of principle and where two inspectors have found Bozeat to be an unsustainable location for the amounts of development previously proposed.

Other Issues - protection from radon gas is controlled by the building regulations as necessary - effect on the property prices of nearby dwellings is not germane to the planning determination - the site is located entirely within the parish of Bozeat.

CONCLUSION The council has a five year housing land supply and therefore the restrictive development plan policies and emerging development plan policies regarding not permitting unsustainable housing development in the open countryside are considered to be up-to-date. The proposed development is contrary to the policies because it is outside the village policy line and as a result is recommended for refusal.

Planning Committee 42 of 146 10 February 2016

RECOMMENDATION Confirm that the council would have refused planning permission for the reason set out below.

REASON

1. The proposed development represents an unacceptable development in the open countryside. The sustainable pattern of development required by the development plan outweighs the benefits that would be associated with an increase in the borough's housing supply. The proposal therefore does not conform with policies: 1 (strengthening the network of settlements) and 9 (distribution and location of development) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and saved policy H4 (restraint villages and the open countryside) of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and is also inconsistent with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In addition, the proposal would also not now conform with emerging policies: 1, 11(2) a) and b) and 29 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

Planning Committee 43 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Paul Bateman WP/15/00572/OUT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 21 Sept 2015 23 Sept 2015 23 Dec 2015 Harrowden & Sywell Isham

Applicant Bowbridge Land Ltd & Orbit Homes Ltd

Agent Mr Martin Bagshaw

Location Land Opposite Millglade Mill Lane Isham Kettering Northamptonshire

Proposal Outline application with all matters reserved except access for residential development of up to 46 dwellings - re-submission. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND PLANS. ADDITIONAL HIGHWAY INFORMATION.

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00205/OUT Application withdrawn/undetermined 03.06.2015 Outline application with some matters reserved for residential development of up to 46 dwellings (access to be determined at this stage)

WP/15/00572/OUT Determination pending. Outline application with all matters reserved except access for residential development of up to 46 dwellings - re-submission. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND PLANS. ADDITIONAL HIGHWAY INFORMATION.

WR/1969/0108 Refused 31.10.1969 One dwelling

Reasons for Committee Consideration:

- Isham Parish Council objects to the application - The application has attracted more than three objections

Planning Committee 44 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00572/OUT

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:2,500 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/15/00572/OUT - Land Opposite Millglade, Mill Lane, Isham

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site is part of an irregularly shaped rectangular parcel of grazing land located beyond the eastern edge of the village. The north-western edge of the site abuts Mill Lane and to the south-east it adjoins the rear garden boundaries of dwellinghouses that front onto South Street.

Directly beyond the north-eastern edge of the site is an area of land which is occupied by the remnants of a former mill building. Also along this boundary is a watercourse, which is a tributary to the river Ise, an intervening flat area of land and further to the east is a railway embankment which accommodates the main London East Midlands railway line. To the south-east is another field used for grazing.

The land form of the site generally slopes down from the west towards the railway embankment, but there is an area of flatter ground towards the south-western side. Also towards the south-western edge of the site is a line of electricity transmission cables which are supported on wooden poles.

Mill Lane is a narrow lane with no footpaths and has a bend towards its junction with Middle Street and Church Street. The lane terminates at its north-eastern end, but public right of way TM11 continues on towards Burton Latimer. On the boundary with Mill Lane is a hedgerow which thins out towards the bottom of the lane where there appears to be an informal turning/parking area.

The development along Mill Lane comprises of dwellings which were constructed in the 1970s and 1980s and others towards the top of the lane which are clearly older. Along the south-western boundary of the site are back gardens which serve a row of semi- detached dwellings which appear to have been constructed during the inter war years and two dwellings from the 1950s and 1960s.

The site does not carry any specific planning landscape or wildlife designation, although a potential wildlife site adjoins the application site along the length of its north-eastern boundary.

The application site lies outside the Isham village policy line.

APPLICATION PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND The application is as described and an indicative layout plan has been submitted which illustrates detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellinghouses which would take their access from a cul-de-sac arrangement. Also depicted is an area of open space under the electricity transmission lines.

Access into the site is to be determined at this stage and is proposed to be taken from Mill Lane. Supporting highways details have been submitted with the scheme and other information has been produced during the course of the determination of the application.

The latest highway information was submitted by the applicant on 13 January last and another 21 day consultation/publicity exercise was undertaken which expires on 8 February 2016. Should the latest round of consultation/publicity result in any new matters being raised that have not been summarized below, they will be reported to the committee by way of the late letters list.

Planning Committee 45 of 146 10 February 2016

An earlier application on the site, WP/15/00205/OUT refers, was withdrawn.

The NPPF at paragraph 66 states that 'applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably.'

In addition, the NPPF at paragraphs 188 - 195 under the heading of 'pre-application engagement and front loading' sets out the virtues of applicants engaging with the local planning authority before submitting an application.

Apart from submitting the earlier application, which was subsequently withdrawn, there is seemingly no evidence to suggest the applicant has attempted to engage with the community or the council at the pre application stage.

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

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) 4 (Enhancing Local Connections) 6 (Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions) 7 (Delivering Housing) 9 (Distribution and Location of Development) 10 (Distribution of Housing) 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction) 15 (Sustainable Housing Provision)

Planning Committee 46 of 146 10 February 2016

13 (Rural Exceptions) 15 (Well Connected Towns, Villages and Neighbourhoods) 20 (Nene and Ise Valleys) 28 (Housing Requirements and Strategic Opportunities) 29 (Distribution of New Homes) 30 (Housing Mix and Tenure)

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Isham Parish Council - objects to the application for the following reasons: - detrimental effect on highway safety; access, highway capacity and parking issues - disagreement with transport statement assumptions - development is not sustainable - incorrect plans - contrary to planning policy, the council has a five year housing supply - the affordable housing needs of the village, as indicated by the housing needs survey, have met by the approval of planning application WP/15/00188/FUL and the proposal is therefore not required to fulfil the need - the parish council is in the process of producing a parish plan and therefore determination of the application should be suspended until the parishioner's views are known - nearby development in Kettering and need to retain green space around the village - site is a landscape amenity - reported concerns of Peter Bone MP - strain on local resources such as the school which is already oversubscribed and the Burton Latimer GP surgery which his closed to new patients - surprise at findings of the flood risk assessment. Local knowledge is that a considerable area of the site floods and need for the applicant to prove that water can be disposed of. - existing foul sewage problems in the village - issues with information contained on the application form together with detailed criticism - site has archaeological interest - suggestion of delivery times restriction if permission granted - request for a section 106 contribution for: footpath works along the A509, footpath and lighting along Orlingbury Road to the cricket club and upgrading of the children's play area in the Glebe playing field

Planning Committee 47 of 146 10 February 2016

The parish council has also submitted details regarding: - its calculation as to the impact of the proposed development on the number of homes in the village. - a survey of the road widths in the village which would be affected by the development

2. Northamptonshire Highways - objected to the application and provided a comprehensive response for opposing the application. The company does however repeatedly make it clear throughout its consultation response that its opinion of the application has been based on the information which is currently available.

Note. At the time of writing the report, the comments from Northamptonshire Highways regarding the additional highways information submitted by the applicant on 13 January had not been received.

3. Northamptonshire County Council Archaeology - gives a brief overview of the site and thinks there is the need for the proposed development to be preceded by a programme of archaeological work. The consultee recommends a condition be imposed to require a programme of works be undertaken to investigate and record any remains that are affected.

4. Northamptonshire County Council Minerals - the applicant has submitted a ground report which satisfies the minerals authority with regards to the policies contained in the minerals and waste local plan.

5. Northamptonshire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority - originally objected to the development on the grounds of insufficient information. However, subsequent to the supply of additional details the flood authority on 24 November 2015 confirmed that it now considers the impacts of surface water drainage has been adequately assessed at this stage. The authority does however recommend the imposition of conditions which would require the submission for approval of further details before development commences.

The flood authority suggests informatives which could be appended to any permission and the requirement to contact the Bedford group of internal drainage boards for consent to undertake any works within 9m of the watercourse.

6. Northamptonshire County Council Principal Project Officer - lodges a request for the applicants to contribute section 106 monies toward the provision of education, fire and rescue, libraries and co-operation regarding the works necessary for a broadband service.

7. Environment Agency - has no objection, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the development to be restricted to flood zone 1 and the specified ordnance datum height of the dwelling finished floor levels. The agency continues by setting out the following issues: - building regulations requirements for the installation of sustainable urban drainage systems and identifies the site is underlain by Whitby mudstone which comprises of low permeable clays which may not be suitable for infiltration drainage. - the agency recommends that Anglian Water Services Ltd be consulted with regards its capacity to treat wastewater from the site.

Planning Committee 48 of 146 10 February 2016

- advises the development should be undertaken in such a way to not cause deterioration in the Ise-lower which currently has a poor ecological classification and recommends that opportunities to contribute to waterbody improvements are explored. - there should be a fundamental consideration for the legal and proper disposal of all types of waste.

8. Natural England - has no objection and refers to its previous advice submitted in relation to the earlier withdrawn scheme under the following headings:

- statutory nature conservation sites: no objection - protected species: advises that the applicant be assessed against its standing advice on its website - local sites: the council should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on local sites - impact risk zones and sites of special scientific interest: refer to its website for further information - biodiversity enhancements: suggests a number of enhancement measures - green infrastructure: identifies the benefits of green infrastructure and points to its website for further details - landscape enhancements - identifies that the site may give opportunities for landscape enhancements

9. Northamptonshire Police - does not object to the application but raises a query regarding the illustrated agricultural access and offers crime prevention advice.

10. BCW Landscape Officer - thinks that the pleasant character of the lane and views across the valley will be much altered. However, the landscape officer notes that residential development is feature in the landscape on both sides of the valley.

The landscape officer mentions the proximity of the watercourse and submission of a flood risk assessment. Also identified is the presence of the mill ruins and advises that his could be an attractive feature, if funding were to become available, which could be incorporated into a sustainable urban drainage scheme (SUDS). The proposed SUDS scheme is perversely at the top of the hill because of the constraint which is the line of pylons.

The landscape officer closes by saying that the open space will need to be managed and some biodiversity gain should be sought with appropriate planting.

11. BCW Environmental Protection Service (EPS) - has provided a thorough consultation reply which covers the following issues: noise, demolition and construction and air quality. The service identifies a number of deficiencies in the supporting information which accompanies the application regarding these issues and recommends the imposition of a number of conditions if planning permission is granted.

12. BCW Housing Development Officer (HDO) - comments that the affordable housing in the scheme would be in excess of the number identified to meet the need in Isham. The HDO goes on to give detailed advice regarding: the affordable percentage, type of affordable tenure, house types and allocation policy should the development be approved subject to a section 106 agreement.

Planning Committee 49 of 146 10 February 2016

13. BCW Finance - request the applicants make a section 106 contribution towards monitoring an agreement and a trigger and percentage rate for late payment.

14. Wellingborough Norse - requests a section 106 contribution towards providing the proposed properties with three wheeled 240 litre bins each and suggests there should be adequate storage areas at each property to accommodate them.

15. BCW Planning Policy - advises that the council has a five year housing supply and the saved policies in the local plan and those in the core spatial strategy are up-to- date. The consultation response also advises that the village is an unsustainable location for the amount of the proposed development and would be detrimental to the openness of the countryside and to the character and appearance of the village.

The consultation reply concludes by suggesting that the application should be refused.

16. Anglian Water Ltd - lodges a number of comments under the following headings: - assets affected: the company identifies that it has assets within or close to the site and requests the council to act as a conduit to liaise on its behalf with the applicant. - wastewater treatment: Broadholme water recycling centre has capacity to accommodate the flows from the development - foul sewerage network: there is capacity at present for the flows. - surface water disposal: seek advice from the lead local flood authority and the environment agency

17. National Grid - the company identifies that it has apparatus in the area.

18. Network Rail - has no objection in principle but mentions a number of requirements which it says must be met: - acceptable drainage arrangements - encroachment - dwelling noise/soundproofing - access

Network Rail concludes by suggesting that in particular drainage and soundproofing should be subject to conditions.

19. CPRE - is concerned with the proposals for the following reasons: - application does not conform with development plan policies - detrimental impact on the Ise Valley - poor access and additional vehicles will have a detrimental impact on the historic part of the village - understands the council has a five year housing supply and suggests it should refuse the application

20. Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue - has no objection. The service comments that the area is 'tight' but it has attended incidents in the location with no access problems. The service continues by saying the development is satisfactory with regards to its access and that the construction traffic and increased levels of traffic are not

Planning Committee 50 of 146 10 February 2016

beyond the norm.

21. Neighbours - objections have been received from and on behalf of many local residents who cite the following reasons for opposing the application: - contrary to and undermines development plan policy with no special circumstances - overdevelopment of a restricted infill village - village not capable of performing as a sustainable local service centre role - reference to recent appeal decisions in the borough and view that even if the council does not have a five year hosing supply this does not on its own represent sufficient grounds to permit unsustainable development - considerable development in Burton Latimer and encroachment onto the Ise valley - detrimental effect on highway safety; access, highway capacity and parking issues - detailed criticism of the highway proposals and supporting evidence, including the safety audit. Belief that the development will have a severe impact on the highway by way of: construction traffic, traffic associated with the development and inappropriate changes to the highway - lack of proposed off-street parking - buildings damaged by heavy vehicles - one way system would result in inability to use an access - belief that the fire and rescue service is unqualified to comment on highway congestion and construction issues and its comments should be disregarded - increase in noise and air pollution - together with other permitted development would increase the number of properties in the village by 29 percent - effect on wildlife - impact on local facilities such as the school and Burton Latimer health centre - surface water drainage concerns - archaeological issues - loss of an unprotected historic environment - government policy on developing on a flood plain and site has flooded - concern regarding surface water drainage - scheme has been designed to enable more development to take place - reference to the planning history of a site elsewhere in the village - development is out of character with its surroundings and will have a detrimental effect on the village environment and the landscape - inaccurate plans - more suitable areas may come forward for development as a result of the Isham bypass - application is motivated by profit - residents have to re-oppose amendments to the application

A petition with 108 signatures objecting to the application has been received.

21.The applicant has supplied detailed rebuttals of the criticism which has been lodged by objectors.

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

- Conformity with the development plan, especially in relation to housing development in the open countryside and material considerations

Planning Committee 51 of 146 10 February 2016

- Effect on the Isham conservation area - Sustainability - Effect on the landscape and the character and appearance of the area - Effect on archaeology - Effect on biodiversity - Effect/impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and the future occupiers of the development - Noise - Air quality - Effect/impact on highway safety - Flood risk and drainage - Affordable housing - Planning obligations.

The main issue is whether the proposed development is acceptable in the open countryside in the light of development plan policies and the provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Saved policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan supports development in limited development villages and restricted infill villages provided, amongst other things, the proposal site is within the village policy line. The application site lies outside the village policy line policy line for Isham and is therefore deemed to be in the open countryside where development would not normally be permitted due to the restrictive nature of saved local plan policy H4.

In brief, saved local plan policy H4 says that planning permission for housing development will not be granted in the open countryside unless there are exceptional circumstances involving: - a justified dwelling for an agricultural or a forestry worker - replacement dwelling - affordable housing

It can be seen that the proposal does not conform to the saved development plan policy.

The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011 - 2031 (NNJCS) is the emerging strategic part 1 local plan for the borough and was submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2015.

Planning Committee 52 of 146 10 February 2016

Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

Examination hearings into the NNJCS took place in November 2015 and it is therefore at an advanced stage. As part of the evidence to the examination into the strategy the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit put forward its recently published updated assessment of housing land supply 2016-2021 for each of the four member borough's/districts. This assessment identifies that there is an 8.56 years supply for Wellingborough when measured against the JCS housing targets. Whilst there are unresolved objections to the overall housing numbers, there are fewer objections to the core policies. The spatial strategy is also largely the same as the adopted strategy in that it prioritises development in the urban areas, thereby adopting a sustainable distribution of development. The policies are consistent with the policies in the framework and should therefore be given weight in making a decision.

The NPPF is a material consideration in all planning decisions. It retains the primacy of the development plan and promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development where the local plan is out of date.

The application is predicated on the applicants' belief that the council does not have a five year land supply and the development plan is out-of-date. The council disputes this assumption and because it considers that it has a five year housing supply the policies in the development plan are up-to-date and can be relied upon when taking decisions on planning applications. Because the council has a five year hosing land supply the application should also be judged against the provisions of paragraph 55 of the NPPF which, in brief, requires new development in the open countryside to be:

The comments of the parish council with regards its intended production of a parish plan are noted. However, a parish plan will not form part of the development plan and will therefore not be accorded any weight, irrespective of what stage it may be towards its adoption by the parish council.

The application is outside the village policy line and the council can demonstrate a five year housing supply; therefore, the proposal is in principle not in conformity with the up- to-date development plan and is also inconsistent with the provisions of the NPPF.

Planning Committee 53 of 146 10 February 2016

The other more specific development plan policies which the application falls to be judged against are discussed below.

Effect on the Isham Conservation Area Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on the council to pay special attention to the need to preserve and enhance the character or appearance of a conservation area.

Policy 13 (o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy requires new development to, amongst other things, conserve and enhance designated built environmental assets and their settings.

With regards the NPPF, chapter 12 sets out the government's advice on conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Comments have been lodged by objectors who opine that the proposed development would have a deleterious effect on the character and appearance of the historic core of the village. The boundary of the Isham conservation area runs along the front of the dwellings in South Street that back onto the application site and it then turns for a short distance to the west before it diverts to the north around a chapel and a public house. From the above it is considered that the proposed development, including any road works which would be necessary to improve the Mill Lane junction with Middle Street and Church Street, would be sufficiently divorced from the conservation area so that it would not have any material effect on the setting, character or appearance of the Isham Conservation Area.

It is thought that this application is not a sustainable form of development in the proposed location and the settlement hierarchy background paper December 2015 provides evidence for this. The paper forms a key part of the new local plan evidence base in which it categorises the borough's settlements to recognise their role and function. The hierarchy paper identifies the functions of a sustainable settlement which would provide good facilities and services and have the best infrastructure. Comparatively, the smaller settlements such as Isham have lesser functionality with less infrastructure and fewer transport links.

The settlement hierarchy background paper was approved at the services committee on 15 December 2015 as a basis for preparing a draft Plan for the Borough of Wellingborough and it identifies Isham as being capable of accommodating development limited to small scale development required to meet its own locally arising needs. From the sustainability matrix on page eight of the background paper it can be seen that Isham is ranked at a similar level to Bozeat in terms of sustainability and its ability to accommodate new development. Therefore, they are comparable villages in terms of sustainability and as such, the decisions of the Inspectors who heard the Bozeat appeals are considered to be germane to this application.

Planning Committee 54 of 146 10 February 2016

The two recent appeal decisions at Bozeat are WP/2013/0332/OM and WP/14/00369/OUT and both of them conclude that the appeal sites in the village were considered to be unsustainable. The inspector thought that the proposals would add only to the housing stock without commensurate growth in the social, cultural, economic or employment opportunities in the locality. Both appeal schemes were considered to reinforce the role of the village as a dormitory or commuter settlement, largely reliant on accessing jobs, shops, support services and recreation elsewhere.

The application site lies outside the Isham village policy line and therefore, taking all the above factors into account, the proposal which comprises of upto 46 dwellings and which would be located in the open countryside, is not considered to be sustainable.

Effect on the Landscape and the Character and Appearance of the Area The NNCSS policy 13 (h) says that new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and respects and enhances the character of its surroundings. Policy G4 of the local plan states that development will be granted planning permission if it will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the size, form, character or setting of the village.

The proposed scheme has attracted much criticism with regards to its likely effect on the character and appearance of the landscape and on the appearance of the village. The objections which have been lodged are noted and it is clear that the existing appearance of the field is cherished by those persons who either live close to it or enjoy walking past it. And it is acknowledged that despite the application site not having any landscape designation it does not mean that it is unattractive.

The council's landscape officer has commented on the scheme, but has not objected to the application. Notwithstanding the contribution the site does make to the local landscape it is considered that it only has limited local significance and its loss would not have any marked effect on the wider setting of the village. In addition, there is a significant area of land in-between the north-western edge of the application site which would afford a reasonable degree of visual separation between the edge of the proposed development and the railway line and would also still allow for views around any development on the site.

It is accepted that the proposed development is located on a site which is beyond the village policy line and in the open countryside and could, if permitted, result in the edge of the village advancing towards Burton Latimer. However, given the presence of the area of land on the Isham side of the railway line and the visually separating feature of the railway embankment itself, it is thought the scheme would not result in a materially significant visual coalescence of the two settlements.

Overall, it is considered that the application proposal would not inflict any significant harm on the wider character or appearance of the village sufficient to warrant recommending the application for refusal on this issue.

Planning Committee 55 of 146 10 February 2016

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

With regards the NPPF section 12, this sets out the government's advice on conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Comment has been received from a neighbour regarding the need for the archaeological aspects of the proposal to be properly evaluated.

Northamptonshire County Council archaeology has provided advice on the application and it recommends a condition be imposed to ensure a suitable programme of works are agreed and undertaken.

