Swanspool House Wellingborough Borough Council of NN8 1BP

Wellingborough 11th September 2006

Regulatory Committee Wednesday 20th September 2006 at 7.00pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence.

Ι 2. Declarations of Interest (if any).

Ι 3. Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 16/8/2006.

Ι 4. Applications for planning permission, building regulation approval etc. 5. Planning Appeal Decision - 4 Austin Close, Irchester.

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

Ι Enclosed

Please note: Site Viewing Group for Tuesday 19th September 2006 will be Councillors Morrall, Smith, L Lawman and Waters.

Lyn Martin-Bennison

Chief Executive

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

For further copies of agenda and reports contact Performance and Democratic Services 01933 231511.

Borough Council of Wellingborough Regulatory Committee Wednesday 20th September 2006 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

INDEX

Page No. SITE VIEWING GROUP

WP/2006/0035/F - Factory, 36 Broad Street, Earls Barton. 1 WP/2006/0252/F - Tower Boot Co Limited, Wellingborough Road, Finedon. 11 WP/2006/0296/F - The Old Forge, Middle Street, Isham. 18 WP/2006/0320/F - Rear of no. 18 Church Street, Isham. 23 WP/2006/0369/F - Knuston High Copse Farm, Knuston High Farm, Station Road, Irchester. 29

DISTRICT

WP/2004/0367/F - Wilby Homes, 97 Ex Works, Eastfield Road, Wollaston. 35 WP/2006/0253/F - Land off Church Way, Grendon. 54 WP/2006/0316/F - 4 Dovecote Yard, Orlingbury. 65 WP/2006/0385/F - 30 High Street, Wellingborough. 69 WP/2006/0419/F - 6 New Street, Wellingborough. 72 WP/2006/0432/F - 5A Rock Street, Wellingborough. 78 WP/2006/0439/F - 38 Manor Road, Mears Ashby. 82 WP/2006/0459/F Toy Box Nursery, 63 Croyland Road, Wellingborough. 85

FOR INFORMATION

WP/2006/0406/C Wollaston School, Irchester Road, Wollaston. 88`

1

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 19th September 2006 at 3.30 p.m.)

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0035/F

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and construction of nine dwellings (five 2-bed flats and four 3-bed houses) - amended plans.

LOCATION: Factory, 36 Broad Street, Earls Barton, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Bridgewest Construction Limited.

This application is referred to the Regulatory Committee for determination because more than three letters of representation have been received from nearby neighbours, the Parish Council has objected to the proposal as have local ward Councillors. There have been many requests for the application site be the subject of a visit by the Site Viewing Group at school arriving or leaving times.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The applicant has described the proposal as nine dwellings. However, plots 1 – 3 are annotated on the plans as flats and plots 4 and 5 are divided horizontally which also classes them as flats. The density of the scheme is 75 units per hectare.

An amended plan (471/5B) has been received on 17th July 2006 that illustrates a revised access arrangement.

The application site is located close to the centre of Earls Barton and is also situated on the edge of it’s conservation area. The site was formerly host to a shoe factory; the majority of which has been razed to the ground but there is a residual two storey building on the site frontage to Broad Street. The application site benefits from an existing vehicular access and nearby there are several other access onto Broad Street including one that serves a doctors surgery. The rear of the site is vacant and it is beginning to become overgrown. There are three high walls that are in a state of disrepair on the boundaries with the other Brood Street properties and there is a lower wall that bounds the site with the Chapel to the west.

On the southern boundary is a fence and the residential units in Blackwell Close together with a car park and turning area. Blackwell Close is accessed by vehicular and pedestrian traffic from Broad Street and it also benefits from a pedestrian walkway at its western end that connects it to Station Road.

1

t

6

o

3 1

6 All Saint's 2

3 4

Church 3 2

485200 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. WP/2006/0035/F 485400 Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 06/09/2006 Earls Barton @( 853 m Hall Junior School 263800 263800

87.2m 4

War Meml (

1 1

2 THE SQUARE 5

2 6 7 GP

( 2

8 4

( 8

TCB 2

9

78.0m 33

3 @ B

B M 7 Earls Barton 2 8

( .14m

4

0 LB Infant School C

1

38 ( S

2 3

637 6 637 O

3 P 4

4 Libr

2

5 Wks

4 ary 1 8

to 5 2

8 Harco 1 a 5 H u 14 arcouMe rt 4 ws 3 B Squ rt 7

ar 4 2 e 9 2

1 8

1

7 2 72.5m 3

9 5 1

3

2 a 4b 3

3 1

1 9

5 B

ROA

8 y 1 D r S e

1 T 33

0 1 2

21 g 8

3 R

2

2

25 9 r 7 E u E

1 T

3 2 S 2

h 0

.2m c 4

r

6 1 4

u 4

3

1 h

4 C 5

B

8 5

6 4

0

4 6

3 9

2

7 6

8 14 4

0 5

2 2 2 1 4 5 0

636 25 636 8 4

5 B

2 L

1 ACKW

d ELL

r 7 CL 0

a OSE

h 3 1

7

c 4 r o 2

H

O

5

3

5 1

1 3

9 3

45

5 41 7 29 37 31

7 1 m 3 B

E

ta S

S 30

I 3 b 0

R u S N l 263500 E 7 263500

2 O

2 485200 485400

X Y

853 A 0

A

1

9 6 W

S 9 2 3 Scale 1:1250 8 2 N O 8 S IL D A W 1 2 O

1 R

R 2

The dilapidated appearance of the application site and the other buildings in the rear of Broad Street, which clearly have not been maintained for a considerable period of time, gives this area of Earls Barton an air of dereliction.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WR/49/129 Proposed extension to factory – approved. WR/55/137 Extension to factory – approved. WR/74/2 Alterations to offices and despatch department – approved. WP/99/482 Site for new doctors surgery – conditionally approved.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Regional Spatial Strategy 8 Northamptonshire County Structure Plan - GS5, H3 and H6 Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan - G1, G4, H2, H12 and T9 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Parking, Planning Out Crime and Building Better Places Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Guidance 3; Housing Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport Planning Policy Guidance 15; Planning and the Historic Environment Planning Policy Statement 23; Planning and Pollution Control

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Earls Barton Parish Council – objects to the application because access to the site should be secured through Blackwell Close for the following reasons:

• Broad Street is one of the busiest thoroughfares in the village and an access would be completely unworkable. • Major issue with car parking in Broad Street and the access would have to cross a busy footpath which is frequently used as a route to the nearby schools which could endanger lives of children going to and from school. • Serious car parking situation in the Library car park. • There is an issue with the extremely busy Churchill Road junction due to the speed and frequency of cars which the development will exacerbate. • Footpath from Blackwell Close not included in the plans.

The Parish Council goes on to request a visit form the site Viewing Group at 09:00 or 15:30 and suggests attendance from a Highways Officer of Northamptonshire County Council. The Parish Council has also forwarded a petition that contains 104 signatures who object to the proposed access onto Broad Street.

2. NCC Highways –

“I find that, historically, the Blitz site was looked to as a means of access to land at the rear. In view of its lack of stagger from Churchill Road and lack of interest in adjoining land in order to construct a roundabout, the use of the land to 3

provide an adopted highway link was discounted. In the event the land was accessed through the Broad Street car park.

It was at the time that the Blitz site was considered for a surgery, with considerable traffic movements, that it was required that the land should be accessed from the rear. In this event an alternative site was found for the surgery.

More recently informal applications have been received for the use of the Blitz site for small scale residential development and the layout of the site by way of a shared private drive from a point of access onto Broad Street has evolved. During various negotiations the possibility of forming a footpath link has been mooted but in view of the lack of utility to the public at large and the concerns raised by "planning out crime" this suggestion is not supported by the Highway Authority. Alternative pedestrian access can be gained to the land at the rear by way of the footpath link from Station Road and from Broad Street by way of the new access road link through the car park site.

The present application, therefore, has developed having regard to the above history and comprises a hybrid flatted/dwelling development served by way of a shared private drive. It includes a block of 3 flats having a frontage to Broad Street, a block containing two flats and a terrace of 4 houses. Access 4.5m wide together with a footway facility can be achieved from Broad Street and adequate visibility can be achieved in both directions. It is acknowledged that traffic problems occur in Broad Street largely in connection with the adjoining school but it must be accepted that adequate off street parking accommodation to serve the proposed development is to be provided within the application site.

Having regard to the foregoing the proposal is regarded as an effective form of development of a brown field site, resembling the 'grain' of existing and traditional development in the immediate area and in line with moves towards higher density levels. The proposed development is supported on highway grounds.

It should be noted that an amended plan has been received which indicates that the extent of highway on the frontage to Broad Street may have been misinterpreted with the result that inadequate pedestrian to vehicle visibility has been indicated. Please ensure that the applicant is aware that visibility for this purpose, of 2m x 2m, must be achieved on each side of the point of access.”

The Highway Authority comments dated 25th July 2006 regarding the latest submitted plans are:

“Subject to the vehicular crossing being formed and highway surfaces reinstated in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council I confirm that the details of the means of access and visibility arrangements onto Broad Street, indicated on Raab Design drawing number 471/5, are satisfactory on highway grounds.”