Effect on Biodiversity Paragraph 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, under the heading of 'duty to conserve biodiversity' states every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity." o) Conserve and enhance the landscape character, historic landscape designated built NNCSS policy 13 (o), amongst other things, requires new development to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

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

The application has been accompanied by an ecological appraisal which makes a number of recommendations which could be taken forward by way of appropriate conditions.

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development The CSS policy 13(l) says that proposed development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking.

It is acknowledged that this application is in outline form, however, it is considered that any scheme that may come forward at the reserved matters stage, if the application is permitted, would be adequate scrutinized to ensure that the surrounding residential occupiers would still enjoy a satisfactory standard of amenity.

Objectors have cited noise and detrimental effect on air quality as reasons for opposing the application and these topics are discussed in detail below.

Planning Committee 56 of 146 10 February 2016

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

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

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) offers detailed advice on noise which was updated on 24 December 2014.

The council's environmental protection service (EPS) has not identified noise emanating from the development once constructed as an area of concern. The EPS has undertaken an in-depth analysis of the noise information which supports the application which is principally emitted by the nearby railway line that sits on top of a nearby embankment. The service has established that some of the information supplied has relied on out of date government guidance and also disagrees with some of its assumptions.

The EPS has divided its advice into two sections: the internal and external acoustic environments, and has recommended a number of conditions which are intended to mitigate the effects of the noise from the railway on the living conditions and ultimately the health of the potential occupiers of the proposed development.

With regards to the internal acoustic environment, i.e. the noise levels which future residents inside their property would likely be subjected to, the EPS recommends what noise levels would need to be reduced to and the measures which would have to be implemented to achieve the necessary acoustic standards. It is considered that if the application is permitted, it could be possible by way of the installation of the measures which have been identified by the EPS to successfully mitigate for noise emitted by the nearby railway so that the standards which have been adopted to ensure health inside a dwelling is not adversely affected.

The external acoustic environment is thought to be more problematic. As mentioned above the EPS has indicated that there are issues with the acoustic information which accompanies the application which includes the information that relates to the expected external noise environment which future residents could enjoy. The EPS has recommended noise levels for the external areas of the dwellings, however, given the received advice it is considered that there are a number of factors which currently are unknown or unresolved which would have an influence on the ability of the occupiers of the scheme being able to enjoy a reasonable standard of amenity in the outdoor areas of their curtilage. These uncertainties revolve around: - the fact that this application is in outline form with layout to be determined - elevated position of the railway line in relation to the application site - slope of the land which would work against any reasonable attempt to implement satisfactory noise mitigation measures on the application site.

Planning Committee 57 of 146 10 February 2016

It is therefore recommended that the council should be cautious with regards to the noise environment and in the absence of a wholly satisfactory nose assessment from the applicant it is suggested the application should be refused. This is because if noise is not suitably mitigated it would result in a housing development where its residents could be subjected to harmful levels of noise contrary to emerging policy 8 (e)(ii) of NNCSS and the provisions of the NPPF.

In addition, if the applicant were to make attempts to buffer the noise from the railway line by way of an engineering solution on the site such as acoustic screens, this could have a significant effect on the visual amenity of the area and the scheme layout. As a consequence, this could also affect the number of dwellings which could satisfactorily be accommodated on the site.

Again it is the case that early contact with the local planning authority as promoted by the NPPF would have resulted in dialog which could perhaps have prevented this unresolved issue from being cited as a reason for refusing the application.

Air Quality The NNJCSS at policy 13 (l), amongst other things, requires development not to result in an unacceptable impact on neighbours by reason of pollution.

To ensure quality of life and safer and healthier communities the emerging JCS at policy 8 (e)(i) requires development not to have an unacceptable impact on amenities by reason of pollution, whilst 8 (e)(ii) goes further by stating that both new and existing development should be prevented from contributing to or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of air pollution.

Chapter 11 of the NPPF offers broad advice on how local planning authorities should prevent both existing and new development from being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of air pollution.

The PPG at paragraph 001 of the air quality section dated 6 March 2014 states that 'It is important that the potential impact of new development on air quality is taken into account in planning where the national assessment indicates that relevant limits have been exceeded or are near the limit.' The guidance goes on to explain the implications for local authorities if national objectives are not met which this will include measures in pursuit of the objectives which could have implications for planning. The PPG at paragraph 009 demonstrates how considerations about air quality fit into the development management process.

The application has clearly been submitted since the issue of the government advice on air quality and the council's environmental protection service (EPS) has identified that there could be implication for air quality due to the increased levels of congestion at busy road junctions and the presence nearby of the railway. The service mentions that there is no information regarding air quality contained in the application. The need to take air quality into consideration may come as a surprise to the applicant, but this issue could quite reasonably have been flagged up if the applicant had engaged with the council at the pre application stage as suggested by the NPPF.

The EPS has not suggested that the application be refused on this issue but it has recommended a condition be imposed regarding air quality if the application is to be

Planning Committee 58 of 146 10 February 2016

permitted.

It is considered that due to the rural location of the village it is most likely that adequate information could reasonably be provided by the applicant to assuage the concerns which have been brought up by the EPS. Therefore there is no robust reason to recommend the application for refusal due to the lack of information provided by the applicant on this issue.

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that new development should provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards. Policy 13 (n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

Emerging JCS policy 8 (place shaping principles) gives a number of requirements that new development should achieve with regards to highway, pedestrian and other sustainable transport matters.

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

Deep concern regarding the many aspects of highway safety and the unsustainable location of the application site has been raised by the parish council and numerous local residents. Criticism has been levelled at the design of the roads which objectors suggest could allow for a future development on the rest of the site. This concern is acknowledged, but if another application comes forward at a later date for more homes, it will be determined in accord with the development plan policy in force at the time and taking into account all the material planning considerations.

Northamptonshire Highways has objected to the application, as originally submitted, and therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy 13 (d) and 13 (n) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and emerging policy 8(a)(i)(ii)(iv) and 8(b)(i)(ii)(v) of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy. The proposal is also inconsistent with the provisions of the NPPF.

Flood Risk and Drainage The NNCSS at policy 13 (q) requires development not to cause a risk to increase the risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere, and where possible, incorporate sustainable drainage systems.

The emerging JCS at policy 5 sets out a number of sub policies aimed at preventing or reducing flood risk.

Planning Committee 59 of 146 10 February 2016

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

Concern has been expressed by objectors who consider that the site is liable to flood and their concern is appreciated given the proximity of the site to a watercourse. However, as can be seen from the responses above the consultees who have had an input into this issue are, subject to the imposition of conditions, satisfied with the information which accompanies the application on this matter.

Affordable Housing Emerging policy 30 (housing mix and tenure) of the JCS requires, amongst other things, requires that schemes which propose 11 or more dwellings in the rural areas should be 40% affordable.

It is accepted that paragraph 47 of the NPPF says that local planning authorities should significantly boost the supply of housing, but in paragraph 54 it mentions that in rural areas affordable housing development should reflect local needs.

The council's housing development officer has stated that the proposed affordable housing in the scheme is in excess of the identified need in Isham but goes on to comment in details on the mix and affordable tenure.

It is suggested that the provision of affordable housing could in appropriate circumstances be welcome. However, it is recommended that in the context of this application insufficient weight should be accorded to the increase in supply of affordable housing to warrant recommending the application for approval when the identified need in the village will in all probability be met with the build out of WP/15/00188/FUL.

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

In addition to the above regulations the government has recently updated its Planning Practice Guidance with regards to planning obligations.

There have been a number of requests lodged for section 106 contributions to mitigate for the effects of the proposed development which are noted. However, it is considered that the potential provision of facilities and affordable housing and contributions to other services in the village and elsewhere do not result in the application being acceptable

Planning Committee 60 of 146 10 February 2016

when the scheme is unacceptable as a matter of principle.

CONCLUSION The council has a five year housing land supply and therefore the restrictive development plan policies and emerging development plan policies regarding housing development in the open countryside are considered to be up-to-date. The proposed development is contrary to the policies because it is outside the village policy line and as a result is recommended for refusal.

The proposed development is located outside the village of Isham which, by way of its lack of facilities, is not considered to be a sustainable location for this amount of development.

RECOMMENDATION Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

REASONS

1. The proposed development represents an unacceptable development in the open countryside. The sustainable pattern of development required by the development plan is considered to outweigh the benefits that would be associated with an increase in the borough's housing supply. The proposal therefore does not conform with policies: 1 (strengthening the network of settlements) and 9 (distribution and location of development) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and saved policy H4 (restraint villages and the open countryside) of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. In addition, the proposal is considered not to conform with emerging policies: 1, 11(2)(a) and (b) and 29 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

2. The applicant has not satisfactory demonstrated that the future residents of the development would be adequately protected from the harmful effects of noise which emanates from the nearby railway line. The proposal therefore does not conform with emerging policy 8(e)(ii) of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and is also inconsistent with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The applicant has not satisfactory demonstrated that the proposal would not cause significant harm to safety in the local highway network or comply with adopted highway standards. The proposal therefore does not conform with policy 13(d) and 13(n) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and emerging policy 8(a)(i)(ii)(iv) and 8b)(i)(ii)(v) of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy. The proposal is also inconsistent with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

INFORMATIVE 1. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and

Planning Committee 61 of 146 10 February 2016

proactive way to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant provisions in the framework.

Planning Committee 62 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Erica Buchanan WP/15/00635/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 8 Oct 2015 9 Oct 2015 4 Dec 2015 Harrowden & Sywell Little Harrowden

Applicant Seagrave Developments Limited

Agent Mr David Calder

Location The Ten O Clock 42 Main Street Little Harrowden Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN9 5BB

Proposal Minor amendment to planning application WP/15/00207/FUL to include elevation change to Plot 2 and demolition and re-build of the former public house due to its poor structural condition

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/14/00783/FUL Application withdrawn/undetermined 13.01.2015 Proposed change of use from Public House (A4 use class). Including the demolition of the existing Public House (PH) and the erection of 9 no. dwellings (C3 use class), comprising 6 x 2 beds and 3 x 3 beds.

WP/15/00207/FUL Approved with conditions 13.05.2015 Proposed conversion of and alterations to the existing Public House (A4 use class) to create a four bed dwelling (1 x 4 bed) and the erection of three new four bed dwellings (3 x 4 bed) within its curtilage with associated parking provision and landscaping.

WP/15/00511/CND Part discharged 25.11.2015 Details submitted pursuant to conditions 3 (materials), 4 (clarification of all areas not covered by buildings), 5 (tree protection measures), 8 (archaeology) of planning permission ref: WP/15/00207/FUL. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

WP/15/00635/FUL Determination pending. Minor amendment to planning application WP/15/00207/FUL to include elevation change to Plot 2 and demolition and re-build of the former public house due to its poor structural condition

Planning Committee 63 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00635/FUL

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. This map is accurate Legend 1:1,250 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/15/00635/FUL - The Ten O Clock, 42 Main Street, Little Harrowden

WP/2012/0224 Application withdrawn/undetermined 04.11.2014 Outline application for residential development of 3 dwellings - approval for access, layout and scale being sought at this stage. Letter and Revised Drawings. Additional Information.

WP/2012/0223 Application withdrawn/undetermined 04.11.2014 Conversion from Public House (A4 use class) with associated first floor living accommodation to 2 no. dwellings (C3 use class) including proposed two storey extensions to rear of property. Letter and Revised Drawings - Additional information.

WP/1999/0350 Refused 06.10.1999 Site for construction of three houses & revised public house car park

WP/1998/0082 Approved with conditions 03.06.1998 Site for construction of two houses and revised public house car park

WR/1969/0039 Approved 31.03.1969 Garage

WR/1964/0154 Approved 08.09.1964 Car parking area

WR/1963/0053 Approved 19.04.1963 Alterations to public house

WR/1956/0024 Approved 02.03.1956 Ladies lavatory

Reason for Committee Consideration

- The original proposal was determined by planning committee

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS: The application site comprises a vacant public house with a car park to the side and rear amenity space. The former public house is a two storey detached building and is neither statutorily nor locally listed. The area surrounding the site is predominantly residential and the Manor House to the northeast of the application site is grade II listed. The application site is located inside the village policy line in the restricted infill village of Little Harrowden. The site abuts Bank Hill View to the south and rear.

Planning Committee 64 of 146 10 February 2016

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL: Permission has recently been granted for the retention and alteration to the former public house building to provide a 4-bed dwellinghouse and to erect 3 detached 4-bed dwellings. All properties would be two storeys in height and therefore the principal of residential use of the site is established.

The current application is for minor amendments to plot 2 which comprises moving the front single storey projection to line with the side elevation and reduce the height by 225mm. In addition the application includes the demolition and rebuild of the former public house (plot 1). The original approval was to convert the existing building, however this building is deemed unsafe for conversion and the application has been submitted with an accompanying structural report to substantiate this. The proposed rebuild would be predominantly identical to the existing with some minor alterations which include alterations to the internal layout, increased size of the first floor windows, eaves and ridges so as to facilitate a safer internal window sill height. The proposed replacement building would not exceed the height of the existing building.

The alterations include the removal of the carport to the rear of plot 1 and replace it with blocked paved surface parking.

Since this planning application has been submitted the public house has been demolished.

Demolition of a building amounts to 'building operations' (section 55(1A) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) and comes within the definition of 'development' for planning purposes. Part 11, Schedule 2 of The Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015) relates to heritage and demolition.

Class B states that any building operation consisting of the demolition of a building is permitted development however this is subject to restrictions and conditions.

In terms of the former public house which falls within class A4 (drinking establishments) restrictions on its demolition apply if the building has been nominated under section 89(2) of the Localism Act 2011 for a building to be included in a list of assets of community value. This has not been the case with this building.

In terms of demolition, as it was not in residential use, it does not fall within an excepted category nor is it listed, in a conservation area, or subject to an article 4 direction. Therefore it is considered that its demolition is permitted development.

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

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction) 15 (Sustainable Housing Provision)

Planning Committee 65 of 146 10 February 2016

Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policies: G4 (Development within the Limited Development and Restricted Infill Villages)

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) 4 (Biodiversity & Geodiversity) 6 (Development on Brownfield Land and Land Affected by Contamination) 9 (Sustainable Buildings and Allowable Solutions) 29 (Distribution of New Homes) 30 (Housing Mix and Tenure)

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Parish Council - no comments or concerns

2. NCC Highways - no objection subject to conditions.

3. Northamptonshire Police - have no objections subject to informatives in relation to designing out crime in accordance with policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

4. Wellingborough Civic Society - is wholly supportive of this amendment to the original planning application. It is admirable to note that Seagrave Developments are taking the important issue of heritage conservation into account. If reuse of the original stone proves impossible, substitute materials are identified with care and accuracy in order to preserve the unique heritage and character of the village street scene for future generations.

5. Councillor Lawman - should re-use existing materials.

6. Neighbours. - comment from 147 Main Street - If the building has been found to be unsafe, then it needs re-building. However I hope the 'matching materials' mentioned are in fact mostly the existing stone, and any 'new' stone used will be as close in style, size and colour of the original as possible so it retains the character of the building as it is now, including the use of the '10 O'clock' signs as was originally planned.

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

- Conformity with the development plan and material considerations; - Design, layout and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding

Planning Committee 66 of 146 10 February 2016

area - Effect on heritage assets; - Effect/impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and the future occupiers of the development; - Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to (the proposed access arrangement and parking provision);

Policy 13 of the NNCSS and the SPD on Sustainable Design require new development to be of a high standard of design, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings, and not result in an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties or wider area; by reason of noise, loss of light or overlooking. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out the 12 core principles one of which is to seek to secure high quality design and good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers and paragraph 56 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

The proposed amended scheme is deemed to be in accordance with development plan polices as it is considered that the amendments do not harm the character of its surroundings or result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties and does not substantially differ from the approved scheme.

Design, Layout, Character and Appearance The site abuts a modern residential development served by Bank Hill View, which comprises a terrace of dwellings. Opposite the site to the north is a mixture of dwelling types. The amendments proposed to plot 2 and the rebuild of plot 1 still retain the character and frontage of surrounding properties whilst integrating the new development into the street scene by retaining the linear frontage to Main Street.

The proposed development would be constructed in materials which sympathise with local vernacular and details have been submitted and approved in respect of plots 2, 3 and 4 however as the scheme now includes the demolition of the main building a suitably worded pre-commencement condition in relation to plot 1 should be imposed.

Overall, the design, layout, scale and appearance of the proposed development are satisfactory and would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surroundings.

Impact on the Setting of the Listed Building The site adjoins the Manor House sited to the northeast which is Grade II Listed and is separated from the proposal site by a high brick wall supplemented by substantial tree planting which provides considerable screening. Policy 13 requires new developments to respect and enhance the landscape character, historic landscape and designated environmental assets and their settings. Overall, the alterations to the scheme would

Planning Committee 67 of 146 10 February 2016

not adversely affect the setting of the listed building.

Whilst the existing building is not listed or locally listed it has some historic value within the street scene and as such is considered as a non-designated heritage asset and paragraph 135 of the NPPF states that account in determining the application should be taken to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

In respect of the proposed replacement building it is considered that its design and location reflects the existing building so as not to cause detriment to the existing streetscene

Amenity Impact There is no change in the proposed amendments from the approved scheme and therefore it would comply with the layout design considerations in Policy 13 of the NNCSS.

Parking Provision and Highway Impact There is no proposed alteration to the parking provision and it is not considered that the removal of the car port to plot 1 would result in any issues relating to parking. NCC Highways have not raised objection.

Conclusion The application site is located inside the village policy line in a restricted infill village of Little Harrowden where limited development would be permitted and residential use of the site has been established with the approved application WP/15/00207/FUL.

The proposed alteration to plot 2 by the re-positioning of the front single storey element is not considered to be detrimental to the streetscene. The proposed replacement building to the existing public house is sensitively designed to reflect the style and appearance of this non-designated heritage asset and thereby the proposal does not have a detrimental impact on the visual appearance within the streetscene.

CONCLUSION The proposed development complies with the relevant development plan policies and is consistent with the provisions in the NPPF specifically in relation to promoting sustainable development, raising design standards, conserving the environment etc. In the absence of any material considerations of sufficient weight, it is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION Approve subject to the following conditions.

CONDITIONS/REASONS

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

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

Planning Committee 68 of 146 10 February 2016

2. This consent is based on drawing LH-191-C3 A, LH-191-CA A received 08 October 2015.

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

3. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials for plot 1 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced.

Reason: To ensure that the replacement building maintains the visual quality of the area in accordance with policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

4. The car parking spaces shown on the approved drawings shall be laid out and provided before the occupation of the dwellings and shall thereafter be kept free from obstruction and shall be retained for parking purposes for the occupiers of the development and their visitors.

Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and in order to prevent additional parking in surrounding streets which, could be detrimental to amenity and prejudicial to safety in accordance with Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

5. The means of access shall be laid out as a shared private drive having a width of no less than 4.5m for a distance of 10m in rear of the highway boundary. To prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway the first 5m of the driveway shall be paved with a hard bound surface. A positive means of drainage shall be installed to ensure that surface water from the driveway does not discharge onto the highway. The vehicular crossing shall be re-constructed as necessary and all highway surfaces affected by the proposals reinstated in accordance with the specification of the Local Highway Authority and subject to a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980. All land in advance of the vehicle to vehicle visibility splays shall be laid out and dedicated as highway maintainable at the public expense in the form of footway constructed in accordance with the specification of the Local Highway Authority and subject to a licence under the Highways Act 1980. Pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2m x 2m above a height of 0.6m shall be provided and maintained in both directions at the point of vehicular access into the site.

Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety.

6. 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, in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 141.

Planning Committee 69 of 146 10 February 2016

INFORMATIVE/S 1. In accordance with the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and pursuant to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where possible and feasible, either through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the approved development is consistent with the relevant provisions in the framework.

2. The applicant is advised that planning permission does not automatically allow the construction of the vehicle crossing, details of which require the approval of the Highway Authority. In this regard you should contact the Highways Regulation Team Leader, Northamptonshire County Council, County Hall, George Row, Northampton, NN1 1AS prior to any construction/excavation works within the public highway.

3. The Public Health Act 1875 Town Improvement Clauses Act 1847 at S.64. Prior to occupation of the newly created premises(s), the street numbering for this development must be agreed with the Street Naming and Numbering Officer. When issued, the number allocated must be clearly displayed on the outside of the property. Application forms for Street Naming and Numbering are available at www.wellingborough.gov.uk

4. All doors and windows in domestic dwelling should meet the requirements of Approved Document Q of Building Regulations. Northamptonshire Police recommend the use of 3rd party accredited products. When the lighting scheme has been produced it is important that as well as adopted areas being considered that unadopted areas are similarly treated for safety and security reasons. Internal fence panels should be 1.8m high for the length of the garden.

Planning Committee 70 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mrs Louise Jelley WP/15/00661/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward 19 October 2015 27 October 2015 22 December 2015 Swanspool

Applicant Wellingborough Borough Council

Agent Mr S Collins

Location 31 - 32 Church Street Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 4PA

Proposal Demolition of unstable property

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00661/FUL Determination pending. Demolition of unstable property

WU/0064/0009 Non determination Double sided sign

WP/0092/0020 Refused Triangular totem sign

WU/0071/0006 Approved Illuminated fascia sign

BW/1990/0068 Approved with conditions 01.03.1990 Extension to rear and internal alterations including new shop front

WU/1963/0146 Approved 11.09.1963 Alterations to form ground floor restaurant with living accommodation.