4

3. NCC Historic Environment Team – suggests that no conditions relating to archaeology need to be attached to any planning permission for this proposed development and no recording survey is required due to the derelict state of the building.

4. Council’s Conservation Officer – comments that given the access to the development is from Broad Street, the general massing and detailing of the replacement unit on the frontage is considered to satisfactorily reflect the existing Victorian terrace form, thereby suitably preserving the special qualities of this part of the Earls Barton Conservation Area. Obviously the introduction of the wide vehicular access way is a material change to the existing façade, but such details are not uncommon in urban townscape of this period. The Conservation Officer also comments subsequently regarding the latest revised details that the scheme is acceptable in principle but makes observations on some of the minor detailing.

5. Wildlife Trust – comments that there may be an opportunity for the soft landscaping of the scheme to include native species of trees and shrubs to provide food sources and habitat for indigenous birds and animals.

6. Environmental Protection – the applicant has submitted an historic Environmental Risk Assessment that reveals that the site has elevated levels of arsenic, copper and zinc. Recommends that a further risk assessment is submitted or a suitable condition be included in any approval.

7. Wellingborough Council Property Manager –

“I object to the proposal on the grounds that the proposed vehicular access from Broad Street is unacceptable in view of the visibility splay achievable to protect passing pedestrians. Also, in the light of an available rear access, the front road access is unacceptable due to the increase in vehicular movement around the Fairhurst Way junction which has to cope with vehicles for a school, library and church.”

The Property Manager has also provided a brief statement that outlines the extent of the Council’s adjoining land holding at the rear of the site.

8. Local Ward Councillors – both Councillor Blackwell and Councillor Payne strongly object to the application for the following reasons:

• Highway safety problems due to congestion problems with vehicles, particularly at the start and end of the school day. • Concern that there is no pedestrian access from Broad Street to Blackwell Close as previously agreed with the Parish Council. • Request that the Site Viewing Group attend the application site during term time, preferably at school arriving and leaving times and to have a visit outside these times would mislead the Site Viewing Group.

5

9. East Midlands Housing Association/Northants Rural Housing Association – these Housing Associations own/manage the dwellings in Blackwell Close and would prefer the new site to be accessed via Broad Street for the following reasons:

• A linked walkway from the proposed site through to their site would reduce the amenity of their residents. • There have been problems with teenage children on their site. If accessibility to and across their site by others was increased the problems would be exacerbated. • The area would also suffer from additional traffic problems as it is not designed for this type of road system.

10. Northamptonshire Police –

“With respect of this development if a footpath was to be added it would directly influence the quality of life of the residents of the new properties. Footpaths in such circumstances should be avoided to prevent or encourage anti social behaviour.

We do suffer from a degree of anti social behaviour on the site at the moment, and by adding a footpath will just provide another meeting place to be used by the youth or as escape route for the criminal.

With the introduction of footpaths also come an element off the fear of crime issues, footpaths can be used in the wrong context and therefore become extremely intimidating for the average user probably forcing them to choose another safer route.

With this in mind I would strongly recommend that the walkway is excluded from the design of this development.”

11. Neighbours/Third Parties – letters of objection have been received from the owners/occupiers of 32, 38 and 40 Broad Street; 48 Dowthorpe Hill; 21 Wilson Way and The Methodist Chapel Property Committee and the writers cite the following reasons for opposing the scheme:

• The creation of a source of highway danger due to poor visibility at the point of access. • Existing car parking difficulties in the area • Current on street car parking would be lost due to need for visibility splays. • Parking controls to make the proposed access visible will make on street parking locally more scarce and difficult. • Broad Street has a Victorian façade and the new development will vastly alter its whole ambience. • Loss of residential amenity for nearby occupiers. • Reference to previous intentions to access the site from the spur road at the rear. • Loss of light. • Loss of privacy 6

• Overbearing impact • Opinion that the Council could be entitled to receive a significant proportion of the increase in land value by way of planning gain and hope that the Council would consider allocating this money to the villages’ Sports and Leisure Development funds which developed from the Community Trust. • Thermal efficiency of the scheme • Provision of an access between Blackwell Close and Broad Street would prove to be useful for the residents of Blackwell Close and the Dowthorpe Hill estate. • Possibility of a brick culvert running underneath the application site.

Letter received from the occupier of 61 Churchill Road who expresses no objection to the proposal. The writer also goes on to say that the parking difficulties in Churchill Road are caused by the schools and it would not make any difference if the site was developed with the proposed scheme, or left as it is, because there is already a problem with parents coming into the centre of Earls Barton.

Letter of concern received from the Head Teacher of Earls Barton Infant School regarding the possible danger to school children from parking and manoeuvring of cars and the proposed point of access to the site. The Head Teacher of the Junior School objects because of the intended access onto Broad Street which has existing parking dangers at drop off and pick up times. The Head Teacher goes onto on to say that discussions with the Schools and the Parish Council are ongoing with a view to looking at ways to reduce the dangers.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are: • Compliance with policy • Effect on the conservation area • Highways, traffic and parking • Effect on neighbours amenities • Crime and disorder • Planning gain

Compliance with policy Earls Barton is designated in the local plan as a limited development village. It is considered that the principle of a new residential development that is to be located within the built up area of the village and on brownfield land is entirely consistent with elements of national guidance, regional and development plan policy that seeks to direct new residential development in the rural areas to such sites. The density of the development is 75 units per hectare, and although this figure is well in excess of the net minimum density of 35 mentioned in Policy H6 of the County Structure Plan, it is not considered to be excessive bearing in mind that five out of the nine units are flats.

Effect on the conservation area The Council is required to pay special regard to the visual amenity of the of the designated conservation area and in this respect the Council’s Conservation Officer is content with the submitted plans. It is considered that the proposed redevelopment of 7

the site will have a positive impact on the visual amenity of the Conservation Area by removing the present dilapidated buildings and replacing them with a development that is satisfactory in its design and scale.

Highways, traffic and parking The site benefits from an existing vehicular access and the Highway Authority has not opposed the scheme or indicted that there is any significant accident record in the highway outside the site or nearby in Broad Street. Many respondents to the planning publicity and consultation procedure have mentioned the traffic problems in Broad Street and in particular the possible danger to school children. The traffic problems associated with delivering and picking up school children are not exclusive to the Earls Barton schools. The Northamptonshire County Council Education Department web page states that the academic year 2007 – 2008 will be 195 days long and there will also be 5 additional training days when pupils will not be required to attend school. If this information is expressed as a percentage of the year when the schools are actually open it produces a figure of 52%. It should also be noted that during the day there are normally only two periods of time in which most of the traffic and parking congestion occurs which amounts to approximately 40 minutes; apart from parents evenings and school plays etc.

It is considered that the amount of traffic that the development will generate is not significantly large enough to warrant concern bearing in mind the number of other traffic movements that take place during the day in Broad Street.

It is not accepted that the visibility splays needed to accommodate the development may impinge on the amount of on street parking that is available. The access to the site is existing and it is suggested that parking on or near to it is not legal and the proposed situation in this respect is no different from the existing circumstances.

The Companion Guide to Planning Policy Guidance 3 Housing – Better Places to Live By Design – states that a good starting point for walking distances to the facilities that residents may expect to reach comfortably is 10 minutes, or approximately 800m. The residents in Blackwell Close currently have a walk of less than 10 minutes to the schools and the library from either of the existing two routes to the close. Others residents who may wish to reach the village centre from the Station Road area, or from the east, will not have their journey shortened by any noticeable degree if a footpath link through to Broad Street were to be included in the scheme. The only village facility that may be beyond the recommended distance is the new doctors surgery in Aggate Way, but clearly a link through from Blackwell Close to Broad Street would not make any appreciable difference to residents who would want to walk to that Surgery.

Effect on neighbours’ amenities It is acknowledged that the proposal will have an effect on the amenities that the residents of Broad Street have begun to enjoy since the demolition of the factory. It is considered however that the effects of the new development will not be so serious to warrant refusing the application because there are adequate spacing distances between the proposed dwellings and the existing residents which will mitigate the developments’ effect on light reception, appearance and privacy. The applicant has supplied plans that illustrate how the development will be relatively set down in relation 8

to the surrounding buildings, which again will reduce its effect as will the retention of much of the high boundary walling.

It is accepted that there will be a loss of light for the Methodist Chapel. However, the intended building that is illustrated as being situated close to the boundary does not run along its full length, is set down slightly and has its roof sloping away from the Chapel. The Chapel is not a residential use and it is considered that the efficient use of a brown field site located in the centre of a village should be given more weight than the preservation of light into the windows next door.

It is suggested that conditions be imposed which remove the permitted development rights for the occupiers of the new dwellings to construct extensions, insert windows and erect garden structures to ensure the amenities of nearby occupiers are not unduly affected in the future.

Crime and disorder The comments of the Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor regarding crime and disorder issues in the centre of the village have in some respects been overtaken by subsequent events. The Police have reactivated the Police Station in the village and there is evidence to suggest that anti-social behaviour has decreased as a direct result of a more regular Police presence.

Comment has been received regarding a possible access through the site from Blackwell Close to Broad Street. It is accepted that the crime situation may have altered recently due to a Police initiative but it is considered that the principle of an unregulated access through the site would not be desirable on the grounds of crime and disorder because there would be no clear definition within the development of public and private space and anybody loitering with ill intent would always have an adequate excuse to be there.