WU/1963/0119 Approved with conditions 10.07.1963 Permanent use of living accommodation and shops as restaurant.

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

- This application is presented to committee as it is a council owned building

Planning Committee 71 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00661/FUL

This report is an information item only for Members to take account of and to confirm the proposed conditions. Due to the nature of the application, the proposal has to be determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with The Town and Country Planning General (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2013'.

The Town and Country Planning General (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2013 makes provision for the Secretary of State to determine planning applications made by a local planning authority which relates to the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area in accordance with a procedure set out within the Regulations.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS This application site is situated within the town centre of Wellingborough. The building is located within Church Street, to the west of All Hallows Church, in close proximity to the junction with the High Street. The building sits within the designated conservation area of the town and borders the primary retail area and the commercial fringe area as defined within the Wellingborough town centre area action plan (WTCAPP).

APPLICATION PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND The application proposes to demolish the existing building on the site (31-32 High Street).

The justification for the demolition of the building within the conservation area is due to safety as the building is considered to be very unstable.

The application details as submitted state that the property became unstable a number of years ago, at which point the council undertook remedial works to stabilise the structure. The building has been in this state for in excess of 5 years and is considered to be an eyesore. Building control officers have confirmed that the building should be removed for safety reasons as a matter of urgency.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - Section 12 Planning Practice Guidance

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles)

Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan WTC8 - Commercial Fringe Area WTC12 - Heritage

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policy 2 (Historic Environment)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Wellingborough Town Centre Conservation Area Appraisal

Planning Committee 72 of 146 10 February 2016

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Historic England - No objection in principle to the proposed scheme.

2. Councillor Lawman - The notice given under Article 11 has been completed with 23 Church Street, not 31/32.

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The main issue in this case is the impact the proposal would have upon the character and appearance of the conservation area and if its demolition would lead to more than substantial harm.

The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) was submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2015. Examination hearings took place in November 2015. It is therefore at an advanced stage. Whilst there are unresolved objections to the overall housing numbers, there are fewer objections to the core policies. The spatial strategy is also largely the same as the adopted strategy in that it prioritises development in the urban areas, thereby adopting a sustainable distribution of development. The policies are consistent with the policies in the framework and should therefore be given significant weight in making a decision.

Effect on Heritage Assets: Conservation Area, Setting of Listed Buildings, Archaeology Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on a decision maker to pay special attention to the need to preserve and enhance the character or appearance of a conservation area.

Policy 13(o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) requires new development to, amongst other things, conserve and enhance designated built environmental assets and their settings.

The salient part of policy WTC12 says that buildings, and their setting, which form part of the architectural and historic fabric of the town centre will be protected.

Policy 2 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) states that the north northamptonshire historic environment will be protected, preserved and where appropriate enhanced.

With regards the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), chapter 12 sets out the government's advice on conserving and enhancing the historic environment and at paragraph no. 138 it says that not all elements of a conservation area will necessarily contribute to its significance.

Paragraph 135 of the NPPF states that applications which impact non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Planning Committee 73 of 146 10 February 2016

Paragraph 138 states that the loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the conservation area should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the conservation area as a whole. A key aspect of this is to consider whether or not the building in question actually makes a positive contribution to the significance of the conservation area. This will have a bearing on the judgment to be made when considering substantial harm.

Wellingborough town centre is to undergo significant change over the coming years and it is important that new development is accommodated into the town's historic urban fabric in a sensitive way that makes a positive contribution to the look and feel of the town centre.

In this case, it is noted that the application property is described as a building of 'townscape merit' with a well defined frontage along the principal elevation within the conservation area appraisal (2009). Therefore its proposed loss is regrettable but the appraisal was written prior to the need to carry out remedial works to the property which has subsequently impacted upon its contribution to the character and appearance of the town centre conservation area in a negative way. Its deterioration now means that its value within the conservation area is severely diminished, and it is difficult to argue that the building in its current state contributes in a positive way. Its loss is therefore unlikely to result in substantial harm to the surrounding conservation area.

Whilst it is acknowledged that paragraph 136 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occured, allowing the demolition of this building will assist in facilitating the regeneration of this part of the town centre, as well as removing a dangerous structure. When a replacement scheme comes forward its redevelopment, either for this site or as part of a bigger scheme this will provide an opportunity to help redefine and improve this part of the conservation area to create a positive impact. Until the redevelopment proposals are defined, an important consideration is that demolition will result in a void along this part of Church Street. In terms of the removal of this building of townscape merit, however, the prescence of a void, in place of a building in such a deteriorated state, would have a neutral effect on the conservation area in comparative terms.

The application form states that there is a view to working up an acceptable scheme in due course but there are no specific details provided as part of the application.

Therefore, to be sure the character and appearance of the conservation area is preserved or enhanced, and the setting of neighbouring heritage assets are protected, it is important to ensure that any subsequent redevelopment plan takes account of the well defined frontage provided by the existing building and ensure that the height and scale of any new building remains in keeping with the traditional scale and character of the town. As a result it is suggested that a condition be imposed to reinstate the traditional building line and scale of the property so that it positively enhances the surrounding conservation area.

Planning Committee 74 of 146 10 February 2016

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development The Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13(l) says that proposed development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking.

The demolition would result in noise but only for a temporary period of time. It is considered that subject to redevelopment of the site, any new building/development proposed would take account of neighbouring amenity issues.

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety Policy 13(n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety. Due to the proximity of the building with the highway it is imperative that northamptonshire highways are notified of the proposed works prior to implementation.

Matters It is noted that Councillor Lawman has raised the issue of the Article 11 notice containing incorrect address details. This was completed in error but in any event, the planning application did not need to provide a notice under Article 11. Article 11 is completed where an application is made and the owners of the site are not known. In this instance, the owners of the site are the council and have been notified of the scheme in the correct way. As such, although Article 11 was completed incorrectly, it wasn't needed for the application in any case. Therefore, the application has been dealt with appropriately.

CONCLUSION To inform Members of the proposed application to demolish an unlisted building within Wellingborough town centre conservation area, to confirm the proposed conditions and to confirm that the decision will be determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with The Town and Country Planning General (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2013'.

RECOMMENDATION The Borough Council of Wellingborough recommends to the Secretary of State that the demolition of 31-32 High Street is an acceptable proposal in principle taking into account the above issues. As the applicant we would be happy to accept the conditions proposed should the Secretary of State be minded to approve the application.

CONDITION/REASON

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

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

Planning Committee 75 of 146 10 February 2016

Planning Committee 76 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Paul Bateman WP/15/00664/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 15 Oct 2015 20 Oct 2015 15 Dec 2015 Harrowden & Sywell Isham

Applicant Mr G Connolly

Location 86 Orlingbury Road Isham Kettering Northamptonshire NN14 1HW

Proposal Temporary use of former garden room as residential accommodation (for 12 months) - additional information and plans

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00664/FUL Determination pending. Temporary use of former garden room as residential accommodation (for 12 months) - additional information and plans

WP/16/00008/CND Determination pending. Details submitted pursuant to condition 3 of planning permission ref: WP/2014/0093

WP/2014/0093 Approved with conditions 01.10.2014 Demolition of existing dwelling and garage. Erection of new dwelling and garage - AMENDED PLANS

WP/2013/0507 Refused 18.12.2013 Demolition of existing dwelling and garage. Erection of new dwelling - re-submission following refusal of WP/2013/0007/F.

WP/2013/0007 Refused 03.04.2013 Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of new dwelling and detached garage.

WR/1973/0372 Refused 12.03.1974 Two bungalows (in grounds)

WR/1965/0201 Approved 20.10.1965 Proposed garage

Planning Committee 77 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00664/FUL

WR/1963/0006 Approved 29.01.1963 Proposed bungalow and garage

WR/1961/0178 Approved with conditions 12.01.1962 House

Reason for Committee Consideration

- The Parish Council has raised an objection to the proposal

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application building is rustic looking single storey pitched roof building which is located to the rear of, but within the recognisable curtilage of a site, on which a replacement dwellinghouse is currently being constructed.

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL The application is retrospective and has been submitted as a result of planning enforcement enquiries.

The applicant has supplied additional information which sets out how the building has been used for ancillary accommodation in the past and a plan which illustrates how the building is now being used as a unit of residential accommodation with: two bedrooms, kitchen/living room and a bathroom.

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

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) 9 (Distribution and Location of Development) 10 (Distribution of Housing) 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction) 15 (Sustainable Housing Provision)

Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policies: G6 (Development within the Open Countryside) H4 (Housing Sites in Restraint Villages and the Open Countryside)

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) 3 (Landscape Character) 4 (Biodiversity & Geodiversity) 8 (North Northamptonshire Place Shaping Principles)

Planning Committee 78 of 146 10 February 2016

9 (Sustainable Buildings and Allowable Solutions) 29 (Distribution of New Homes) 30 (Housing Mix and Tenure)

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Isham Parish Council - objects to the application on the grounds that it considers the submitted plans are inaccurate.

The Parish Council requests that if permission is granted it should be from August 2015 when the building was first occupied, or for 12 months or until the new building is constructed, whichever is the sooner.

2. Northamptonshire Highways - refers to its standing advice. The company recommends that the planning permission should enure for the benefit of the applicant only to ensure the property remains as a single unit.

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

- Conformity with the development plan and material considerations - Effect on landscape visual amenity - Effect on biodiversity - Effect/impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers - Effect/impact on highway safety - Crime and disorder - Planning conditions

The key policy is saved local plan policy H4 which sets out a number of criteria which development in the open countryside should meet to be acceptable in terms of planning policy. In brief they relate to dwellings for:

- essential agricultural or forestry workers - replacement dwellings - affordable housing on the edge of villages

The permission for a replacement dwellinghouse on the site is being implemented, and it is considered that to grant a temporary planning permission whilst the main dwelling

Planning Committee 79 of 146 10 February 2016

on the site is in the process of construction is in accord with policy.

Effect on Landscape Visual Amenity Policy 13(o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy requires new development, amongst other things, to conserve and enhance the landscape character; historic landscape designated built environmental assets and their settings.

The building is within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse and it is considered that it does not have a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the open countryside.

Effect on Biodiversity No biodiversity issues have been identified.

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety Policy 13(d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that new development should provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards. Policy 13(n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

Northamptonshire Highways does not oppose the application and has made reference to its standing advice. With regards to its suggested condition regarding any permission being for the benefit of the applicant only, it is suggested that a temporary planning permission will suffice.

Effect/Impact on the Living Conditions of Neighbouring Occupiers The Core Spatial Strategy policy 13(l) says that proposed development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking.

No comment has been received from the nearby residential occupiers. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is considered that the effects of this temporary development on the neighbours' standard of residential amenity will not be so significant to warrant recommending this application for refusal.

Crime and Disorder No crime and disorder issues have been identified.

Planning Conditions The NPPF at paragraph 206 requires conditions to only be imposed where they are: necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. The Planning Practice Guidance re- iterates this advice.

It is considered that the proposed condition meets the tests set out in the NPPF and the provisions of the PPG.

Planning Committee 80 of 146 10 February 2016

Other Issues The comments of the parish council with regards to the accuracy of the plans are acknowledged. However, it is considered that it clear from the plans and other details which accompany the application which building on the site the application relates to and what the proposal is for.

CONCLUSION The proposed development conforms to the relevant development plan policies and is consistent with the provisions in the NPPF. In the absence of any material considerations of sufficient weight, it is recommended that the proposal be temporarily permitted.

RECOMMENDATION Grant temporary planning permission subject to the following conditions.

CONDITIONS/REASONS

1. The use of the building for residential accommodation shall cease on or before 10 February 2017 and the building shall be restored to its former use as ancillary residential accommodation.

Reason: The use of the building for residential accommodation is of a temporary nature during the construction of the principal dwellinghouse on the site and its permanent retention would not comply with policies: 1, 9, and 10 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, policy H4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and emerging policies 1, 8, and 29 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

2. The development shall be carried out in accord with the plans received on 20 October 2015 and 7 January 2016.

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

Planning Committee 81 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Maxine Simmons WP/15/00669/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward 20 October 2015 29 October 2015 24 December 2015 Swanspool

Applicant Wellingborough Borough Council

Agent Mr S Collins

Location 17 & 18 High Street Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 4JU

Proposal The demolition of the existing redundant and derelict structures

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/14/00175/FUL Determination pending. Redevelopment of existing car park on High Street Wellingborough for houses, apartments and car parking - Part Full and Part Outline: Full detail of 109 dwellings and car park and: Outline application for Residential independent living development with details of access to be considered. CHANGES TO LAYOUT, NUMBER OF DWELLINGS AND ELEVATIONS.

WP/15/00669/FUL Determination pending. The demolition of the existing redundant and derelict structures

WU/0072/0010 Approved with conditions 31.03.1972 Illuminated fascia sign

WP/1994/0041 Approved with conditions 02.03.1994 Illuminated shop fascia sign

WP/2003/0442 Refused 18.08.2003 x2 external double sided banners projecting from building at 90 degrees with steel brackets (to advertise existing fish and chip shop at premises).

Planning Committee 82 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00669/FUL

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

- This application is presented to committee as they are council owned buildings

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS This application site is situated within the town centre of Wellingborough. The building is located on the west side of High Street, close to the junction with St. John's Street. The building sits within the designated conservation area of the town and the commercial fringe area as defined within the Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan (WTCAAP). The site is also part of the High Street/Jackson's Lane site which is covered by policy PS3 of the WTCCAAP.

APPLICATION PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND The application proposes to demolish two existing buildings on the site (17-18 High Street). The properties are linked at first floor level and separated at ground floor level by a pedestrian walkway.

Number 17 High Street consists of a two storey property, with a vacant ground floor shop unit in pebble dash, and a first floor residential flat in red brick with a front gable. This adjoins number 18 at first floor level which consists of a vacant hairdresser's shop on the ground floor and two floors of residential accommodation above with a hipped roof. Both properties have concrete tiles. The external treatment of 18 High Street is in painted render, with UPVC casement windows.

The justification for the demolition of the building within the conservation area is to enable the flexible approach to regeneration proposals of this part of the town centre, as well as the buildings being in a poor state of repair, partly as a result of age and vandalism.

The buildings are adjacent to buildings of townscape merit which are non-designated heritage assets.

The buildings were the subject of a compulsory purchase order to facilitate the regeneration of this part of the town centre, and are now owned by the council.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - section 12 Planning Practice Guidance

Planning Committee 83 of 146 10 February 2016

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles)

Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan WTC8 - Commercial Fringe Area WTC12 - Heritage Policy PS 3 - High Street/Jackson's Lane

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policy 2 (Historic Environment)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Wellingborough Town Centre Conservation Area Appraisal

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Historic England - no objection in principle to the proposed scheme. Application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy and on basis if specialist conservation advice.

2. Conservation Officer - properties are within the conservation area as adopted in 2009. They are not listed or noted as buildings of townscape merit. Number 17 appears to be an infill property from about 1920. The stone side wall of number 18 suggests an older building was extended to 3 stories, probably also around 1920. Building condition is poor, with unsympathetic alterations, including shopfronts, windows and window openings and concrete tiles. These two properties make a negative contribution to the conservation area, so demolition would be positive. The indicative scheme shows buildings that match adjacent properties on the High Street which are buildings of townscape merit.

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The main issue in this case is the impact the proposal would have upon the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The site is part of the High Street Jackson's lane site allocation in the Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan (WTCAAP). This establishes the principle of their loss as part of the wider regeneration of the town centre. The remaining issue to establish is

Planning Committee 84 of 146 10 February 2016

whether or not the demolition of these two buildings will lead to substantial harm within the conservation area.

The salient part of policy WTC12 says that buildings, and their setting, which form part of the architectural and historic fabric of the town centre will be protected.

Policy 2 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) states that the North Northamptonshire historic environment will be protected, preserved and where appropriate enhanced.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), chapter 12 sets out government advice on conserving and enhancing the historic environment and at paragraph no.138 it says that not all elements of a conservation area will necessarily contribute to its significance.

Paragraph 135 of the NPPF states that applications which impact on non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

The loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the conservation area should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the conservation area as a whole.

In this case, the properties in question are not listed as buildings of 'townscape merit' (2009). Elements of their elevations are unattractive, due to their design, materials, and poor state of repair. Their floor levels and windows do not match and are unbalanced. Number 17 has unsympathetic pebble dash on the ground floor, and both have windows and window openings that detract from the conservation area. The conservation officer considers that their loss would be a positive contribution to the conservation area. As a result, it is not considered that the character or appearance of the conservation area would suffer from substantial harm due to their demolition.

Paragraph 136 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should not permit the loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to

Planning Committee 85 of 146 10 February 2016

ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred. The wider redevelopment of the High Street/ Jackson's Lane site has been identified as a key aspiration of the local plan and the demolition would facilitate a flexible approach to the regeneration of this part of the town centre, helping to redefine and improve this part of the conservation area and have a positive impact upon it.

When a replacement scheme comes forward its redevelopment, either for this site or as part of a bigger scheme, this will provide an opportunity to help redefine and improve this part of the conservation area to create a positive impact. Until the redevelopment proposals are defined, the demolition will result in a void along this part of the High Street. However, it is preferable to have a void, which has a neutral effect upon the conservation area, instead of buildings in a poor state of repair which are having a negative effect on the conservation area.

The application includes an indicative drawing to illustrate how this part of the redevelopment site could be reinstated. As this is part of a larger redevelopment site, the detail of this may subsequently change. In order to ensure that the character and appearance of the conservation area is preserved or enhanced, and the setting of the neighbouring heritage assets are protected, it is important to ensure that any subsequent redevelopment plan takes account of the well defined frontage provided by the existing buildings. It is desirable to ensure that the height and scale of replacement buildings respect the character of the conservation area. As a result it is suggested that a condition be imposed to reinstate the traditional building line so that it positively enhances the surrounding conservation area.

Impact on the Living Conditions of the Neighbouring Occupiers and the Future Occupiers of the Development The Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13(l) says that proposed development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking.

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety Policy 13 (n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety. Due to the proximity of the building with the highway it is imperative that Northamptonshire highways are notified of the proposed works prior to implementation.

Planning Committee 86 of 146 10 February 2016

RECOMMENDATION The Borough Council of Wellingborough recommends to the Secretary of State that the demolition of 17-18 High Street is an acceptable proposal in principle taking into account the above issues. As the applicant we would be happy to accept the conditions proposed should the Secretary of State be minded to approve the application.

CONDITION/REASON

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

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

Planning Committee 87 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mrs Louise Jelley WP/15/00705/OUT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 6 November 2015 10 November 2015 9 February 2016 Irchester Irchester

Applicant Bowbridge Land Limited & Mr A Lewis

Agent Mr Martin Bagshaw

Location Land Corner London Road And Gipsy Lane London Road Little Irchester Wellingborough Northamptonshire

Proposal Outline application for residential development of up to 200 dwellings with access off London Road, public open space, landscaping and ancillary infrastructure. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00705/OUT Determination pending. Outline application for residential development of up to 200 dwellings with access off London Road, public open space, landscaping and ancillary infrastructure. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

BW/1976/0684 Deemed approved 06.01.1977 Overhead 11 k.v. high voltage electric line

Committee Consideration:

- The application has attracted more than 3 objections; - This is a major development subject to a legal agreement; - This is a major development exceeding the threshold of delegated authority in the constitution

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS This application site lies to the south of Little Irchester, east of London Road and north of Gipsy Lane. Irchester Country Park is situated along the eastern edge of the site and a travellers site lies adjacent to the south eastern corner. It is bordered to the west by the A509 in addition to a ribbon of residential development within Little Irchester. To the immediate north of the site is an area of allotment land.

Planning Committee 88 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00705/OUT

8 4 1a 1b 2

LONDON ROAD 1 20 40

LBR MILTON ROAD 14 18 23

26 to 29 to 26 PW

TCBR 35 Hall L 43.3m 26

L E 28

29 30

29a

29b

Path (um)

Allotment Gardens

44.2m E

Track

31 A

A 509

38 Museum 41

46.6m E

LONDON ROAD

46.6m E

48.5m R E GP B 570 Travellers Site

E54.6m

E 59.1m A GIPSY LANE

Animals In Need (Animal Welfare Centre)49.7m E

G Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. Legend This map is accurate 1:2,500 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 WP/15/00705/OUT Land corner London Rd & Gipsy Ln, London Rd, Lt Irchester GetMapping PLC 1999 ± ETL

The application site measures approximately 7.88 hectares and is roughly rectangular in shape. The site has a moderate gradient running primarily from north east to south west. Main views into the site are from London Road and Gipsy Lane. The site lies outside the settlement boundary of Little Irchester and comprises agricultural land within open countryside.

BACKGROUND AND APPLICATION PROPOSAL This is an outline application with all detailed matters reserved for subsequent determination. Therefore, this proposal seeks to establish the principle of development on land in this location. The proposal is described as:

"Residential development of up to 200 dwellings with access off London Road, public open space, landscaping and ancillary infrastructure."

The indicative masterplan and accompanying Design and Access Statement submitted with the application indicates a primary access into the site from London Road. Proposed housing development is set out in several blocks across the site, the inclusion of a community building in the northern section of the site and three infiltration basins - one centrally located, one along the western boundary with the A509 and another towards the north of the site. Three footpath links into Irchester Country Park are also indicated, in addition to a footpath link towards Little Irchester and some landscape buffering predominantly along the eastern edge of the site which shares its boundary with the country park.

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

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) Policy 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) Policy 7 (Delivering Housing) Policy 6 (Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions) 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); and Policy 15 (Sustainable Housing Provision)

Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G2 (Flood Protection) Policy G4 (Villages) Policy G6 (Open Countryside) Policy H4 (Restraint Villages and The Open Countryside) Policy H8 (Affordable Housing) Policy H9 (Affordable Housing - Exception Sites)

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policy 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) Policy 2 (Historic Environment)

Planning Committee 89 of 146 10 February 2016

Policy 3 (Landscape Character) Policy 5 (Water Resources, Environment and Flood Risk Management) Policy 7 (Community Services and Facilities) Policy 8 (North Northamptonshire Place Shaping Principles) Policy 9 (Sustainable Buildings and Allowable Solutions) Policy 10 (Provision of Infrastructure) Policy 11(Network of Urban and Rural Areas) Policy 13 (Rural Exceptions) Policy 19 (The Delivery of Green Infrastructure) Policy 28 (Housing Requirements) Policy 29 (Distribution of New Homes) Policy 30 (Housing Mix and Tenure)

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Irchester Parish Council - objection: - The development is outside of the building policy line of Little Irchester, in open countryside and is located in the Nene Valley Nature Improvement area. - The land forms a feeding ground for birds, insects and animals between Irchester Country Park and the River Nene. - The scale of development will almost triple the size of Little Irchester. - It will provide a dormant and sedentary housing estate and will do little to enhance community spirit or ethos. - This scale of development at Little Irchester is unsustainable as Little Irchester does not have any facilities to provide community cohesion like a shop, school or public house. - School children living on this site would have to travel by car to the local school which would add to road congestion. - There is concern about sewage and water runoff from this site from local residents. - We have a number of concerns about the information contained within the Statement of Community Involvement.

2. Highways England - No objection.

3. NCC Highways - The Transport Statement currently does not include many of the standard areas of information required to assess the impacts of the proposed development and would have to be considered completely inadequate in terms of providing sufficient information for the LHA to assess the impacts of the development and any need for mitigation. The main areas required are summarised below:

As submitted the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not have a detrimental effect on highway safety and capacity and, without further

Planning Committee 90 of 146 10 February 2016

information being submitted, the Local Highway Authority reserves the right to recommend refusal.

4. NCC Bus and Rail Development Team - Bus service contribution - In line with similar sized developments across the county we would be seeking £1,000 per dwelling, paid on occupation. This would fund enhancements to the bus service between the development and Wellingborough town centre. The specific services it would enhance would be W8 Bozeat - Wellingborough and the new hourly Rushden - Irchester - Wellingborough service which will commence when Rushden Lakes opens next year. The developers are funding a half-hourly service from Rushden Lakes to Wellingborough, Rushden and Higham by negotiating with Stagecoach a timetable whereby the X46/X47 serve their development in lieu of Irchester and Little Irchester. A bus stop, in the vicinity of the entrance to the site, would be beneficial. As the northbound stop would be primarily used by boarding passengers a bus shelter would also be required. A wooden Littlethorpe-type shelter would be required, in order to protect waiting passengers from splash-back from passing vehicles and it should be located at the front of the hard-standing. The approximate cost of such a shelter, together with installation, is in the region of £6,000 (excluding VAT), and should be purchased by the Applicant. The Council would also require a commuted sum of £10,000 for 30 years' maintenance and vandalism repair to the shelter in order to take on its ownership. Finally, in order to allow residents of the development safe access to the northbound bus stop a central refuge on London Road would be required.

5. Environment Agency - No objection to the proposed development, subject to the imposition of a condition for the provision of mains foul sewage infrastructure on and off site.

6. Natural England - Natural England advises that there is currently not enough information to determine whether the likelihood of significant effects can be ruled out. We recommend you obtain information to help undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). Given the size and location of the proposed development an impact to the Special Protection Area (SPA) due to increased visitor numbers cannot be ruled out without mitigation being identified and we would recommend that an approach to mitigation is put forward by the applicants. Confirmation should be provided as to whether links to and improvements at the country park have been agreed with the park managers. Should measures relating to the country park not be confirmed it will be necessary for other mitigation options to be provided. Work completed to support the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy has identified a need for mitigation for new residential developments proposed within 3km of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA.

Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. Please refer to this to decide if there is a 'reasonable likelihood' of protected species being present on site.

Further response received from Natural England as part of additional information submitted - In principle the contribution to improved facilities at Irchester Country Park could be considered as mitigation for potential impacts to the SPA, however more information is required on what financial contributions have been agreed in order to lead to a meaningful amount of improvement. A contribution to the country park is

Planning Committee 91 of 146 10 February 2016

necessary and Natural England do not agree with the argument that the site is too far from access points to the SPA to have an effect; the evidence is based on linear distance, not distance by road. Please note that a new approach to mitigation is expected to be adopted by your authority later this year requiring all developers to contribute to a central fund to provide mitigation for the SPA.

7. NCC Development Management - request for financial contributions in respect of education, libraries, fire and rescue provisions.

Education From a Primary Education perspective, the nearest school to this development is Irchester Primary School. As of October 2015, the school was operating at over full capacity. Therefore a Primary Education contribution is required in order to ensure there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the number of pupils anticipated from this development.

Department for Education cost multiplier for Primary Education: Size 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed Cost n/a £1614 £3972 £4592

In terms of Secondary Education, the nearest school to this development is Wrenn School. Due to the large numbers of primary school pupils currently in the Wellingborough system, current pupil projection show that any spare capacity within the Secondary Schools in Wellingborough will be gone within the next 2 years. Therefore, the County Council is requesting all new development that feeds into the system to contribute towards increasing secondary education capacity within the area.

Department for Education cost multiplier for Secondary Education: Size 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed Cost n/a £1710 £4600 £5941

Libraries The following outlines the cost per dwelling type based on the expected numbers of residents for each type of unit: Size 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed Cost £109 £176 £239 £270

This contribution will go towards expansion and improvements at the library in Irchester, on which this development would have an impact. Irchester Library is well placed in the heart of the community and contributions would ensure that the service delivered to the growing population can be maintained.

Fire and Rescue A contribution rate of £106 per household is applied towards local fire and rescue infrastructure costs; this cost is based on the current cost per household of providing Fire and Rescue services.

£106 Per Household = 106 x 200 = £21,200.00

It is due to the need to manage community risk and maintain the Service's current response times that the contribution requested for this development is necessary to

Planning Committee 92 of 146 10 February 2016

make the development acceptable, and it is directly related as new housing increases the spread of community risk across the county.

8. NCC Archaeology - The assessment indicates that there is little evidence for significant archaeological remains on the site; however, after the assessment was prepared an evaluation to the north east identified Romano-British activity including a pottery kiln.

In light of this, a survey and trial trenching needs to be undertaken in advance of determination, as set out in paragraph 128 of the NPPF. Further information needs to be provided before the determination of this application.

9. NCC Minerals Team - The majority of the site is located within a sand and gravel Minerals Safeguarding Area (MSA). Therefore prior to any development taking place, the applicant should demonstrate how it meets Policy 32 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP) (adopted October 2014).

10. NCC Waste Planning Team - Prior to any development taking place, the applicant should demonstrate how it meets Policies 30 and 31 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP) (adopted October 2014). Proposals for the new development should seek to utilise the efficient use of resources in both the construction phase and its operation and encourage the integration of waste management facilities in areas of significant new development.

11. NCC Countryside Services - No objection in principal to this application but would like to ensure suitable mitigation so that the park is able to sustain the increased visitor pressure without detriment to the amenity. Financial contribution sought towards enhanced park infrastructure: - A requirement for the developer to install a suitable and secure boundary fence and screening along the entire boundary of the development with the park - A single point of access from the development into the park situated at a suitable point (to be agreed with us) to the south of the Railway Museum designed to allow pedestrian, cycling and mobility vehicles but prevent access by car. - Provision of a 3m wide, tarmac surfaced, pedestrian and cycle path linking the development with the park's trail network. - A one off payment of £50,000 towards the provision of enhanced park infrastructure sufficient to cope with the increased visitor use of 316 additional local users and prevent the decline of existing infrastructure, including: grass-block re-enforcement of 2x meadow parking areas; increased children's play capacity, increased toilet capacity; provision and management of additional dog waste bins.

12. NCC Local Lead Flood Authority - There is insufficient information to comment on the acceptability of the proposed surface water drainage scheme for the proposed development. The submitted surface water drainage information fails on the following: - The applicant is advocating the use of infiltration as the sole means of surface water disposal and the infiltration test results submitted would appear to indicate that this is feasible (subject to appropriate consideration of the local groundwater regime). However, in support of an outline planning application we would expect to see the following: - A calculation of the storage volume required to manage the 1% (1in100) plus climate change rainfall event.

Planning Committee 93 of 146 10 February 2016

- Plans showing the logical location of this storage within the proposed development. - Calculations of the current runoff from the site. - Details of who will maintain and fund the maintenance of the proposed drainage system over the lifetime of the development.

We cannot support the application until adequate surface water drainage information has been submitted.

13. Northants Wildlife Trust - Summarised comments on the Ecological Report: - There is a need for further survey work in respect of Bats, BCW should capture this need into an appropriate Planning Condition. - BCW should translate all of the consultant's recommendations set out on Page 13 of Ecological report into conditions. - A Planning Condition should be added which places a requirement upon the Applicant to produce an Ecological Management Plan (EMP).

14. BCW Housing - Should the development be considered to be acceptable, a Section 106 agreement should be drawn up requiring 40% (based on the emerging JCS policy) of the dwellings to be constructed, to be affordable housing units, with a split based on SHMA (2015), 5% to be wheelchair accessible. Based on 200 dwellings, 80 affordable units are to be provided, the preferred mix would be:- 70 social rent or affordable rent :- 30 x 1 bed flats or bungalows 20 x 2 bed houses 18 x 3 bed houses 2 x 4 bed houses

10 shared ownership: - 5 x 2 bed houses, 5 x 3 bed houses

The affordable housing should be located in clusters comprising between 12 and 18 units.

15. BCW Environmental Health - The applicant has submitted a contaminated land risk assessment (STM31997A-P01). A condition requiring a further report to be submitted and approved by the LPA should be included in any planning approval.

16. BCW Planning Policy - The council has demonstrated a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land. The housing policies of the development plan therefore in the context of paragraph 49 of the NPPF remain up-to-date. The level of rural development expected for the period up to 2021 has already been exceeded. The proposal does not satisfy the criteria for excepted development outside village confines. It does not involve re-use of buildings, is not required in order to meet local needs, is not small scale and is not solely for affordable housing. It is therefore contrary to policies 1, 9 and 10 of the CSS and saved policies G4, G6, H4 and H9 of the Wellingborough Local Plan. In addition the proposal is also considered to be contrary to policies 11 and 13 of the emerging JCS.

Planning Committee 94 of 146 10 February 2016

17. Northamptonshire Police - It would be preferable for there to be one/few well positioned footpath links into the park rather than multiple underused access points. - Excessive numbers of rear alley ways, should be avoided these can both cause issues of security and problems for refuse storage. - Public Open Spaces have the potential to generate crime and antisocial behaviour. Boundaries of POS should have clearly defined features to prevent inappropriate parking. - Car parking to the rear of properties should be avoided for crime reasons.

18. Neighbours and Residents of Irchester - Seven letters of objection received and one letter making comments neither objecting to or supporting the proposal. The representations are summarised below: - The development will contribute to existing levels of poor air pollution in the immediate area - It will more than double the number of dwellings for Little Irchester - Traffic congestion levels would increase. Additional bus stops and crossing points would only add to levels of congestion in this area - The development would be very vehicle dominated due to its unsuitable location - There would be an increase in traffic which would adversely impact upon residents of Little Irchester - The development would impact upon privacy levels for existing properties backing onto the site - There is no infrastructure and not enough services within the local area to support this size of development - The development lies adjacent to Irchester Country Park and will therefore adversely impact upon ecology and wildlife. - The development is on a hill and I have concerns with drainage and rainwater from the development affecting existing properties and surrounding land - A new development of 200 dwellings surely cannot be connected up to existing drains, which are old and narrow - The development will spoil the visual aspect along London Road - Wellingborough Town Housing and Allocation Methodology and Site Selection 2010 does not list the proposed site as a suitable site for development - The proposal would be in conflict with the Council's objective to protect and enhance the local environment including wildlife habitat, trees, gardens, woodland and Country Parks - The scale and proportion of development is entirely out of character to the rural area and to the detriment of the local environment - There is evidence that bats which are endangered species are present on the outlying borders of the site and this development could impact upon them - A slip road from the A45 in the vicinity of the service area to the roundabout on the A509/Gipsy Lane would be a better use for this land - This application has the potential to enhance the cycleway provision and complete the link along London Road, under the A45 bridge to the existing cycleway network around the Borough. This would improve connections for people and help improve residents safety.

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The main issue to consider in this case is whether the proposed development is acceptable in the open countryside in the light of prevailing development plan policies and if not, whether there are material considerations that outweigh the relevant

Planning Committee 95 of 146 10 February 2016

development plan policies'

The Development Plan Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise".

Conformity with the adopted Development Plan Policies 1 to 9 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) establish a hierarchy of settlements for development based on sustainability principles whilst policy 10 relates to housing distribution. The spatial vision in the borough is to direct development to Wellingborough with priority to the reuse of previously developed land followed by sustainable urban extensions; limited development in villages which perform a local service centre role and restricted development in the open countryside. Any development outside the development boundaries would be contrary to the development plan unless there are exceptional circumstances such as the requirement to meet local needs for housing, employment or services. New development in open countryside outside the Sustainable Urban Extensions will be strictly controlled.

Policy 10 of the CSS sets out the distribution of housing and identifies a requirement of 1210 dwellings in the rural areas of Wellingborough between 2001 and 2021. As at 31 March 2015, 1051 dwellings have been completed and there are outstanding commitments for a further 606 dwellings in the rural area. The target has therefore been exceeded by 447 dwellings. There is therefore no need for additional rural development and to allow more development that is not specifically to meet local needs would be contrary to the overall spatial strategy of the plan.

The above policies are amplified by saved policies in the Wellingborough Local Plan where the settlement hierarchy in the villages is defined in Policy G4. Policies G6 and H4 restrict development in the open countryside unless there are exceptional circumstances. Where the proposed development is for meeting identified local needs and is sited outside the village policy lines, it should be in accordance with Policy H9 of the local plan which requires that the development should be solely for affordable housing.

Little Irchester is identified as a Restricted Infill Village in policy G4 where development is limited to infill development within the village confines that does not have an adverse impact on the size, form, character and setting of the village.

Attention is drawn to the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) which was submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2015. Examination hearings took place in November 2015 and it is therefore at an advanced stage. As part of the evidence to the examination into the strategy the north Northamptonshire joint planning unit put forward its recently published updated assessment of housing land supply 2016-2021 for each of the four member borough's/districts. This assessment identifies that there is an 8.56 years supply for Wellingborough when measured against the JCS housing targets. Whilst there are unresolved objections to the overall housing numbers, there are fewer objections to the core policies. The spatial strategy is also largely the same as the adopted strategy in that it prioritises development in the urban areas, thereby adopting a sustainable distribution of development. The policies are consistent with the policies

Planning Committee 96 of 146 10 February 2016

in the framework and should therefore be given weight in making a decision.

Emerging policy 29 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy sets out that new housing will be accommodated in line with the Spatial Strategy with a strong focus at the Growth Towns followed by Market Towns. Other than small scale infilling (Policy 11) or the rural exceptions scheme (policy 13), levels of housing development in excess of the identified requirements for the named Villages and Rural Areas will only be permitted where tested and supported through part 2 local plans or neighbourhood plans. Table 5 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy sets out housing delivery targets in named settlements. For the Borough of Wellingborough this includes Wellingborough, Earls Barton, Finedon, Wollaston and Irchester. Any development outside the development boundaries would be contrary to the development plan unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as a requirement to meet local needs for housing, employment or services. Policy 11 of the JCS states that development in rural areas will be limited to that required to support a prosperous rural economy or to meet a locally arising need which cannot be met at a nearby larger settlement.

Policy 13 of the emerging JCS sets out the criteria for when development may be permitted outside the defined boundaries of villages. The proposal does not meet these criteria. Policies 11 and 13 are consistent with the policies in the framework and should therefore be given weight in making a decision.

The application as submitted proposes 200 dwellings on site, 30% of which would be affordable housing. Policy 30 of the JCS refers to housing mix and tenure for development proposals and states that housing development should provide a mix of dwelling sizes and tenures in order to cater for current and forecast accommodation needs within North Northamptonshire.

Part d of policy 30 of the JCS requires that the provision of affordable housing within rural areas including all villages should equate to 40% of the total number of dwellings. As such, the proposal if approved, should seek the provision of 80 affordable dwellings (40%) in line with the JCS.

The proposal does not satisfy the criteria for excepted development outside the village confines, it does not involve the re-use of buildings, is not required in order to meet local needs, is by no means small scale and is not solely for affordable housing. It is therefore contrary to policies 1, 9, 10 of the CSS, saved policies G4, G6, H4 and H9 of the Wellingborough Local Plan and emerging policies set out within the JCS.

Planning decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Material Considerations The NPPF is a material consideration in all planning decisions. It retains the primacy of the development plan and promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development where the local plan is out of date.

With effect from March 2013, paragraph 215 advocates that the weight to be given to development plan policies should depend on their degree of consistency with the NPPF.

Planning Committee 97 of 146 10 February 2016

Housing Land Supply A key aim of the NPPF is to boost significantly the supply of housing. Paragraph 49 requires that housing applications are considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that housing related policies should not be considered up-to-date if the local authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

As mentioned previously, the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit has recently published an assessment of housing land supply 2016-2021 for each of the districts as part of the evidence put forward for the examination into the Joint Core Strategy (JCS). This identifies an 8.56 supply with a 20% buffer for this borough when measured against the JCS housing targets.

Because the council has a five year housing land supply the application should also be judged against the provisions of paragraph 55 of the NPPF which, in brief, requires new development in the open countryside to be:

It is the opinion of the local planning authority that this application is not a sustainable form of development. The Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper (Dec 2015) for BCW which was presented to the Services Committee on 7th December 2015 provides evidence for this. The paper forms a key part of the new local plan evidence base in which it categorises the borough's settlements in order to recognise their role/function. The top of the hierarchy contains larger settlements within the borough which are considered to fulfil most functions, provide good facilities and services and have the best infrastructure. Comparatively, the smaller settlements with lesser functions, infrastructure and transport links are nearer the bottom of the hierarchy.

Attention is drawn to two recent appeal decisions at Bozeat ref WP/13/00332/OUT and WP/14/00369/OUT. Both decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate concluded that the appeal sites in these locations were considered to be unsustainable. The Inspectorate concluded that the proposals would add only to the housing stock without

Planning Committee 98 of 146 10 February 2016

any commensurate growth in the social, cultural, economic or employment opportunities in the locality. Both appeal schemes were considered to reinforce the role of the village as a dormitory or commuter settlement, largely reliant on accessing jobs, shops, support services and recreation elsewhere.

The Settlement Hierarchy background paper defines the village of Bozeat as being capable of accommodating development limited to that required to meet its own locally arising needs (small scale development). Little Irchester is also considered to be ranked at a similar level to Bozeat in terms of sustainability and its ability to accommodate new development. Therefore, they are comparable villages and as such, the findings of the Inspectorate are considered to be applicable to this application. In addition to the points made above, it is also noted that the site lies outside the confines of Little Irchester village boundary. Therefore, taking all the above factors into account, a proposal comprising 200 dwellings, located within open countryside, outside the confines of a small village with scope to accommodate development limited only to meet locally arising needs is considered to be unsustainable.

Neighbourhood Plans The NPPF states that neighbourhood planning gives communities direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and deliver the sustainable development they need.

Irchester Parish Council is currently progressing the neighbourhood plan for Irchester, Knuston and Little Irchester through a steering group. This plan is, amongst other issues, expected to identify how the housing needs of the village up to 2031 can be accommodated. However, to date, a draft plan has not been published.

Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft local plan has yet to be submitted for examination, or in the case of a neighbourhood plan, before the end of the local planning authority publicity period. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.'

A development of the scale proposed would be so significant that to grant planning permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the location of new development that is central to the Irchester, Knuston and Little Irchester Neighbourhood Plan.

However, the neighbourhood plan remains at an early stage and therefore refusal on the grounds of prematurity is not considered to be justified at this time having regard to current government guidance.

Other Matters

Ecology and Biodiversity It should be borne in mind that this is an outline application with all detailed matters to be reserved. However, an application of this size and scale should still submit the necessary information required in order for the local planning authority to ascertain the suitability for the site for development purposes.

Planning Committee 99 of 146 10 February 2016

The application site is in close proximity to a European designated site. It is approximately 1000 metres from the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA). It is also a Ramsar site and notified at national level as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Policies relating to and protecting enhancing assets (Policies 3 and 4) contained with the JCS have limited objections and are also consistent with the guidance contained within Section 12 of the NPPF. This states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; recognise the wider benefits of ecosystem services; minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity.