Development of the site will bring it back into use and will delete an area of land that could become a magnet for anti-social activities.

Planning gain The size of the proposal does not trigger the requirement for any section 106 contributions under the current system for mitigating for the effects of development.

Non material considerations: • Thermal efficiency of new dwellings is controlled by part L1A of the Building Regulations • Presence of a culvert under the site.

CONCLUSION: The application is considered to be a relatively sustainable form of development because it utilizes brown field land and is located close to the facilities of the village. It is accepted that there are transitory traffic problems for two periods during the day but the ownership of the land at the rear of the site is not vested with the applicant and the Highway Authority is satisfied with the proposed access arrangements onto Broad Street. It is considered therefore that the application can be recommended for approval with conditions. 9

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plan(s) deposited with the local planning authority on 28th March 2006 and 17th July 2006. 3. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced and the development shall be carried out using the approved materials. 4. Before development commences a further Environmental Risk Assessment shall be undertaken to assess the possible contamination of the site. Should the assessment reveal that there is contamination present it shall contain details of the measures that will be necessary to remediate the site to enable it to be suitable for residential use. The proposed remediation measures shall be submitted to the local planning authority and agreed in writing and the hereby approved development shall not be occupied until the local planning authority has indicated in writing that the remediation measures have been completed to its satisfaction. 5. Before development commences details of the exterior doors, windows and eaves/verges shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The development shall be carried out in accord with the approved details. 6. The rainwater goods shall be of a metal type. 7. Before development commences details of the driveway surfacing in the rear of the public highway shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The driveway shall be constructed using the approved materials. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended, other than those expressly approved by this consent no windows shall be inserted above ground floor level without the consent in writing of the local planning authority. 9. Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended, the hereby approved dwellings shall not be extended in any way without the consent in writing of the local planning authority. 10. Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended, no structures shall be erected in the amenity areas of the hereby approved dwellings without the consent in writing of the local planning authority. 11. The window in the north elevation of plot no.6 above ground floor level shall be obscure glazed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. The window shall remain as obscure glazed also to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

10

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the agreed amendments. 3. In the interests of visual amenity. 4. In order to ensure that any contamination of the site is adequately remediated. 5. To protect and enhance the Earls Barton Conservation Area. 6. To preserve and enhance the Earls Barton Conservation Area. 7. In the interests of preserving and enhancing the Earls Barton Conservation Area and in the interests of highway safety. 8. In the interests of privacy 9. To prevent overdevelopment of the site and to protect the amenity of nearby residential occupiers. 10. To protect the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers and to preserve and enhance the Earls Barton Conservation Area. 11. In the interests of privacy.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: Regional Spatial Strategy 8 Northamptonshire County Structure Plan - GS5, H3 and H6 Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan - G1, G4, H2, H12 and T9 Supplementary Planning Guidance - Parking, Planning Out Crime and Building Better Places Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Guidance 3; Housing Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport Planning Policy Guidance 15; Planning and the Historic Environment Planning Policy Statement 23; Planning and Pollution Control. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 471/13 19th January 2006 Site Survey, 471/14, 471/15 and 471/50 28th March 2006 471/5B, 471/10B, 471/11B and 471/12A 17th July 2006 3. The applicant is advised that planning permission does not automatically allow the construction of the vehicle crossing, details of which require the approval of the Highway Authority. In this regard you should contact the Team Leader Regulations, Sustainable Transport, Riverside House, Riverside Way, Northampton NN1 5NX prior to any construction/excavation works within the public highway. 11

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 19th September 2006 at 1.15 p.m.)

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0252/F

PROPOSAL: Conversion of one building to apartments and demolition of remainder and redevelopment for apartments (48 in total) (Amended Plans).

LOCATION: Tower Boot Co Limited, Wellingborough Road, Finedon, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: The Tower Property Group.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: (As above). This application relates to the site (extending to 0.32 hectares) of the premises of the former Tower Boot and Shoe works which are now vacant, having until recently been used as a bathroom products showroom and stores for the firm Watermark. Prior to the last use, the premises were used for the finishing of footwear by the Griggs Group and originally they were a boot and shoe factory. It is proposed to convert the existing three storey block to provide 6 apartments and to redevelop the remainder of the structures on the site with new buildings, to provide a further 40 units (the majority of which are 1 bedroom units). This approximates to a density of just over 138 units per hectare.