Policy 4 of the JCS seeks a net gain in biodiversity and aims to protect the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA. As the proposal is in close proximity to the site it would be likely to increase visitor pressure in the valley.

In considering the European site interest, Natural England advises under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, that the local planning authority should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have . The Conservation objectives for each European site explain how the site should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.

The application therefore needs to be subject to a Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) as it is likely that some mitigation measures would be necessary. Natural England confirms that there is not enough information submitted with the application to determine whether the likelihood of significant effects can be ruled out. At the time of writing the report, the developer had submitted a HRA as part of additional information and Natural England were re-consulted on this. As it currently stands, the local planning authority has not received a response from Natural England to confirm whether the information provided is acceptable or not. An update will therefore be provided to Members at Committee.

It is also noted that the application's footprint is sited wholly within the Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area (NIA). Policy 4 of the JCS states that features of geological interest will be protected and enhanced by managing development and investment to reverse the decline in biodiversity and restore the ecological network within the Nene Valley NIA. Northants Wildlife Trust has recommended that further survey work is required for bats in particular and that the recommendations contained within the submitted Ecological Appraisal form planning conditions if the application is approved. Northants Wildlife Trust also state that the applicant should provide an Ecological Management Plan (EMP) which sets out how a net gain in biodiversity can be achieved and how features of geological interest will be protected and enhanced. Therefore, if members wish to approve the application it is recommended that the above ecological requirements form suitably worded planning conditions as part of an outline approval.

Drainage and Flooding Flood risk can arise from a number of sources including rivers, surface water flooding (when rainfall overwhelms the drainage systems) and groundwater flooding (when the water table rises above the ground surface). The location of development and the use

Planning Committee 100 of 146 10 February 2016

of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) can play a significant role in flood risk management.

The way in which built developments are drained is changing. The use of SuDS is an essential component in the overall design of a development. It is therefore critical to identify the most natural position of SuD features at an early stage in the application process.

Policy 13 of the CSS states that development should not cause a risk to underlying groundwater or surface water or increase the risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere. Policy 5 of the JCS goes on to say that development should contribute towards reducing the risk of flooding and to the protection and improvement of the quality of the water environment.

Saved Policy G2 of the Wellingborough Local Plan also states the importance of ensuring development provides for appropriate flood protection and mitigation measures.

The Environment Agency requests a condition for the provision of mains foul sewage infrastructure if the application is approved.

The Lead Local Flood Authority however, has objected to the application on the grounds of insufficient information at this outline stage of the proposal. As a result of the lack of information, they are unable to comment on the acceptability of the surface water drainage scheme for the site. The NCC Surface Water Guidance for Developers (April 2015) sets out what information is required to be submitted in surface water and drainage terms as part of an outline application. This application as submitted fails to meet these requirements and as such the proposal is not acceptable with respect to surface water or drainage considerations. It therefore conflicts with Policy 13 of the CSS, Policy G2 of the Wellingborough Local Plan, Policy 5 of the JCS and Section 10 of the NPPF and therefore forms a basis of refusal for this application.

Access Northamptonshire highways have expressed concerns over the quality of information submitted with respect to access considerations. Notwithstanding these consultee comments, it is highlighted that this application is not seeking to determine the matter of access at this stage. However, for a proposal of this size, it is considered to be reasonable that the basis of the outline application should provide satisfactory information in order for the highway officers to assess whether the development would have a detrimental impact upon the highway network.

Policy 13 of the CSS states that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

Northamptonshire highways states that the application does not provide details with respect to a number of critical issues to help establish whether or not the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety. Northamptonshire highways have requested that full details of the proposed access would be required, including appropriate visibility splays in order to demonstrate that safe and acceptable access could be achieved onto London Road. They also state that speed surveys would be needed (using a minimum of 1 weeks ATC data) on both roads (London Road and Gipsy Lane) in order to

Planning Committee 101 of 146 10 February 2016

determine the relevant visibility standards to apply. The submitted Transport Statement provides no information with regards to trip distribution or assignment and the trip generation calculations are considered to be incorrect.

The TS includes no capacity assessments, and should assess the operation of the proposed site access junctions, the roundabout junction of London Road with Gypsy Lane and the junction of London Road with Milton Road. The development should also assess the level of impact on the London Road with the Embankment. Northamptonshire highways state that capacity assessments would be required for the following scenarios: a. Base year (based upon traffic surveys to be undertaken at the locations identified above). b. Forecast year (2031) based upon survey flows factored up to 2031 using locally adjusted TEMPRO flows, excluding the proposed development but taking into account other committed development (such as Stanton Cross). c. Forecast year (2031), as above but including the proposed development traffic.

The application has therefore failed to demonstrate that the site is suitable in terms of highway safety, does not accord with the requirements of Policy 13 n of the CSS and forms a refusal reason for this application.

Contamination The applicant has submitted a contaminated land risk assessment in accordance with Planning Practice Guidance, which has identified that further investigation and or remediation work is required so that the risks identified can be assessed and satisfactorily reduced to an acceptable level. A condition requiring a further report to be submitted and approved by the local planning authority should be included in any planning approval.

Archaeology Paragraphs 128 and 129 of the NPPF, stress the importance of discussions in order to assess the significance of potential heritage assets on a potential development site. NCC consider that the desk-based assessment (submitted as part of the application details) does not in itself provide sufficient information on the date, nature and state of preservation of the surviving archaeology. As such, should members be minded to approve this application, then it is recommended that further details in the form of a geophysical survey and trial trenching should be submitted as part of a Reserved Matters application.

The NPPF at paragraph 204 is clear that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. This advice is reiterated under Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.

Planning Committee 102 of 146 10 February 2016

In this case however, the application is considered to be unacceptable as it does not conform to the prevailing development plan and there are also other material considerations that constitute reasons for refusal. However, this is the recommendation of the local planning authority. If the Committee is minded to approve the proposal, the application will be subject to the completion of a legal agreement by way of a section 106 covering the following heads of terms (to be agreed):

- Education - Affordable housing - Libraries - Fire and Rescue - Provision towards enhanced park infrastructure for Irchester Country Park - Bus service and infrastructure improvements - 5% monitoring fee

CONCLUSION The Council has demonstrated a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land. The housing policies of the development plan therefore in the context of paragraph 49 of the NPPF remain up-to-date. The level of rural development expected for the period up to 2021 has already been exceeded. The proposal does not satisfy the criteria for excepted development outside village confines. It does not involve re-use of buildings, is not required in order to meet local needs, is not small scale and is not solely for affordable housing. It is therefore contrary to Policies 1, 9, 10 and 13 of the CSS and saved Policies G4, G6, H4 and H9 of the Wellingborough Local Plan. In addition the proposal is also considered to be contrary to Policies 11 and 13 of the Joint Core Strategy.

The application has failed to provide sufficient information with respect to surface water and drainage matters. The Lead Local Flood Authority objects to the proposal without the necessary information as set out within the Surface Water Guidance for Developers (April 2015) for outline applications. As such the proposal fails to accord with Policy 13 of the CSS, Policy 5 of the JCS and Section 10 of the NPPF.

The application has also failed to provide sufficient information with respect to highway safety matters. Northamptonshire highways are objecting to the proposal on the grounds that the application fails to demonstrate that it would not have a detrimental impact upon the local highway network. As such the proposal fails to accord with Policy 13 n of the CSS.

RECOMMENDATION Refuse for the following reasons.

REASONS

1. The proposal represents unacceptable development in the open countryside. It does not satisfy the criteria for excepted development outside the village confines. It does not involve the re-use of buildings, is not required in order to meet local need, is not small scale and is not solely for affordable housing. It is therefore contrary to policies 1, 9 and 10 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, saved policies G4,

Planning Committee 103 of 146 10 February 2016

G6, H4 and H9 of the Wellingborough Local Plan and Policies 11 and 13 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

2. The application has failed to provide sufficient information with respect to surface water and drainage matters. The Lead Local Flood Authority objects to the proposal without the necessary information as required within the Surface Water Guidance for Developers (April 2015) for outline applications. As such the proposal fails to accord with Policy 13q) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, saved Policy G2 of the Wellingborough Local Plan and Policy 5 of the Joint Core Strategy.

3. The application has failed to provide sufficient information with respect to highway safety matters. The submitted Transport Statement does not include the necessary information required to assess the impacts of the proposed development and mitigation requirements. As such the development does not satisfactorily demonstrate that it would not have a detrimental impact upon highway safety and capacity. It is therefore contrary to Policy 13 n) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 In the remaining rural area development will take place on sites within village boundaries, subject to criteria to be set out in development plan documents. Development adjoining village boundaries will only be justified where it involves the re-use of buildings or, in exceptional circumstances, if it can be clearly demonstrated that it is required in order to meet local needs for employment, housing or services. Development will be focussed on those villages that perform a sustainable local service centre role.

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 9 Development will be distributed to strengthen the network of settlements as set out in Policy 1. New building development in the open countryside outside the Sustainable Urban Extensions will be strictly controlled.

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 10 New housing will be focused at the three Growth Towns, with modest growth at the Smaller Towns and Rural Service Centres, limited development in the villages and restricted development in the open countryside. The Wellingborough Local Plan Saved Policies:

POLICY G4 IN THE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AND RESTRICTED INFILL VILLAGES DEVELOPMENT WILL BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION, SUBJECT TO MORE SPECIFIC POLICIES REGARDING INDIVIDUAL SITES AREAS OR USES, IF IT: 1. IS WITHIN THE VILLAGE POLICY LINES, AS DEFINED ON THE PROPOSALS MAP; 2. WILL NOT, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR CUMULATIVELY WITH OTHER PROPOSALS, HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SIZE, FORM, CHARACTER AND SETTING OF THE VILLAGE AND ITS ENVIRONS. LIMITED DEVELOPMENT VILLAGES ARE:EARLS BARTON; FINEDON AND WOLLASTON RESTRICTED INFILL VILLAGES ARE:

Planning Committee 104 of 146 10 February 2016

BOZEAT; ECTON; GREAT DODDINGTON; GREAT HARROWDEN; GRENDON; HARDWICK; IRCHESTER; ISHAM; LITTLE HARROWDEN; LITTLE IRCHESTER; MEARS ASHBY; ORLINGBURY; SYWELL EXCLUDING THE OLD VILLAGE; AND WILBY

POLICY G6 DEVELOPMENT IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE WILL NOT BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION UNLESS: 1. IT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED OTHER THAN IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE; 2. IT INVOLVES NO MORE THAN A LIMITED NUMBER OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES AND THESE ARE SMALL SCALE; 3. IT INCLUDES LANDSCAPE SCREENING, AS APPROPRIATE, AND ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ARE DESIGNED, SITED AND OF MATERIALS TO MINIMISE ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE INTRINSIC CHARACTER OF THE COUNTRYSIDE; 4. IT WILL NEITHER INDIVIDUALLY NOR CUMULATIVELY WITH EXISTING OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, RESULT IN A LOCAL PROLIFERATION OF NEW BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES; 5. WHEN IT INVOLVES A USE WHICH IS PRINCIPALLY TO SERVE THE TOWN, IT IS LOCATED IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO EXISTING OR PROPOSED URBAN DEVELOPMENT; AND 6. IT WILL NOT RESULT IN THE URBAN GROWTH OF NORTHAMPTON TO ITS EAST OR WELLINGBOROUGH TO ITS WEST.

POLICY H4 PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT BE GRANTED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN EITHER THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE OR THE RESTRAINT VILLAGES OF EASTON MAUDIT, STRIXTON OR SYWELL OLD VILLAGE. EXCEPTIONS MAY, HOWEVER, BE MADE FOR ESSENTIAL AGRICULTURAL OR FORESTRY WORKERS DWELLINGS, REPLACEMENT DWELLINGS, THE CONVERSION OF SUITABLE BUILDINGS IN RESTRAINT VILLAGES AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE ON THE EDGE OF OTHER VILLAGES WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY H9.

POLICY H9 IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MAY BE PERMITTED WITHIN OR ON THE EDGE OF VILLAGES ON SITES WHERE PLANNING PERMISSION WOULD NOT NORMALLY BE GRANTED, SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA BEING MET: 1. THE PROPOSAL IS INTENDED AND ABLE SOLELY TO MEET AN IDENTIFIED LOCAL NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHICH CANNOT BE MET IN ANY OTHER WAY; 2. THE SITE LIES WITHIN OR ON THE EDGE OF A VILLAGE WHICH HAS ADEQUATE FACILITIES TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT; 3. THE DEVELOPMENT IS OF A SMALL SCALE WHICH CAN BE ACCOMMODATED WITHOUT CAUSING UNDUE HARM TO THE FORM, CHARACTER AND SETTING OF THE VILLAGE; AND 4. THE PROPOSAL IS SUBJECT TO A NEGOTIATED LEGAL AGREEMENT DESIGNED TO RESERVE THE ACCOMMODATION IN PERPETUITY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

Planning Committee 105 of 146 10 February 2016

The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Policy 11 - Part 2 a) Development in rural areas will be limited to that required to support a prosperous rural economy or to meet locally arising need, which cannot be met more sustainably at a nearby larger settlement b) Small scale infill development will be permitted on suitable sites within Villages where this would not materially harm the character of the settlement and residential amenity or exceed the capacity of local infrastructure and services. d) Rural diversification and the appropriate re-use of rural buildings will be supported in accordance with Policy 25. Other forms of development will be resisted in open countryside unless there are special circumstances as set out within Policy 13 or national policy.

The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Policy 13 New development may be permitted adjoining established settlements, beyond their existing built up area or defined boundary. Rural Exception Housing schemes should be purely affordable housing unless an element of market housing is essential to enable the delivery of the development. In such cases, the scale of market housing will be the minimum necessary to make the scheme viable and should be tailored to meeting specific locally identified housing needs. Proposals should satisfy all of the following criteria: a) The form and scale of the development should be clearly justified by evidence that it meets an identified need arising within a village or network of villages through a local needs survey. b) Sites should be well-related to a settlement that offers services and employment to meet the day to day needs of occupants of the development; c) Development should enable access to local services and facilities by foot, cycle or public transport; d) The scale and nature of the development will not exceed identified needs and must be appropriate to the surroundings, minimise impacts on the environment and be supported by existing or new infrastructure; e) Occupation of the development will be controlled through a legal agreement or conditions to ensure that it remains available and affordable in perpetuity to meet local needs In open countryside, away from established settlements, permission will not normally be granted for new built residential development, with the exception of individual dwellings of exceptional quality or innovative design as set out in paragraphs 5.41 and 5.42 and nproposed dwellings for rural workers at or near their place of work in the countryside, provided that: i. The dwelling is required to enable someone who is in full time employment in agricultural, forestry or similar rural businesses to meet the essential need of the enterprise concerned; and ii. It can be demonstrated the functional and financial tests in paragraph 5.40 have been met.

The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 part q) Development should: Not cause a risk to (and where possible enhance) the quality of the underlying groundwater or surface water, or increase the risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere, and where possible incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and lead to a reduction in flood risk.

Planning Committee 106 of 146 10 February 2016

POLICY G2 UNLESS FLOOD PROTECTION AND MITIGATION MEASURES APPROPRIATE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE PROVIDED, PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE REFUSED FOR DEVELOPMENT: 1. WITHIN THE FLOODPLAINS AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSALS MAP; OR 2. IN OTHER AREAS AT RISK OF FLOODING; OR 3. WHICH WILL INCREASE THE RISK OF FLOODING ELSEWHERE; OR 4. RESULT IN PROBLEMS DUE TO ADDITIONAL SURFACE WATER RUN OFF

The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Policy 5 Development should contribute towards reducing the risk of flooding and to the protection and improvement of the quality of the water environment. This will be achieved through the following criteria: a) Development should wherever possible be avoided in high and medium flood risk areas through the application of a sequential approach considering all forms of flooding for the identification of sites and also the layout of development within site boundaries; b) Development should meet a minimum 1% (1 in 100) annual probability standard of flood protection with allowances for climate change unless local studies indicate a higher annual probability both in relation to development and the measures required to reduce the impact of any additional run off generated by that development to demonstrate that there is no increased risk of flooding to existing, surrounding properties; c) Where appropriate, development should subject to viability and feasibility contribute to flood risk management in North Northamptonshire;

The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 part n) Development should: Not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety;

2. This decision relates to plan numbers: BOW0001 DS Drainage Strategy received 10th Nov 2015 Masterplan received 10th Nov 2015 Red Line Plan received 10th Nov 2015

Planning Committee 107 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mrs Louise Jelley WP/15/00713/FUL

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward 10 November 2015 10 November 2015 5 January 2016 Queensway

Applicant Mr Bob Durkin

Agent Ms Debbie Glancy

Location Land Fronting 14 To 38 Davy Close Wellingborough Northamptonshire

Proposal Development of land on Sywell Road, to form 79 car parking spaces, with new landscaping and access from Sywell Road and access link through to 39-44 Davy Close, Wellingborough.

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/14/00441/CND Fully discharged 08.08.2014 Details submitted pursuant to Condition 6 (archaeology) of planning permission ref: WP/2013/0190/OEIA

WP/15/00713/FUL Determination pending. Development of land on Sywell Road, to form 79 car parking spaces, with new landscaping and access from Sywell Road and access link through to 39-44 Davy Close, Wellingborough.

BW/1986/0061 Approved with conditions 30.01.1986 Lorry park and staff car park

BW/1980/1025 Approved with conditions 07.01.1981 Road layout for initial 94.5 acres of Park Farm employment area

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

The application site is land owned by the Borough Council of Wellingborough.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site comprises a triangular strip of land which is located in front of an existing industrial building along Sywell Road to the west side of Wellingborough within

Planning Committee 108 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00713/FUL

Built Environment © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Scale: Ordnance Survey 100018694. This map is accurate Legend 1:2,500 Cities Revealed to the scale specified Aerial Photography copyright: when reproduced at A4 ± GetMapping PLC 1999 WP/15/00713/FUL - Land Fronting 14 to 38 Davy Close, Wellingborough

Park Farm Industrial Estate. The site to which this application relates lies adjacent to 39-44 Davy Close, which is the used by the company Dunkleys.

The site comprises rough grassland with patches of bramble scrub, semi-mature planted trees (evergreen and deciduous) and ornamental shrubs.

APPLICATION PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND The proposal is to create an additional parking area for Dunkley's production facility comprising 79 car parking spaces which includes 4 disabled parking bays, 10 cycle bays, a new access point off Sywell Road, landscaping and a link through to 39-44 Davey Close.

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

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 1 (Strengthening the Network of Settlements) 8 (Delivering Economic Prosperity) 9 (Distribution and Location of Development) 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles)

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) 3 (Landscape Character) 4 (Biodiversity & Geodiversity) 5 (Water resources, environment and flood risk management) 8 (North Northamptonshire Place Shaping Principles) 22 (Delivering Economic Prosperity)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Biodiversity Trees on Development Sites Planning Out Crime Parking

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 1. Northamptonshire Highways - no objection is raised to the proposals on highway safety or capacity grounds. Although I have no doubt that satisfactory vehicle to vehicle visibility can be achieved, I must point out that the 'Y' distance of the splay must be measured along the near kerb line and not to the centre of the major road carriageway as indicated on your plan.

2. Northamptonshire Archaeology - no objection to the proposals on archaeological grounds.

Planning Committee 109 of 146 10 February 2016

3. BCW Landscape Officer - I would like to see a more informal approach to the car parking with grass-crete rather than tarmac everywhere. This would help with minimal dig construction where the parking would be within the recommended root protection area of trees to be retained.

The possible provision of car parking on this site has been under discussion for some time but it is disappointing that the plan and the ecological report play down the loss of vegetation. The site has not been well maintained but it is of visual amenity value. There should be a condition requiring a robust landscape plan, and a condition requiring a reptile survey as recommended in the submitted ecological report.

4. NCC Lead Local Flood Authority - considering the above application is for car parking only, it is acceptable in this instance for the local planning authority to impose a planning condition with regards to the surface water drainage.

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

- Conformity with the development plan, especially in relation to the (loss of employment site, loss of community facilities, inappropriate development in the open countryside etc.) and material considerations - Design, layout and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area - Effect on landscape visual amenity - Effect on biodiversity - Effect/impact on highway safety in relation to (the proposed access arrangement and parking provision) - Surface Water drainage and flooding

The Joint Core Strategy (JCS) states that the provision of smaller parcels of land within larger, strategic sites can help to support the expansion of existing businesses and their retention within North Northamptonshire.

The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) supports the provision of infrastructure and services needed to provide a competitive business environment including transport and communication infrastructure.

Planning Committee 110 of 146 10 February 2016

Policy 13 of the CSS states that development should meet the needs of residents and businesses without compromising quality of life. One of the criteria within the policy sets out that development should have a satisfactory means of access and parking provision.

Saved policy E2 of the Wellingborough Local Plan supports the provision of support facilities within industrial estates to serve the needs of firms or their employees provided they do not result in a deficiency to the supply of industrial land.