The site is located on the west side of Wellingborough Road between its junctions with Laws Lane and Ivy Lane. It is broadly rectangular in shape and has a principle frontage onto the lay-by which faces Wellingborough Road. It also has a shorter north-eastern boundary to Laws Lane. The remaining rear and south-western boundaries of the site abut rear gardens and a public footpath serving established housing at Mackworth Green. In the wider context the site is surrounded by well established residential development although Wellingborough Road itself is fronted by some shops and commercial premises.

The existing buildings on the site comprise the attractive and interestingly detailed three storey traditional factory building of Victorian appearance which is to be retained, with to the side and rear more utilitarian single storey extensions of the ‘north light’ roof design. In addition, there is a much more recent shallow pitched roof steel framed and profile clad building at the rear of the site.

The site has two points of access, one from Wellingborough Road between the flank wall of the three story block and the public footpath running alongside the adjoining

34 WATER

3 2

3

0 1 2 8 BRID 49 9a 1 47 53

23 51 26 491800

491600 19 WP/2006/0252/F 2 2

2

B © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved.4 45

1

8

k Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence20 No.100018694. Published 06/09/2006 39 16

9 14 PH

1 917 1 2 0

3 272000 8 272000 4 7

2 15 PH

19

6 2 8 4 A PAR T F 3

F 1 E 2 T L E R

E KER

1

E 4 R

t

R o 4

7 2 3

C 0

T 1 AC S 2 K L 4 L S B 5 E

E 3

Church 2

R 3a 6 W 1

ID 3 1 1 G 2 E

2

5 1

5

th 0 1 l 1 1

a 1

He tre I 8 9 R 6 en 8

C E O 1 66 R 7 UA N 70 68

Q 1 S 72

4 S T 1

EN O

1 2 4 B 3 N 7

L t 10 O 4 o E

D 9 3 6 C

82 5 T

18

1 7

1 Wentworth 3 5 P 719 14 L 1 719 A 5 O 1 Farm W U M a S N Mackworth D 7 1 L 9 8

9 Green A P 0 8

8 7

3 8 N 2 L 1 1 9

6 E 6

8

1 5

2 A

2 0

1

1 89 a

5 2 9 l 1 10 ia or em M 1 2 r

5 a @

W

( 6

1 PO

1 0 0 1 N B D M ( A 8 L 0 ry TCB .

E 4 2

o 1 2 0 0 t 3 C c 1 m L 5 a O F Club 1 S E 3

3

a

1

0 1

718 7 718

4 109 5

4 El Sub Sta 4

E

1

1

3

1

1

1 3 8 1

3 5 1 5

E 80.2m 1 7 N B 1 7 a A 1 9

L 1 9 a

7 2

Y 1 1 1 7

V 2

I 3

9 2

4

2 3

1 a

1 1 2 C 5

R

1 6 5 a O M

1 E 1 R 2 7 7 R

OA 6 D

271700 271700

491600 9 491800

917 28

1

3 3 1 1 @ Scale 1:1250 ( 2 1 3 m 2 4 8 . 6 1 8 E W M Stonehaven 0 8 E 12

house. The other access is located on Laws Lane, close to a further access serving the rear of the properties fronting Mackworth Green.

The new build proposals comprise a series of inter-connected three storey blocks (30 apartments) stretching around the Wellingborough Road and Laws Lane frontages and 2 three storey blocks (10 apartments) at the rear, effectively creating a courtyard. Both points of access will be retained. The Wellingborough Road access will serve the retained and converted 3 storey block and the 2 three storey blocks at the rear. The Laws Lane access will serve the remainder of the scheme. There will not be any vehicular connection between the two separate access areas.

In design terms, the scheme has taken references (particularly in terms of materials and detailing) from the retained 3 storey block. The blocks that wrap around the frontage comprise varying heights, projections, roof slopes and gables so as to articulate the structure and also to accommodate and reflect the gentle slope down Laws Lane. Bin storage is provided in the Courtyard and adjoining the flank wall of Block B. Amenity space is provided throughout the scheme in small areas adjoining the car parking areas (46 car parking spaces are provided).

The application was accompanied by a ‘Supporting Planning Statement’, a ‘Design Statement’, a ‘Site Check Review’ and a ‘Structural Investigation and Report’. Since its submission it has been the subject of detailed negotiation and as a result revisions were carried out to the design and scale of the frontage buildings with original 4 storey elements and 2 apartment units being omitted. A further round of public consultation was carried out in respect of the revised proposals.

This application is reported to Regulatory Committee for determination due to its size and scale and the number of objections received. The Parish Council has requested that a Site Viewing takes place.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: The history record cards indicate a fairly extensive planning history from 1948 and relating mostly to extensions and alterations to the factory buildings

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Local Plan: G1, G4, H2, H12 and E4. County Structure Plan: GS3, GS5, H3 and H6. PPS 1, PPS7, PPG 3. SPG: II.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Finedon Parish Council – requests a Site Viewing as Parish Councillors are unhappy with the density of one bedroom apartments and with the size of the development. They feel that there are too many flats, not enough affordable homes and that there are issues with parking.