The site to which this application relates in contained within the Park Farm Industrial Estate which is located on the edge of Wellingborough. It is an established purpose built area for industry as it has the necessary infrastructure required for industrial uses and generally siting here minimises environmental damage and impact upon residential amenity in terms of traffic, noise, pollution and visual impact. Therefore, in principle the siting of a car park for an existing company within the industrial estate is considered to be acceptable subject to the material considerations which are discussed below.

Design, Layout and the Effect on the Landscape visual amenity The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy policy 13 (h) says that new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and respects and enhances the character of its surroundings. Policy 13 o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy requires new development, amongst other things, to conserve and enhance the landscape character

The NPPF states that in order to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.

It is accepted that the site is located within the established Park Farm Way Industrial Estate, but it is noted that within these industrial sites are pockets/areas of green space which help to soften the overall appearance of an industrial site and provide a verdant backdrop.

In this instance the proposed area for car parking will involve the development of an existing area of green space which fronts onto the Sywell Road. Obviously, the inclusion of a car park comprising 79 spaces will impact upon the visual amenity of this part of the industrial site. However, the submitted plans illustrate that a number of trees are to be retained on site and landscaping will be incorporated into the overall design of the proposed car park. The landscape officer has not raised a specific objection to the scheme but is very keen for the landscape merits of the site to be fully considered. Given the existing greenspace commands quite a prominent location within the industrial site (on the main thoroughfare) to the north west part of Park Farm Way, it is

Planning Committee 111 of 146 10 February 2016

important that the site still provides a suitable amount of landscaping. As such, it is considered that subject to a pre commencement condition requiring the provision of an appropriate landscaping scheme, the application is acceptable and accords with policy 13 of the CSS.

NNCSS policy 13 o), amongst other things, requires new development to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

As part of the application details and a protected species assessment has been submitted at the request of the local planning authority. The desk study reveals that there are no statutory designated sites for nature conservation within 1km of the application site, however, 150 metres south west of the area is a pond with a small population of great crested newts. According to Natural England's rapid risk assessment, the loss of 0.46 ha of habitat within 100 - 250 m of a newt pond is highly unlikely to result in an offence relating to great crested newts.

Habitats within the site provide opportunities for foraging and basking reptiles. There is a low risk that reptiles may be present within the site but it is considered that a survey for reptiles should be undertaken to establish whether they are present. It is considered prudent in this instance in accordance with the recommendations of the protected species survey to apply a pre commencement condition for a reptile survey to be carried out.

The assessment also recommends the inclusion of bat and bird boxes on some of the retained trees. It is the opinion of the local planning authority that this will add to biodiversity enhancement within the site and is therefore considered to be an appropriate condition to include if granted permission.

Subject to the inclusion of the above conditions, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of biodiversity and accords with policy 13 of the CSS.

Planning Committee 112 of 146 10 February 2016

It is considered in this instance that the application for a car park within an existing industrial area along a main road will not result in unacceptable impacts upon amenity and is therefore deemed to be acceptable in this regard.

Effect/Impact on Highway Safety in Relation to (the Proposed Access Arrangement and Parking Provision) Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that new development should provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards. Policy 13 (n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety.

Northamptonshire highways are satisfied with the submitted proposals for the car parking area and access provision onto Sywell Road. The vehicle visibility splays have been demonstrated and it is considered that in highway terms this application is acceptable and accords with policy 13 of the CSS.

Surface Water Drainage and Flooding This particular area of the Park Farm Way Industrial Estate has a high chance of flooding from surface water. As a result, the local planning authority sought comments from the 'lead local flood authority' to ascertain whether the development of a car park in this location would be acceptable. The application as submitted identified that a surface water interceptor would be installed in addition to soakaways for the tarmac hardstanding areas. It is considered even more important therefore that appropriate planting and landscaping forms an integral part of the development in order to help alleviate surface water runoff in a high risk area. The LLFA are satisfied that with an appropriate pre commencement condition in place which requests a surface water drainage scheme, this application is acceptable. It therefore complies with policy 13 of the CSS and policy 5 of the JCS.

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

RECOMMENDATION Approve subject to the following conditions.

CONDITIONS/REASONS

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

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

2. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be

Planning Committee 113 of 146 10 February 2016

implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

3. Notwithstanding the approved details, prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage to include details of a permeable surface shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To help prevent the risk of surface water flooding and prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

4. Prior to completion of the car parking area hereby permitted details of bird and bat nesting boxes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Details shall include location, specification and design of the boxes. The boxes shall be installed on site in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and ecological enhancement in accordance with policy 13 of the North Northamptnshire Core Spatial Strategy.

5. Prior to the commencement of development a reptile survey shall be carried out at the appropriate time of year and the results of the surveys and any required mitigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of ecological enhancement and protection in accordance with policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Section 11 of the NPPF.

6. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the following plans: Location Plan - 0147-AL (0) T001 received 10th November 2056 Existing Site Plan - 0147 -AL (0) T002 received 10th November 2015 Proposed Site Plan - 0147-AL (0) T003 received 10th November 2015

Reason: In the interest of securing an appropriate form of development in accordance with policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Planning Committee 114 of 146 10 February 2016

through discussions, negotiations or in the consideration and assessment of this application and the accompanying proposals, the council as the local planning authority endeavoured to work with the applicant/developer in a positive and proactive way to ensure that the approved development is consistent with the relevant provisions in the framework.

Planning Committee 115 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

COUNTY MATTER

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mrs Louise Jelley WP/15/00779/CRA

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward 3 December 2015 3 December 2015 24 December 2015 Victoria

Applicant Mr Andrew Myers

Agent Helen Marsden

Location Rowangate Primary School Finedon Road Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 4EB

Proposal Variation of condition 1 of planning permission 14/00083/CCDFUL for the retention of a double mobile classroom until 31/12/2020

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00779/CRA Determination pending. Variation of condition 1 of planning permission 14/00083/CCDFUL for the retention of a double mobile classroom until 31/12/2020

Reason(s) for Committee consideration:

- This application is referred to the planning committee for comment because it is a Northamptonshire County Council application (Reference 15/00085/CCDVOC). - The purpose of this report is to inform members of the application's existence and to provide the members with the opportunity to minute any concerns they may have that can then be reported to Northamptonshire County Council via the official minutes of the planning committee.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE This is a planning application for the variation of condition 1 of the planning permission 14/00083/CCDFUL for the retention of a double mobile classroom until 31/12/2020 at Rowangate Primary School, Finedon Road, Wellingborough.

Rowangate Primary School is situated to the north east of Wellingborough town centre in close proximity to Eastfield Park. The mobile classroom is situated to the rear of the

Planning Committee 116 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00779/CRA

main primary school building on the south eastern part of the site adjacent to a multi- use games area (MUGA). The mobile classroom measures approximately 16.7 metres x 8.6 metres.

The justification for retaining the mobile classroom is based upon demand in the area for special need places. Rowangate is the only school in Wellingborough and East Northamptonshire for children aged 3-11 with learning and physical disabilities.

PLANNING BACKGROUND Rowangate was originally designed to hold 90 pupils. An additional 56 additional places opened earlier this year, in an annex at the former Hayway Infant School in Rushden; this site is already at capacity. Due to demand for special school places, the school was required to accept additional children in September and now have 153 pupils on roll across their two sites.

The application details submitted state that there has been a significant increase in the number of children requiring a special school place, especially in reception year. There is no surplus capacity within Northamptonshire at the current time and as such special education need (SEN) places are required to ensure children have access to appropriate provision for their required needs.

Discussions have been held with the SEN schools to ascertain where additional places can be secured across Northamptonshire. In the long term, three free school proposals have been approved by the education funding agency (EFA) for Corby, Daventry and Northampton to add permanent capacity to special school provision; however these will not deliver places soon enough.

Therefore, it is necessary in the interim period that the mobile classroom at Rowangate is retained in order to ensure the school has adequate teaching space for the increased numbers on roll whilst the proposals outlined above can be implemented.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (JCS) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance

ASSESSMENT The application is considered to accord with the provisions contained within the CSS and the JCS. Specifically, establishing priorities for helping to secure provision of infrastructure, services and facilities needed to sustain and enhance communities and support new development.

In order to provide special education needs in the local area and ensure that numbers of children requiring a special school place can be accommodated it seems vital that

Planning Committee 117 of 146 10 February 2016

the mobile classroom be retained for the time period set out above whilst proposals are put in place to add further capacity within the Northamptonshire area. There are no planning reasons to object to the retention of this mobile classroom, it accords with development plan policy as set out above and as such the variation of condition application to retain the mobile classroom until 31/12/2020 is considered to be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION It is concluded that no objections be raised against the planning application.

Planning Committee 118 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

COUNTY MATTER

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Andrew Mackriell WP/15/00791/CRA

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 9 Dec 2015 9 Dec 2015 30 Dec 2015 Earls Barton Earls Barton

Applicant Breedon Aggregates England Ltd

Agent Dan Szymanski

Location Earls Barton Spinney Quarry Grendon Road Earls Barton Northampton Northamptonshire

Proposal Variation of conditions 2, 16, 17 and 43 of planning permission 10/00066/MINEXT to amend working scheme

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00791/CRA Determination pending. Variation of conditions 2, 16, 17 and 43 of planning permission 10/00066/MINEXT to amend working scheme

Reason for Committee consideration:

- This is a consultation via Northamptonshire County Council as minerals authority relating to a planning application to vary the conditions on a previous approval for the extraction of minerals at Earls Barton Spinney Quarry. - The purpose of this report to inform members of the application's existence and to provide members with the opportunity to minute any comments or concerns they may have that can then be reported back to NCC via the official minutes of the planning committee

THE SITE AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The application site is located on the south side of the A45 to the south of Earls Barton and north of the River Nene.

The application (Ref: 15/00091/MINVOC) to vary some of the conditions relating to Ref: 10/00066/MINEXT (conditions Nos. 2, 16, 17, 43) has been submitted to Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) for determination as the minerals and waste

Planning Committee 119 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00791/CRA

authority.

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

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction)

Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policies: G2 (Flood Protection) G6 (Development within the Open Countryside)

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) 3 (Landscape Character) 4 (Biodiversity & Geodiversity) 5 (Water Environment, Resources and Flood Risk Management) 20 (Nene and Ise Valleys)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Development and Implementation Principles; Biodiversity

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED The Borough Council of Wellingborough is a consultee only in this case, therefore, no consultations have been undertaken by the council for this application.

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The consultation is in relation to the application to NCC to vary conditions 2, 16, 17 and 43 on planning permission Ref: 10/00066/MINEXT.

These conditions relate respectively to: the approved plans; the deposit of inert waste on the site; the sequence of works on the site; and the areas for temporary and permanent flood plain storage.

CONCLUSION The effect of the proposed revisions to the working sequence of the site will have little impact on the overall scale and implementation of the mineral extraction scheme.

RECOMMENDATION That the Council raises no objection to the proposed amendments to the mineral extraction scheme.

Planning Committee 120 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

OTHER BOROUGH

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mrs Louise Jelley WP/15/00763/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry 26 November 2015 26 November 2015 17 December 2015

Applicant Db Symmetry

Agent Mr Mark Patterson

Location Land Adj Glebe Farm Coventry Road Lutterworth Leicestershire

Proposal Outline application for the erection of up to 278,709sqm of Storage, Distribution buildings (B8) with ancillary B1(a) offices, creation of access onto A4303 and emergency services only access onto A5, formation of a Lorry Park, creation of SuDS facilities and other associated infrastructure and the demolition of Glebe Farmhouse (Means of access only to be considered) - additional details and amended plans

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00763/EXT Determination pending. Outline application for the erection of up to 278,709sqm of Storage, Distribution buildings (B8) with ancillary B1(a) offices, creation of access onto A4303 and emergency services only access onto A5, formation of a Lorry Park, creation of SuDS facilities and other associated infrastructure and the demolition of Glebe Farmhouse (Means of access only to be considered) - additional details and amended plans

Reason(s) for Committee consideration:

- This application is referred to the planning committee for comment because it is a Harborough District Council application (reference 15/00865/OUT). - The purpose of this report is to inform members of the application's existence and to provide the members with the opportunity to minute any concerns they may have that can then be reported to Harborough District Council via the official minutes of the planning committee

Planning Committee 121 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00763/EXT

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE This is an outline planning application (with access as a detailed consideration) for the erection of a strategic scale, logistics park with ancillary offices off the A4303 (Coventry Road), Lutterworth.

It comprises up to 278,709 square metres of storage distribution buildings (B8) with ancillary B1(a) offices, the creation of a new access onto the A4303, formation of a lorry park (for 52 vehicles), the creation of SuDS facilities and other associated infrastructure. The proposal would also result in the demolition of Glebe Farmhouse.

The application site comprises 87.9 hectares of land currently in agricultural use and is located approximately 2 km from Lutterworth town centre, to the south of Coventry Road and east of the A5, and to the west of the town of Lutterworth in Leicestershire.

The site is located adjacent and to the south of Magna Park, a large, existing warehousing and logistics centre.

Due to its size and scale, the application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

If the application is taken forward, it is envisaged that the proposal could be operational by 2025. It is predicted to create 3,500 jobs.

Although the application is in outline form with access as a detailed consideration only at this stage - there are proposed parameters for the units with respect to height and sizes as part of this proposal. This is summarised below: - Unit Numbers (1-11) - Unit size ranging from 125 sq metres to 120,000 sq metres - Unit dimensions ranging from 25-620 metres long and 5-195 metres wide - Unit height ranging from 18-23 metres to the ridge

The agreed access strategy for the application comprises the following: - A single point of access off the A4303 Coventry Road, via a 3 arm 70m ICD roundabout. - A proposed section of dual carriageway from the site access roundabout into the site to the proposed lorry park. - An emergency only access onto the A5 (using an existing field access) that would be secured and could be brought into use by the emergency services only.

PLANNING BACKGROUND By way of background, Magna Park, located immediately to the north, comprises some 10.45 million sq.ft (970,828 sq.m) of logistics space. Many buildings on Magna Park are nearly 25 years old and are "first generation" logistics warehouses. The applicant states that these buildings do not meet the requirements of modern warehouse operators who need high bay, energy efficient, well laid out warehouses, with increasing scale demands to meet both environmental and operational targets.

Planning Committee 122 of 146 10 February 2016

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

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED No consultations have been undertaken by Wellingborough Council as the duty to undertake such consultation and publicity exercises rests with Harborough District Council. If, however, Wellingborough Council receive any representations to the application, then these will be forwarded to Harborough District Council for their attention.

ASSESSMENT This is a very large proposal for B8 use with ancillary B1 use which will have a number of strategic implications for the Leicestershire area and region. However, it is considered that due to the distance of this proposal from the Borough of Wellingborough, it is unlikely that this scheme would have significant detrimental impacts in socio-economic terms for this area.

RECOMMENDATION It is concluded that no objections be raised against the planning application.

Planning Committee 123 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

OTHER BOROUGH

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Andrew Mackriell WP/15/00790/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry 9 December 2015 9 December 2015 30 December 2015

Applicant Peter Brett Associates

Agent Phil Watson

Location Land To The South Of Lower Ecton Lane Great Billing Northampton

Proposal Scoping request consultation for Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00790/EXT Determination pending. Scoping request consultation for Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

- This is an external consultation for a 'scoping opinion' for a proposed planning application for sand and gravel extraction with subsequent restoration of land east of the Wastewater Treatment Works, Great Billing - This is a consultation via Northamptonshire County Council as minerals authority to determine the type and extent of information required for inclusion within an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping report. - The purpose of this report to planning committee is to inform members of the request made to the council for a scoping opinion and to provide members with the opportunity to minute any comments or concerns they may have that can then be reported back to NCC via the official minutes of the planning committee.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site is located on the south side of the A45 at Great Billing to the east of Northampton. The site covers an area of approximately 150 hectares. The River Nene lies to the south of the site, and the site is within the fluvial floodplain of the Nene, as well as Ecton Brook and Barton Brook.

Planning Committee 124 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00790/EXT

WP/15/00790/EXT – Land to the South of Lower Ecton Lane, Great Billing

Beyond the A45 to the north of the site is the village of Ecton whilst Earls Barton lies to the north east.

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL Anglian Water intends to submit a planning application for the extraction works to Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) as the minerals authority. Part of the extraction area is within the boundary of the Borough Council of Wellingborough.

The proposed mineral output is 200,000 tonnes per annum, 50,000 tonnes of which will go to a concrete plant to be located within the site. The estimated overall timescale for mineral extraction and restoration will be approximately 20 years.

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

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction)

Wellingborough Local Plan (LP) Policies: G2 (Flood Protection) G6 (Development within the Open Countryside)

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policies: 1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) 3 (Landscape Character) 4 (Biodiversity & Geodiversity) 5 (Water Environment, Resources and Flood Risk Management) 20 (Nene and Ise Valleys)

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Development and Implementation Principles; Biodiversity

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED The Borough Council of Wellingborough is a consultee regarding a 'scoping opinion' only and therefore, no consultations have been undertaken by the council for this application.

ASSESSMENT AND REASONED JUSTIFICATION The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015) require an EIA to be undertaken for "quarries and open-cast mining where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares".

Planning Committee 125 of 146 10 February 2016

The purpose of scoping is to identify the key issues relating to the proposals and to ensure that they are subject to the appropriate level of assessment, to provide a focus for the environmental impact assessment, which will be documented in an environmental statement for the application.

The key issues proposed as part of the ES are:- - Landscape, visual impact and restoration works - Ecology - Transport and Access - Noise and Vibration - Hydrology, hydrogeology and flood risk - Archaeology and Cultural heritage - Air Quality including Dust - Contamination - Climate Change - Cumulative Effects and Impact Interactions

CONCLUSION The scope of the proposed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the content of the environmental statement which will accompany the planning application is considered to be acceptable; it will identify the nature and extent of the likely significant environmental effects of the proposals.

RECOMMENDATION That the council has no comments and raises no objection to the scope of the EIA.

Planning Committee 126 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

OTHER BOROUGH

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Erica Buchanan WP/15/00792/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry 9 December 2015 9 December 2015 30 December 2015

Applicant Mr Wordie On Behalf Of Hanwood Park LLP

Agent Alan Davies

Location Hanwood Park Barton Road, Warkton Lane & Cranford Road (Land Off) Barton Seagrave

Proposal S.73 Application: Variation of Condition 18 of KET/2013/0695 in respect of Code levels for Sustainable Homes in relation to parcels R1 to R6; R15 to R18; R20 to R22; R24 to R25; R27 to R42; DC 1 to 3 and LC 1& 2 to remove the code level requirements

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00792/EXT Determination pending. S.73 Application: Variation of Condition 18 of KET/2013/0695 in respect of Code levels for Sustainable Homes in relation to parcels R1 to R6; R15 to R18; R20 to R22; R24 to R25; R27 to R42; DC 1 to 3 and LC 1& 2 to remove the code level requirements

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

- The application has been submitted to Kettering Borough Council (KBC) Northamptonshire (KBC Reference: KET/2015/00967) for determination. - The purpose of this report is to inform members of the application's existence and to provide the members with the opportunity to minute any concerns they may have that can then be reported back to KBC via the official minutes of the planning committee

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site is situated to the east of Kettering approximately 2.5 miles from the town centre. The proposal relates to parcels R1 to R6; R15 to R18; R20 to R22; R24 to

Planning Committee 127 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00792/EXT

R25; R27 to R42; DC1 to 3 and LC1& 2 of the East Kettering Sustainable Urban Extension site (now known as Hanwood Park) and comprises 11.43 hectares of arable land (9.42ha of developable land).

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL The application is s.73 application for the variation of condition 18 (code levels for sustainable homes) of KET/2013/0695

Condition 18 requires residential dwellings completed on the development during the period 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015 to achieve level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) as a minimum and those dwellings completed from 1 January 2016 onwards to meet CSH Level 6 (or the equivalent standard which may replace it).

The Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) was abolished by the government in March 2015 and planning conditions relating to requirements to meet CSH levels should no longer be attached to planning permissions for residential development

This application to vary condition 18 seeks to reflect the current planning policy position regarding the government's position on the sustainability of new homes and the shift towards new national technical standards.

The proposed variation relates to the listed parcels only.

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

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED Wellingborough Borough Council is a consultee only on this application and, therefore, no consultations have been carried out on this application by the borough.

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

CONCLUSION It is concluded that no objections be raised against the planning application.

RECOMMENDATION No objection.

Planning Committee 128 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

OTHER BOROUGH

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Andrew Mackriell WP/15/00804/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry 15 December 2015 15 December 2015 5 January 2016

Applicant Conalgen Estates SA

Agent Rosalind Hair

Location Nene Park Station Road Irthlingborough Northamptonshire

Proposal Outline: Demolition of existing football stadium and associated infrastructure and erection of new retail and leisure development including retail (A1), foodstore (A1), cinema (D2), hotel (C1), restaurants (A3/A5) and new community football facility along with access and parking (All matters reserved except access) (Re-submission of 14/02310/OUT) (see also 15/02199/OUT)

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00804/EXT Determination pending. Outline: Demolition of existing football stadium and associated infrastructure and erection of new retail and leisure development including retail (A1), foodstore (A1), cinema (D2), hotel (C1), restaurants (A3/A5) and new community football facility along with access and parking (All matters reserved except access) (Re- submission of 14/02310/OUT) (see also 15/02199/OUT)

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

- This is an external consultation for a proposed development on land in an adjoining authority in this case East Northants Council (ENC), who have received an application for development on the former Rushden and Diamonds FC site to the east of Irthlingborough (ENC Ref: 15/02198/OUT and is a resubmission of ENC Ref: 14/02310/OUT) - The purpose of this report is to inform members of the application's existence as well as the background and issues relating to the development and to provide members with the opportunity to minute any comments or concerns they may have that can then be reported to ENC via the official minutes of the planning committee

Planning Committee 129 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00804/EXT

NORTH

L Twrs

ATTLEY WAY

ESS Attley Way Attley DIAMOND WAY Nene Park

Outpatients Clinic

Diamond Way Scale 1=2500 at A3 DIAMOND WAY Nene Park El Sub Sta Site Location Plan A 6 Drawing L001

A 6

Mast

Depot

37.9m

Waterside House

Business Centre

THE SITE AND PROPOSAL The application site is the former Rushden and Diamonds Football Club stadium and surrounding complex, located on the eastern edge of the built up area of Irthlingborough, accessed from the A6 roundabout.