2. Environment Agency – has no objection to the proposed development but recommends the imposition of a condition requiring an investigation of any contamination of the site (due to its previous use) before any develop commences. 13

3. County Highway Authority – no objections are registered but standard conditions are recommended in relation to the points of access and the frontage of the site.

4. Environmental Health Officer – a condition should be imposed to require that a further Environmental Risk assessment be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

5. Conservation Officer - Discussions and negotiations undertaken with the applicant has resulted in an improved scheme on the Wellingborough road frontage but still has some concerns regarding the impact of the proposals on the setting of Mackworth Green Listed Grade II complex.

6. Third Parties – 6 objections from local residents to the scheme as submitted (first round of public consultation) raising concerns about (i) influx of new residents equivalent to 60/75% of the indigenous population as a result of all the apartment developments in Finedon and due to age of prospective occupiers will create an imbalance in the resident population; (ii) highway safety issues will arise in respect of the Laws Lane access point; (iii) anti social problems and noise will arise; (iv) overlooking of Mackworth Green properties; (vi) insufficient parking; (vii) overdevelopment; (viii) should be used for existing use; and, (ix) traffic generation .

7. 6 further objections were received from local residents in respect of the second round of public consultation repeating points of objection made previously and in addition: (i) parking congestion will arise in Laws Lane; (ii) density of scheme is still excessive; (iii) local services inadequate; (iv) scale of the scheme will still be overbearing and create overlooking; (vi) car parking still inadequate; (vii) concerns raised about possible health risks when asbestos and other possible contaminants in the existing buildings/on the site, are removed and in respect of radon gas levels in the area; (viii) possible noise nuisance if the flats are inadequately insulated; (ix) a scheme of flats will not help the problem of the falling population of the school; and, (x) the calibre of future occupants is questioned.

ASSESSMENT: The issues that need to be taken into account in the determination of this application are:

(i) Planning policy and the suitability of the site for residential development, (ii) Impact of the development upon the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers, (iii) Response to points arising from replies made to consultations, and (iv) Planning Obligation considerations.

(i) In terms of present planning policy considerations there is an overall presumption in favour of redevelopment of a site of this kind and present use in this type of location subject to the consideration of Local Plan Policy E4 (see below). The national planning policy guidance advice is to concentrate new development within existing settlements whenever this is possible and to re-use existing sites. This guidance is reflected in the Development Plan policy framework. At the strategic 14

level the overall thrust is one of urban concentration of development and rural restraint overall in the interests of sustainability. Whilst the policy framework in the Local Plan Policy E4 seeks whenever possible to retain existing sites in employment use, this is only on the basis that the existing commercial use of the present buildings and site is economically viable. In addition, in relation to historic and established developed areas where a mixture of uses is prevalent but the predominant use is residential, the impacts arising from a continuation of commercial use (if indeed this is likely) in contrast to residential redevelopment, must be carefully evaluated. In this particular instance an assessment and marketing exercise was carried out by Blacklee Smith Chartered Surveyors. Despite a full marketing campaign for nearly 6 months, there has been no suitable commercial interest in the property. This is considered to be due to the fact that the major part of the buildings provide very poor industrial floorspace, having internal headroom of only 3.35m and the floorspace is restricted by internal piers that support the roof structure. The upper floor former offices are in a dilapidated state and access for the delivery of goods is not too modern standards.

(ii) The site is to be developed by the careful positioning and laying out of the new buildings so that any impact upon surrounding properties in respect of residential amenity is negligible. There is sufficient separation distance in accordance with the recommendations of Supplementary Guidance and the need for a floor levels survey can be stipulated by condition (proposed condition no. 10 refers) to cover the concern regarding the height of the units on the site. There are not considered to be any crime and disorder issues arising in respect of this application, notwithstanding the fears that have arisen about future possibilities in this regard.

(iii) The necessity of an environmental risk assessment mentioned by the Environmental Health Officer and the Environment Agency can be secured by a condition (Proposed condition no. 9 refers). Likewise conditions can be stipulated to secure a satisfactory means of access to the site in technical terms, in line with the request of the County Highway Authority (Proposed Conditions nos. 6, 7 and 8 refer). The applicant’s architect has provided illustrations in response to the Conservation Officer’s concern to demonstrate that the scheme does not dominate the Mackworth Green properties, or adversely disrupt views of them. The concerns raised by local residents in respect of overlooking are not felt to be relevant due to the separation distance from the proposed apartments to existing residential properties. In addition, three storey flat development close to existing properties has been approved recently on similar sites close by. Access and car parking arrangements/provision is in line with the standards for a development of this scale in this location. In addition, it is subject to the imposition of conditions to cover technical construction requirements and the county Highway Authority has no concerns in this regard.