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL The application for consultation is one of two applications submitted concurrently to East Northants Council. This consultation relates to the application submitted to East Northants Council for the whole site.

The original outline scheme for the demolition of the existing vacant football stadium and associated infrastructure and erection of new retail and leisure development including retail (A1), food-store (A1), cinema (D2), hotel (C1), restaurants (A3/A5), new community football facility and associated car parking as well as ecological improvements to the wild area at the northern tip of the site was reported to planning committee previously under BCW Ref: WP/15/00018/EXT on the 11th March 2015 and members resolved to object to the scheme. The resubmitted scheme for consideration now excludes the wetlands area to the north of the site.

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

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 12 Distribution of retail development 13 General Sustainable Development Principles

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policy 12 (Town Centres and Town Centre Uses)

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED No consultations have been undertaken by the council as the duty to undertake such consultations and publicity in this case is the responsibility of East Northants Council.

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

- Conformity with the development plan, especially in relation to the impact of the development on the existing town centres in the region, in particular Wellingborough town centre.

CONCLUSION The resubmitted scheme does not propose any significant changes to the original scheme previously reported to planning committee other than to exclude the wetlands area to the north. The change would have little effect on the impact of the overall scheme. The council has previously raised objection to the development under Ref: WP/15/00018/EXT accordingly it is therefore recommended that an objection be raised

Planning Committee 130 of 146 10 February 2016

to this application.

RECOMMENDATION That the council raises an objection to the application for the following reasons.

(i) The proposed development is on a scale that is inconsistent with the existing and emerging spatial role of Irthlingborough as a secondary focal point for development. In terms of retail, it is contrary to the existing and emerging role of Irthlingborough as a localised centre for convenience shopping. At 6,706m2 of A1 class uses, the proposal would significantly exceed the amount of planned growth in the southern region for the period up to 2021.

(ii) Considering the settlement hierarchy and the scale of the proposed development, which should ideally be directed to larger urban centres, the catchment area for sequential testing must include Wellingborough and not restricted to Irthlingborough, Higham Ferrers and Rushden only. The sequential test must demonstrate flexibility in terms of scale and format.

(iii) The retail impact assessment in the planning statement is inadequate in terms of the NPPF and guidance because it fails to sufficiently assess the quantitative and qualitative impact of the proposed development on Wellingborough town centre. The applicant should carry an impact test clearly assessing, among other things, Wellingborough's state of the existing centre, the nature of the current patterns of trade and the proposal's trade draw from Wellingborough's town centre.

Planning Committee 131 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

OTHER BOROUGH

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Andrew Mackriell WP/15/00805/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry 15 December 2015 15 December 2015 5 January 2016

Applicant Conalgen Enterprises SA

Agent Rosalind Hair

Location Five A Side Pitch Diamond Way Irthlingborough Northamptonshire

Proposal Outline: Redevelopment to create car parking spaces in conjunction with the wider mixed use proposal on the surrounding site (all matters reserved except access) (see also 15/02198/OUT)

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00805/EXT Determination pending. Outline: Redevelopment to create car parking spaces in conjunction with the wider mixed use proposal on the surrounding site (all matters reserved except access) (see also 15/02198/OUT)

Reason(s) for Committee Consideration:

- This is an external consultation for a proposed development on land in an adjoining authority in this case East Northants Council (ENC), who have received an application for development on the former Rushden and Diamonds FC site to the east of Irthlingborough. - The purpose of this report is to inform members of the application's existence as well as the background and issues relating to the development and to provide members with the opportunity to minute any comments or concerns they may have that can then be reported to ENC via the official minutes of the planning committee

Planning Committee 132 of 146 10 February 2016

CHK

.com 4BL . - Revision any . and to setting Ltd all SCALE 2015 CV34

prior

company Wright NOT Date OCT & the DO . of for checking for . Warwick discrepancies .A

.corstorphine-wright drawing consent any S . Corstorphine the of this No responsible with www Street be from w

Scale Drawing without 1:1250 303

. architect and Leisure

taken is vested the site work Brook Size

and

A1 to the NOTES Paper PLANNING reproduced 288992 drawing visit only Hall or ENTERPRISES this Retail and notifying and construction of 01926 or Plan DATE

copied pitch) PT Brook t Checked be . Park Title dimensions No not copyright dimensions aside contractors must contractors CONALGEN Nene Rushden REVISION Client Project Drawing Drawn Project The must Figured All out manufacture NOTES: Location (5 RBJ 131100 s

Bollard

SM SM

Weir

Navigation

Nene River

Twrs

SM SM LANE

Pitch

MARSH

SM SM Football

Twrs L Pitch

Twrs L Football Mast WP/15/00805/EXT Court Games Stands Centre House Business Waterside Wair Stand Air Centre

Diamond WAY The

Diamonds DIAMOND Ground) and Stand (Football Rushden Twr L Stand Terrace Banke De Peter Park .9m Clinic GVC 37 Nene Outpatients

ESS

LANE MARSH Twr L

WAY

ATTLEY WAY

Sta DIAMOND Ppg GP

6 Sta A Sub El Depot Centre Diamonds Business

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site is the former Rushden and Diamonds Football Club stadium and surrounding complex, located on the eastern edge of the built up area of Irthlingborough, accessed from the A6 roundabout.

This consultation relates to the proposal to develop an area originally excluded from the site and designated a five-a-side football pitch which it is now proposed to include within the wider development for additional car-parking adjacent to the proposed cinema complex. (East Northants Ref: 15/02199/OUT)

BACKGROUND AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL The application for consultation is one of two applications submitted concurrently to East Northants Council.

This consultation relates to the inclusion of the five-a-side football pitch area as part of the site (originally excluded) and proposes that this be used for car-parking. The wider site proposals include a community football facility to the north of the site.

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

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) Policies: 12 Distribution of retail development 13 General Sustainable Development Principles

Pre-Submission Plan - North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policy 12 (Town Centres and Town Centre Uses)

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

- Conformity with the development plan, especially in relation to the impact of the development on the existing town centres in the region, in particular Wellingborough town centre.

CONCLUSION The proposal to include the five-a-side pitch into the development represents a relatively minor change which would have little effect on the impact of the overall scheme. Members previously raised objection to the development under Ref: WP/15/00018/EXT and it is therefore recommended that an objection be raised to the application.

Planning Committee 133 of 146 10 February 2016

RECOMMENDATION That the council raises an objection to the application for the following reasons.

Planning Committee 134 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

OTHER BOROUGH

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

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

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

Applicant -

Agent Graham Wyatt

Location Land Adjacent Skew Bridge Ski Slope Northampton Road Rushden Northamptonshire

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

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00819/EXT Determination pending. Rushden Lakes: Erection of a leisure building to include a cinema, restaurant and retail units and other leisure uses and erection of a cycle hire facility together with proposals for access, parking and servicing space, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works

Reason(s) for Committee consideration:

- This application is referred to committee for comment because it is an East Northamptonshire Council application (ENC Reference: 15/02249/FUL). - The purpose of this report is to inform members of the application's existence and to provide members with the opportunity to minute any concerns they may have that can then be reported to ENC via the official committee minutes

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE This is a full planning application for the erection of a leisure building to include a cinema, restaurant, retail units and other leisure uses, a cycle hire facility together with proposals for access parking and servicing space, hard and soft landscaping and other

Planning Committee 135 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00819/EXT

associated works at land adjacent Skew Bridge Ski Slope, Northampton Road, Rushden.

The applicant LXB RP (Rushden) Limited proposes to change the composition of the approved mixed retail, recreation and leisure scheme. A full planning application has been submitted for additional leisure uses on the part of the Rushden Lakes site. It is envisaged that the leisure development would form a second phase of the Rushden Lakes scheme following on from the first phase of development that will involve the construction of the three approved retail terraces A, B and C and the associated car parking and access works.

The proposed cinema, leisure uses, restaurant and retail units will be located in a single block ("leisure building") on the western part of the site and will replace the previously consented garden centre which forms part of the Rushden Lakes planning permission and subsequent amendments (LPA refs. 12/00010/FUL, 14/01938/VAR and 15/01127/VAR). The proposed leisure development consists of a multiplex cinema; tenpin bowling alley, indoor climbing structure, a range of other indoor family entertainment/leisure uses and eight restaurants with external seating areas. Six of the proposed restaurants will be located within the cinema complex, and two will be located in an adjoining building overlooking the lake.

The cycle hire shop with ancillary café is proposed to be located in a new building on the eastern part of the site, to the north of the previously consented hotel and leisure club.

Access, circulation and vehicular parking for the proposed uses will be shared with the remainder of the Rushden Lakes development. The leisure building will however have an additional servicing area to the rear. A further ancillary parking area is also proposed to the south-west of the leisure building.

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

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

Ref. EN/12/00010/FUL dated December 2011 "Full planning permission for: the erection of a home and garden centre, retail units, drive thru restaurant, gatehouse, lakeside visitor centre, restaurants, boathouse, together with proposals for access and outline planning permission for the erection of a hotel, crèche and leisure club with some matters reserved (appearance); plus removal of ski slope and associated levelling, landscaping, habitat management and improvement works, vehicular access and servicing proposals together with the provision of car and cycle parking and a bus stop (application)."

Planning Committee 136 of 146 10 February 2016

Further to the issue of the above SoS's decision, the applicant then submitted a variation of condition application. The details of which are set out below:

Ref. EN/14/01938/VAR dated October 2014 "Variation of conditions 1, 5, 6, 8, 15, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 as per section 2 of the submitted planning statement pursuant to planning permission 12/00010/FUL - 'Rushden Lakes: Hybrid Planning Application comprising: Full application for the erection of a home and garden centre, retail units, drive thru restaurant, gatehouse, lakeside visitor centre, restaurants and boat house, together with proposals for access. Outline: application for the erection of a hotel, crèche and leisure club with some matters reserved (appearance). Plus removal of ski slope and associated site levelling, landscaping, habitat management and improvement works, vehicular access and servicing proposals together with the provision of car and cycle parking and a bus stop' dated 20.12.2012." Following discussions with potential occupiers for the scheme as well as development of the detailed design, a number of further amendments were made. These changes were set out as information to members in the planning committee report paper 13th January 2016 reference number WP/15/00416/EXT. The details of this are set out below:

Ref. EN/15/01127/VAR Variation of conditions 1, 5, 6, 8, 14, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 (as per section 2 of the submitted planning statement) pursuant to planning permission 14/01938/VAR (Variation of conditions 1, 5, 6, 8, 15, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47 (as per section 2 of the submitted planning statement) pursuant to planning permission 12/00010/FUL - 'Rushden Lakes: Hybrid Planning Application comprising: Full application for the erection of a home and garden centre, retail units, drive thru restaurant, gatehouse, lakeside visitor centre, restaurants and boat house, together with proposals for access. Outline: application for the erection of a hotel, crèche and leisure club with some matters reserved (appearance). Plus removal of ski slope and associated site levelling, landscaping, habitat management and improvement works, vehicular access and servicing proposals together with the provision of car and cycle parking and a bus stop' dated 20.12.2012

Subsequently, another application has been received by the Borough Council of Wellingborough to comment upon as a consultee. As set out in the proposal and site description:

Ref. EN/15/02249/FUL Rushden Lakes: Erection of a leisure building to include a cinema, restaurant and retail units and other leisure uses and erection of a cycle hire facility together with proposals for access, parking and servicing space, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED No consultations have been undertaken by Wellingborough Council as the duty to undertake such consultation and publicity exercises rests with East Northamptonshire Council. If, however, Wellingborough Council receive any representations to the application, then these will be forwarded to ENC for their attention.

Planning Committee 137 of 146 10 February 2016

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

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

Attention is drawn to the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) which was submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2015. Examination hearings took place in November 2015. It is therefore at an advanced stage. Whilst there are unresolved objections to the overall housing numbers, there are fewer objections to the core policies. The spatial strategy is also largely the same as the adopted strategy in that it prioritises development in the urban areas, thereby adopting a sustainable distribution of development. The policies are consistent with the policies in the framework and should therefore be given significant weight in making a decision.

Policy 12 of the JCS relates to town centres and town centre uses, supporting the vitality and viability of town centres in North Northamptonshire through adapting and diversifying Rushden town centre to operate successfully alongside the permitted out of centre retail and leisure development at Rushden Lakes. It will also require the sequential and impact tests to be applied as set out in the NPPF to the assessment of retail and other town centre uses which cannot be accommodated within the defined town centres. Supporting paragraph 5.30 of the JCS relates to Rushden Lakes directly and states:

"North Northamptonshire will soon have an additional focus of retail and leisure uses in the form of the out of centre Rushden Lakes development. This was permitted by the Secretary of State in June 2014 and is expected to open late in 2016. Rushden Lakes is a mixed retail, recreation and leisure scheme, including garden centre and retail units totalling no more than 26,747 square metres net sales area (of which no more than 929 sq m for convenience goods), together with an hotel and leisure club, restaurants and lakeside visitor centre. This development will enhance the retail and leisure facilities available to local residents in the southern area, helping to retain a higher proportion of spending and contributing to the goal of greater self-reliance."

The latest information provided by the Joint Planning Unit (JPU) states that a modification has been made to paragraph 5.30 of the JCS in order to reflect the revised planning approvals on the Rushden Lakes site to date. This was taken to the Joint Planning Committee in December 2015. As such, part of paragraph 5.30 is now proposed to read as follows:

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

Planning Committee 138 of 146 10 February 2016

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

It is noted that this latest application is not taken account of within the revised figures set out above, as the proposal is yet to be determined, but this would no doubt alter the figures even further. The JPU has informed Wellingborough that it is likely the proposal would increase the amount of comparison floorspace at Rushden Lakes. (Comparison goods are defined as 'other goods' not classified as convenience. Examples of Convenience goods include: food, drink tobacco, newspapers etc).

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

RECOMMENDATION It is concluded that no objection be raised against the planning application.

Planning Committee 139 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

FOR INFORMATION

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Mr Alan Chapman WP/15/00552/EXT

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry 1 September 2015 1 September 2015 22 September 2015

Applicant Mrs Jude Cook

Agent Adam Smith

Location Hyde Farm Warrington Road Olney MK46 4DU

Proposal Construction of solar development to generate renewable electricity, to include the installation of solar panels, underground cabling, inverter/transformer stations, DNO and client sub-station, spare parts container, landscaping and other associated works including connection to the electricity distribution network

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00552/EXT No objection WBC response 07.10.2015 Construction of solar development to generate renewable electricity, to include the installation of solar panels, underground cabling, inverter/transformer stations, DNO and client sub-station, spare parts container, landscaping and other associated works including connection to the electricity distribution network

NOTE Planning permission granted by Milton Keynes Council on 12th January 2016 subject to the following conditions.

(1) The approved development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings/details:

C.0539_01-B electronically registered on 18th August 2015 C.0539_12-E electronically registered on 29th October 2015 SIGMA I XL electronically registered on 18th August 2015 5880/01A electronically registered on 18th August 2015

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with the requirements of The

Planning Committee 140 of 146 10 February 2016

WP/15/00552/CRA KEY

Site Boundary

Revisions Date

A - First Issue 26.11.14 B - Location of boundary amended 19.03.15

Hyde Farm, Olney, Milton Keynes

Site Location Plan

Drawn by: JS Checked by: AS

Date: 19.03.15 C.0539_01-B

1:25,000 @ A3

I T 01285 641717 I F 01285 642348 I www.pegasuspg.co.uk I 01km> © Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. 2014 Emapsite Licence number 0100031673. Ordnance Survey Copyright Licence number Licence number 100042093. Promap Licence number 100020449. Pegasus Environmental is part of Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. Drawing prepared for planning. All Queries to be reported to Pegasus for clarification. (N

Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment No. 3) (England) Order 2009.

(2) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)

(3) Prior to commencement of development hereby approved the developer shall notify the Local Planning Authority of the intended start date of the development. The planning permission hereby granted is for a limited period of 31 years after the date the development commences. At this date the use shall cease and the solar panels and all ancillary equipment shall be removed from the site in accordance with the approved Decommissioning Method Statement.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory restoration of the land and to preserve the character and appearance of the countryside in accordance with the provisions of Saved Policies S10 and R5 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(4) No later than 12 months prior to the end of this permission a Decommissioning Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include details of a site restoration scheme back to the original use and timescales for the restoration works. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(5) Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of a widened vehicular access to the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No other part of the development shall commence until the access has been altered in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: For the safety and convenience of users of the highway in accordance with the provisions of Saved Policy T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(6) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Construction Management Statement shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall include provision for: i. The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii. Loading and unloading of plant and materials iii. Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv. The erection and maintenance of security fencing and lighting v. Wheel washing, welfare and other site facilities

Planning Committee 141 of 146 10 February 2016

vi. Management of site access and Olney Footpath 006 vii. Condition survey of B5388 in vicinity of site viii. Construction traffic routing and signage ix. Working and delivery times including measures to suspend work when funerals are taking place at the Olney Green Burial Ground x. Construction notification and liaison procedures for neighbours xi. Measures to control the emission of dust, dirt, noise and vibrations during construction

Reason: For the safety and convenience of users of the highway and to protect the amenity of neighbours during the construction process in accordance with the provisions of Saved Policies T15 and D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(7) Notwithstanding the details previously submitted, prior to the installation of any inverter/transformer stations, transformers, or substations, full details of their appearance (including elevation plans and details of external materials and colour) shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and no alterations shall take place thereafter.

Reason: To minimise the effect of development on the appearance and character of the area in accordance with Saved Policies D2A, D5 and NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(8) Notwithstanding the details previously submitted, prior to the installation of the security fencing and CCTV full elevational plans drawn to a recognised metric scale shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and no alterations shall take place thereafter.

Reason: To minimise the effect of development on the appearance and character of the area in accordance with Saved Policies D2A, D5 and NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(9) The storage container hereby approved shall be finished in Green (RAL6005) and no alterations to its external appearance shall take place thereafter.

Reason: To minimise the effect of development on the appearance and character of the area in accordance with Saved Policies D2A, D5 and NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(10) Notwithstanding the details previously submitted, prior to commencement of development hereby approved a landscaping scheme, which shall include provision for the planting of trees and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall show the numbers, types and sizes of trees and shrubs to be planted and their location in relation to proposed buildings, roads, footpaths and drains. All planting in accordance with the scheme shall be carried out within a time scale to be agreed with the local planning authority as part of the submitted details. Any trees or shrubs or other planting removed, dying, severely damaged or diseased within the lifetime of the development shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed

Planning Committee 142 of 146 10 February 2016

by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the effect of development on the appearance and character of the area and to provides biodiversity enhancements in accordance with Saved Policies D2A, D5 and NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(11) Notwithstanding the details previously submitted, prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Biodiversity Management Plan designed to cover the full 30 years of the solar farms active life and its decommissioning shall be submitted to and be approved by the Local Planning Authority. This development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity in accordance with Saved Policy NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(12) Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a Written Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Watching Brief shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details with the Local Planning Authority given five days' notice of the commencement of the watching brief. Two copies of an archaeological findings report shall be deposited with the Council's Historic Environment Record within three months of the completion of the development.

Reason: To ensure that a record is produced of any archaeological remains affected by the development pursuant to paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Saved Policy HE1 the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(13) All existing trees, woodlands and hedges to be retained are to be protected according to the provisions of BS 5837: 2012 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations'

Reason: To protect existing trees and hedges are protected during the construction process in accordance with Saved Policies D2A, D5 and NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(14) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the surface water drainage arrangements and associated management and maintenance plan in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (Hyde Renewables Limited, June 2015) hereby approved. The surface water drainage scheme so provided shall be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory and sustainable surface water drainage to prevent the increased risk of flooding on or off site in accordance with the Written Ministerial Statement issued on 18 December 2014 in relation to sustainable drainage systems.

(15) There shall be no external lighting of any kind erected on site without the prior granting of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To preserve the character and appearance of the countryside and to protect biodiversity in accordance with Saved Policies D2A, D5 and NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

Planning Committee 143 of 146 10 February 2016

Working with the Applicant In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework Milton Keynes Council takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. Milton Keynes Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by: offering a pre-application advice service; as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application; where possible suggesting solutions to secure a successful outcome; informing applicants/agents of any likely recommendation of refusal prior to a decision; and by adhering to the requirements of the Milton Keynes Council Corporate Plan and the Planning and Transport Service Plan. In this instance the application was amended and approved by the Development Control Panel.

Building Regulations Please note that this is a planning permission only and you may also require approval under the Building Regulations. If you are in any doubt about this you can get further information via http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/building_control or the Building Control Helpline Tel. (01908) 252721.

Planning Committee 144 of 146 10 February 2016

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

FOR INFORMATION

Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development

Case Officer Erica Buchanan WP/15/00755/CRA

Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 24 Nov 2015 24 Nov 2015 15 Dec 2015 Earls Barton Earls Barton

Applicant Hanson Quarry Products Europe Limited

Agent Dan Szymanski

Location Earls Barton Quarry Grendon Road Earls Barton Northampton Northamptonshire

Proposal Variation of condition 5 of planning permission WP/05/767C to continue the importation of aggregates until 27 August 2027

PLANNING HISTORY

WP/15/00755/CRA No objection WBC response 13.01.2016 Variation of condition 5 of planning permission WP/05/767C to continue the importation of aggregates until 27 August 2027

NOTE Approved by East Northamptonshire Council on 15 January 2016 subject to the following conditions.

Commencement of Development 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of TWO YEARS from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Scope of Permission 2. Upon implementation this planning permission shall supersede planning permission ref. no. WP/05/767C.

3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Supporting Statement (dated November 2015) to application ref. no. 15/00088/MINVOC and accompanying Plan/drawing E77/209 (dated August 2005).

Planning Committee 145 of 146 10 February 2016

STATION ROAD G ± The Stables The

1:1,250 A Scale: Gatehouse The

when reproduced at at A4 reproduced when Built Environment Built to the scale specified scale the to This map isaccurate map This Drain Ordnance Ordnance 100018694. Survey Aerial Photography copyright: AerialPhotography and database right 2015. 2015. right and database GetMapping PLC GetMapping 1999 PLC © Crown Copyright ©Copyright Crown Cities Revealed WP/15/00755/CRA A Legend WP/15/00755/C Earls Barton Quarry, Grendon Road, Earls Barton Earls Road, Quarry, Grendon Barton Earls WP/15/00755/C

Drain WB

))_ Track

_ _

Reason for conditions 2 & 3: In the interests of clarity and for the avoidance of doubt.

Hours of Operation 4. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority the development hereby permitted shall only be undertaken between 07.00hrs and 18:00hrs Monday to Friday, and 07.00hrs and 13.00hrs on Saturdays, with no such operations being carried out on the site on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby permitted is carried out within reasonable hours in accordance with other planning permissions relating to the plant site, so as to avoid disturbance and in the interest of amenity (Policy 22 of the Northamptonshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan (October 2014)).

Highways 5. Access to and egress from the site shall be solely via the section of Station Road between the existing quarry site entrance on Grendon Road and its junction with the A45 as set out in the applicant's Supporting Statement dated November 2015.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory means of access to the site and in the interest of amenity (Policies 22 and 23 of the Northamptonshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan (October 2014)).

Quantity of Material 6. The amount of material stockpiled under this planning permission shall not at any one time exceed 5,000 tonnes.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory control over the development and in the interests of amenity (Policy 22 of the Northamptonshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan (October 2014)).

End date 7. The development hereby permitted shall cease no later than 27 August 2027 and the site shall be restored or reinstated forthwith in accordance with the conditions attached to planning permission ref. no. WP/2007/0039.

Reason: To specify the end date by which this permission shall cease in accordance with conditions 4 and 57 of permission ref. no, WP/2007/0039 and to secure the satisfactory restoration of the application site (Policy 28 of the Northamptonshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan (October 2014)).

Positive and Proactive Statement In determining this application the Minerals Planning Authority has worked positively and proactively with the applicant by assessing the proposals against relevant Development Plan policies, all material considerations, consultation responses and any valid representations that may have been received. The applicant has been sent a draft copy of the planning conditions. This approach to this application has been taken in accordance with the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

Planning Committee 146 of 146 10 February 2016

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 10 February 2016

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

WP/15/00507/FUL Applicant Scott Bader F.a.o. R Leeson

Location Wollaston Hall, High Street, Wollaston, Wellingborough. Proposal Installation of a spray booth Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00573/AMD Applicant Holmere Developments Limited Holmere Developments Limited

Location 78 High Street, Earls Barton, Northampton, Northamptonshire. Proposal Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission ref: WP/15/00145/FUL to remove WC window adjacent entrance to plots S1, 3 and 5 and internal layout changes. 915 wide window in lieu of 1200 wide, plus 7100 wide patio door set in lieu of 1200 wide to all plots. Car barns not to be constructed at this stage. To improve saveability and aesthetic appeal. Replacement topographical survey and site layout with revised datum. To improve accuracy of levels in relation to existing site Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00604/FUL Applicant Mr L Herbert

Location 4 Ecton Lane, Sywell, Northampton, Northamptonshire. Proposal Demolition of existing bungalow. Erection of new 2.5 storey detached dwelling with detached garage. New entrance gates - amended plans Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00651/FUL Applicant Mr Anil Patel BAPS Shiri Swaminarayan Sanstha

Location 2 - 22 Mill Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1PE. Proposal Installation of a mobile storage unit for storage of furniture, utensils and sundry items Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00656/FUL Applicant Mr V Vaghela

Location Builders Yard, 3 Orchard Road, Finedon, Wellingborough. Proposal Change of use to land from Storage and Distribution (B8) to Residential (C3) to create 2 no. dwellings Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00666/FUL Applicant Ms Jan Clark NoteMachine UK Limited

Location 26B Market Street, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1AX. Proposal Installation of an ATM Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00667/ADV Applicant Ms Jan Clark NoteMachine UK Limited

Location 26B Market Street, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1AX. Proposal Display of signage in connection with new ATM Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00668/ADV Applicant HSL HSL

Location 49 London Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 2DP. Proposal Erection of one illuminated fascia sign and one non illuminated opening hours sign Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00672/LDP Applicant Mr Babatunde Oguntoye Eagle Global Limited

Location 25 Shearwater Lane, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 4TS. Proposal Intended use of house, which consists of 4 rooms, as sheltered accommodation Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00722/FUL Applicant Miss Joanne Rainsley

Location 7 Grange Close, Irchester, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. Proposal Erection of porch to front of property Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00725/FUL Applicant Ms C Oxland

Location 12 Hatton Avenue, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 5AP. Proposal New entrance and associated alterations - re-submission Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00726/FUL Applicant Mr Quentin Goodman

Location 21 Doddington Road, Wilby, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. Proposal Erection of a first floor extension and insertion of side window to bedroom - works have commenced Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00735/LDP Applicant Mrs H Patel

Location 46 Ferrestone Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 4EJ. Proposal Loft conversion which includes a rear facing flat roof dormer Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00736/TCA Applicant Mr Alan Kidman

Location 25A Hardwick Village, Hardwick, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. Proposal 3 trees at the end of rear garden - reduce by 30-40% Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00737/VAR Applicant Mr Raj Manek Loungers Limited

Location 1 - 2 Market Street, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1AN. Proposal Retention of planning permission BW/85/580 for use as restaurant with ancillary staff storage and office facilities with non-compliance with condition number 2, and non-compliance with condition number 1 of planning permission WP/91/0492 Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00742/FUL Applicant Mr James Kenny S + J Kenny Carpets Limited

Location 6 Phoenix Court, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 2QE. Proposal Change of use from light industrial/warehouse to one third storage and cutting area, one third storage and trade counter and one third display area/showroom Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00743/ADV Applicant Mr James Kenny S + J Kenny Carpets Limited

Location 6 Phoenix Court, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 2QE. Proposal Display of 2 fascia signs in connection with change of use of unit Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00744/FUL Applicant Mr Rob Bailey

Location Disused Pumping Station, Orlingbury Road, Isham, Kettering. Proposal Conversion of water tower to dwelling Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00747/FUL Applicant Mr & Mrs Terry Fletcher

Location The Bungalow Brookhill Farm, 14 Main Road, Earls Barton, Northampton. Proposal Alterations/extension to existing bungalow Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00749/FUL Applicant Mr Peter Jakeways Northampton Road Post Office

Location Northampton Road Post Office, 196 - 198 Northampton Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. Proposal Single storey, flat roof, rear extension to Post Office/shop Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00751/FUL Applicant Mr Daniel Peek Hitchin Manor Draughting

Location 5 - 7 Whitworth Way, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 2EF. Proposal To add additional glazed windows to the front and side elevation of the unit Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00752/FUL Applicant Mr Simon Deacon

Location 17 Sywell Village, Sywell, Northampton, Northamptonshire. Proposal Replacement garage with porch link. Widen patio doors to rear ground floor bedroom and install roof light to bedroom - re-submission Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00753/LBC Applicant Mr Simon Deacon

Location 17 Sywell Village, Sywell, Northampton, Northamptonshire. Proposal Replacement garage with porch link - re-submission Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00754/TCA Applicant Mr Wasim Mohammad Mitie Landscapes Ltd

Location Co-op Food, 6 - 10 High Street, Earls Barton, Northampton. Proposal Works to three trees adjacent to car park Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00756/TCA Applicant Mr John Bambridge

Location 11 Paddock Lane, Mears Ashby, Northampton, Northamptonshire. Proposal Works to trees overhanging road Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00757/TCA Applicant Mr Steve Rose

Location 41A High Street, Ecton, Northampton, Northamptonshire. Proposal T1 Acer; Reduce back to viable growth points as close to the boundary as possible. T2 Yew; Reduce back to viable growth points as close to the boundary as possible Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00758/FUL Applicant Mr James Tuckett

Location 76 Doddington Road, Earls Barton, Northampton, Northamptonshire. Proposal Erection of new single storey sun room to the rear of the property Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00760/REM Applicant Mr Jeff Underdown

Location Land Adjacent 14, Hardwick Village, Hardwick, Wellingborough. Proposal Reserved matters application pursuant to condition 2 of outline planning permission ref: WP/2014/0102 to determine appearance, layout, scale and landscaping Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00761/FUL Applicant Mr K Bean

Location 50 Butterfields, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 2PZ. Proposal Erection of a conservatory to the rear of the property Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00765/FUL Applicant Mr Peter Higgins

Location 60 High Street, Great Doddington, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. Proposal Alterations and extensions Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00767/FUL Applicant Mr Kieron Heritage

Location 99 The Ridge, Great Doddington, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. Proposal Demolition of existing garage/rear extension/outbuildings. Erection of single storey rear extension and new garage to side. Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00768/FUL Applicant Mr Carlo Vuodi

Location 17 Ruskin Avenue, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 3EQ. Proposal Proposed single storey rear kitchen extension and new boundary fence to part of west boundary Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00774/FUL Applicant Mr David McLaughlin

Location 6 School Hill, Irchester, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. Proposal Conversion of garage to annex, 2 no. proposed roof lights and addition of porch to north elevation - works have commenced Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00777/TPO Applicant Dr S M Gaskell

Location 14 St Marys Paddock, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1HJ. Proposal 1 x Lime tree - re-pollarding back to original pollard points Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00778/LBC Applicant Mrs Helen Hoyes

Location 12 Kettering Road, Isham, Kettering, Northamptonshire. Proposal Replacement timber windows (like for like). Replacement of timber cills with stone Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00786/FUL Applicant Mr Rajinder Singh

Location 107 Newcomen Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1JT. Proposal Erection of a single storey rear extension Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00787/AMD Applicant Mr Suresh Patel NSP Trading Limited

Location 5 Stanton Close, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 4HN. Proposal Non-material amendment application for planning permission ref: WP/2014/0044. Units a and b have been built to include the stated changes Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00793/TCA Applicant Ms Jane Hayward Carter Jonas

Location 72 High Street, Great Doddington, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. Proposal T1 & T2 Yew; Crown lift to a height of 3.0 metres over the footpath only. Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00799/TPO Applicant Mrs Glenys Hitchcock

Location Orchard House, 17 Ivy Lane, Finedon, Wellingborough. Proposal Lime tree: works including up to 40% crown reduction and removal of damaged stem Yew tree: works including 10 to 15% crown reduction Decision Application Permitted

WP/15/00812/FUL Applicant Mr Ross Harmon

Location 17 The Courtyard, Church Way, Ecton, Northampton. Proposal Alterations to storage loft over garage with new spiral staircase and rooflight to create residential annex for incidental use for the family members of 17 The Courtyard Decision Application Permitted

WP/16/00004/LN Applicant MBNL

Location Mercury One 2 One, Weavers Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. Proposal Proposed works comprise: ancillary development including 2 transmission dishes not greater than 0.6m diameter, additional cabinet within existing compound, swap existing antennae and attach MHAs Decision Application Permitted

BACKGROUND PAPERS

The background papers for the planning and building applications contained in this report form part of the relevant files appertaining to individual applications as referenced.

Borough Council of Wellingborough, Planning and Local Development, Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough.

BUILDING REGULATIONS FULL PLANS DECISIONS ISSUED 29 Dec 2015 - 31 Jan 2016

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

FP/2015/5073 Land Adjacent One new (two Approve 27/11/2015 Yes 07/01/2016 Yes 67 Harvey Road bedroom) conditions Wellingborough dwelling BCW Northamptonshire

FP/2015/5448 153, 155, 157 & 159 Removal of Approve 15/12/2015 Yes 08/01/2016 Yes Henshaw Road existing roof conditions Wellingborough tiling, renew BCW Northamptonshire underfelt & NN8 2BQ battens, renew / refix tiles, upgrade insulation

FP/2015/5449 165, 167, 169 & 171 Removal of Approve 15/12/2015 Yes 08/01/2016 Yes Henshaw Road existing roof conditions Wellingborough tiling, renew BCW Northamptonshire underfelt & NN8 2BQ battens, renew / refix tiles, upgrade insulation

FP/2015/5450 177, 179, 181 & 183 Removal of Approve 15/12/2015 Yes 08/01/2016 Yes Henshaw Road existing roof conditions Wellingborough tiling, renew BCW Northamptonshire underfelt & NN8 2BQ battens, renew / refix tiles, upgrade insulation

FP/2015/5451 189, 191, 193 & 195 Removal of Approve 15/12/2015 Yes 08/01/2016 Yes Henshaw Road existing roof conditions Wellingborough tiling, renew BCW Northamptonshire underfelt & NN8 2BQ battens, renew / refix tiles, upgrade insulation

FP/2015/5452 42, 44, 46 & 48 Removal of Approve 15/12/2015 Yes 08/01/2016 Yes Cowper Road existing roof conditions Wellingborough tiling, renew BCW Northamptonshire underfelt & NN8 3NN battens, renew / refix tiles, upgrade insulation

Page 1 of 3 App No Location Description Decision Rec'd Date 2 Month Decision Date Within 2 Date months

FP/2015/5453 18, 20, 22 & 24 Byron Removal of Approve 15/12/2015 Yes 08/01/2016 Yes Road existing roof conditions Wellingborough tiling, renew BCW Northamptonshire underfelt & NN8 3NW battens, renew / refix tiles, upgrade insulation

FP/2015/5454 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 & Removal of Approve 15/12/2015 Yes 08/01/2016 Yes 31 Pope Road existing roof conditions Wellingborough tiling, renew BCW Northamptonshire underfelt & NN8 3DW battens, renew / refix tiles, upgrade insulation

FP/2015/5455 38, 40, 42, 44, 46 & Removal of Approve 15/12/2015 Yes 08/01/2016 Yes 48 Pope Road existing roof conditions Wellingborough tiling, renew BCW Northamptonshire underfelt & NN8 3DW battens, renew / refix tiles, upgrade insulation

FP/2015/5456 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 & 12 Removal of Approve 15/12/2015 Yes 08/01/2016 Yes Shakespeare Road existing roof conditions Wellingborough tiling, renew BCW Northamptonshire underfelt & NN8 3RL battens, renew / refix tiles, upgrade insulation

FP/2015/4927 Langton Farm House Rear two storey Approved 18/11/2015 Yes 14/01/2016 Yes 2 Kettering Road building Isham attached to Kettering adjoining Northamptonshire property NN14 1HQ

FP/2015/4928 14 Somerford Road Two storey side Approve 17/11/2015 Yes 15/01/2016 Yes Wellingborough extension and conditions Northamptonshire front porch BCW NN8 5EY extension

PS/2015/5447 Little Orchard Extension to Approved 14/12/2015 Yes 15/01/2016 Yes 9 Dellfield Close increase living Radlett area and internal Hertfordshire alterations WD7 8LS

Page 2 of 3 App No Location Description Decision Rec'd Date 2 Month Decision Date Within 2 Date months

FP/2015/5247 4-6 Knox Road Change of use to Plans 25/11/2015 Yes 19/01/2016 Yes Wellingborough House of Rejected Northamptonshire Multiple NN8 1HW Occupation including dormer roof construction and refurbishment of existing property

Page 3 of 3

Received Appeals

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

Roseland WP/15/00189/FUL 8th January Appeal in Written 42 Debdale Road 2016 progress Representations Wellingborough Northamptonshire NN8 5AJ

55 Hatton Park WP/15/00254/FUL 8th January Appeal in Written Road 2016 progress Representations Wellingborough NN8 5AQ

Land adjacent to WP/15/00465/FUL 15th January Appeal in Written 43 Princess Way 2016 progress Representations Wellingborough

Willow Farm , 102 WP/14/00386/OUT 26th January Appeal in Written Harrowden Road, 2016 progress Representations Orlingbury NN9 5AH

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Planning Committee 10 February 2016

Report of The Head of Planning and Local Development

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH (62 HIGH STREET ECTON) TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

1 Purpose of report

The purpose of the report is to consider the objections which have been made to the Borough Council of Wellingborough (62 High Street Ecton) Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

2 Executive summary

A TPO was made on a holly tree at 62 High Street Ecton on 17 September 2015. Notice had been served of the proposed removal of the tree from within the Ecton Conservation Area and it was considered to be of visual amenity value. The future of the tree can only be secured if the TPO is confirmed within six months from the date on which it was made.

3 Appendices

Appendix 1 – Plan of 62 High Street, Ecton Appendix 2 - Photographs of trees at 62 High Street Ecton

4 Proposed action:

4.1 The Committee is invited to RESOLVE that the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for a holly tree at 62 High Street, Ecton should be confirmed.

5 Background

5.1 The agents for the trustees of the Ecton Estate served a Section 211notice on 6 August 2015 that the holly tree growing in the front garden of 62 High Street Ecton was to be removed because it was considered to cause excessive shading, boundary wall damage and a damp issue due to blocked drains.

5.2 The tree was assessed within the six week period allowed for making a decision on whether or not the tree should be protected by a TPO. It was considered that the visual amenity value of the tree was sufficiently high to justify taking action to retain it after the reasons given for wanting to remove it had been examined and a TPO was made on 7 September 2015.

5.3 The objections lodged by the agent were discussed at a site meeting and he said he would submit a formal report on the tree in support of the case for not confirming the tree preservation order.

5.4 A report prepared by P Escritt NDAH on behalf of All Aspects Tree Services was submitted on 11 January. It was not considered to provide a conclusive case for the removal of the tree. It acknowledged that the tree is in good structural and physiological condition with good foliage cover.

6 Discussion

6.1 It is considered that the removal of this tree would represent a loss of visual amenity, although it would benefit from a crown reduction to achieve a more symmetrical shape. This would also reduce the amount of shading to the front of the house. The tenants are reported to want the tree removed to allow more light to reach the front of the property. The agent argues that crown reduction would make the tree appear unnatural. The tree is in a prominent position in High Street opposite the junction with Barton Fields.

6.2 Other larger trees growing near to retaining walls on the opposite side of the road do not appear to be causing a problem. Officers’ advice is that the retaining wall at 62 High Street is not dangerous and could be repaired. This conflicts with the opinion expressed in the report which was submitted which simply suggests that the tree roots are causing the crack, but this is considered to be less easily explained. The fact that it is wider at the top than at the bottom suggests that there is pressure from beneath, but it is unlikely to be a tree roots because they will tend to accumulate behind the retaining wall and if as is suggested the roots have infiltrated the drain there would be little incentive for them to grow down below the wall and the highway construction, pushing up under the foundation of the wall. A build up of roots behind the upper part of the retaining wall would be more likely to result in the wall bowing outwards which does not appear to be the case.

6.3 It is acknowledged that the tree is growing close to the drain, however the suggestion that the roots of the holly tree are growing into the drainage system is not supported by evidence other than the statement that the downpipe was backing up due to water not getting away properly. If there are tree roots in the drain they could be cleared, and if there are cracks which have been exploited the drains are likely to need to be repaired.

6.4 If the TPO is confirmed an application can be submitted for the reshaping of the tree which will benefit the tenant because the shading will be reduced. The cracks in the wall can be repointed and the drains investigated. If when the drains are investigated it is found that they cannot be repaired without significant root damage and application could then be made to remove the tree, but removing it at this point in time appears to be premature.

7 Legal powers

Section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

8 Financial and value for money implications

None

9 Risk analysis

Nature of risk Consequences Likelihood of Control if realised occurrence measures That the tree will There will be a High The TPO can be be removed loss of amenity confirmed. value

10 Implications for resources

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

11 Implications for stronger and safer communities

None

12 Implications for equalities

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

13 Author and contact officer

Felicity Webber, Landscape Officer

14 Consultees

None

15 Background papers

Borough Council of Wellingborough (62 High Street Ecton) Tree Preservation Order 2015