(iv) This application is of a scale that requires the applicants to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement in respect of the Planning Obligations that arise. Contributions in this instance have been identified as being needed in respect of education, affordable housing (this is likely to be met by supplying a number of the units earmarked for this purpose), enhancements to existing nearby play and youth facilities, plus a commuted sum for maintenance of the same; recruitment of trainees from the STACT programme when development is carried out, provision of 15

communal waste bins and possible improvements to bus infrastructure at the lay-by on the frontage of the site.

Conclusion

Subject to the applicant being willing to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the contributions as indicated above, there is no reason why this application should not be approved subject to the conditions indicated.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

16

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. 3. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 4. A scheme for screen fencing/walling shall be agreed with the local planning authority before the start of construction. The agreed scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the apartments are occupied. 5. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for sound insulation between the apartments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed scheme shall be completed before the apartments are occupied. 6. Any gates at the entrance to the development must be hung so as to open inwards only and must be set back sufficiently to permit the longest vehicle that can be expected to visit the site to stand clear of the carriageway whilst the gate is operated. 7. The points of access at each end of the frontage into the development must be laid out to a width of 4.5m for the first 10m from the highway boundary and reconstructed as appropriate in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and using materials compatible to the existing surfaces. To prevent loose material being carried onto the highway the first 5m of the drive length must be hard paved. 8. To provide pedestrian to vehicle visibility, splays of 2m x 2m must be provided and maintained on both sides of each point of the access. 9. Before development is commenced an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) to assess the potential for contamination of the site shall be submitted to the local planning authority. Should the ERA reveal that the site is subject to contamination a scheme for its remediation shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The approved remediation scheme shall be implemented and completed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the dwellings are first occupied. 10. Before development is commenced the finished floor levels of the hereby approved dwellings in relation to the adjacent properties shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. 11. Before the development hereby approved is commenced a scheme shall be submitted to the local planning authority in writing to demonstrate how the history of the use of the buildings on the site is to be marked and commemorated as part of the new development. The scheme shall then be implemented and maintained thereafter. 12. Before the development commences a scheme for refuse collection shall be 17

submitted in writing and approved by the local planning authority. 13. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plan(s) deposited with the local planning authority on 12/07/2006.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. In the interests of visual amenity. 4. In the interests of amenity and privacy. 5. In the interests of residential amenity. 6. In the interests of highway safety. 7. In the interests of highway safety. 8. In the interests of highway safety. 9. In the interests of assessing any potential contamination of the site and to implement the necessary remediation measures. 10. In the interests of residential amenity. 11. To maintain some continuity with the former purpose and function of the site in the interests of local history and local identity. 12. Before the development commences a scheme for refuse collection shall be submitted in writing and approved by the local planning authority. 13. To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the agreed amendments.

INFORMATIVE/S: 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the Regional Guidance and the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: GS3, GS5, H3, H6 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and G1, G4, H2, H12, E4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 994.42.04; 990.44.04 21/004/2006 994.31.116;994.3418;994.37.3;994.38.11; 12/07/2006 994.39.10; 994.40.10; 994.43.11; 12/07/2006 994.44.01 24/07/2006 3. The applicant should ensure that refuse collection arrangements of the proposal are discussed with the appropriate officer of the Borough Council. The Borough Council's Amenities Performance Manager has indicated that the size and location of the 'bin areas' shown on the submitted drawing is unacceptable. The need is for 16 no. 1100L bins and these should be located as close to the highway as possible. 4. In carrying out the development hereby approved, please ensure that the provisions of the Party Wall Act 1996 are upheld. 18

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 19th September 2006 at 2.00 p.m.)

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0296/F

PROPOSAL: Proposed conversion of derelict forge into 2 bedroom dwelling along with a change of use and highway adoption (amended plan).

LOCATION: The Old Forge, Middle Street, Isham, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr T Elliot.

This application is subject to the Regulatory Committee due to the objection of the Isham Parish Council and the number of objections received from third parties. Site Viewing has been requested by the Parish Council for the reasons set out in the consultation section of this report.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: A derelict forge situated within the village confines of Isham and within the conservation area of the village forms the application site. The site is positioned at the junction between Middle Street and South Street. The northern side of the existing forge is attached to the existing dwelling at no. 2 Middle Street.

This application seeks planning permission for the conversion of the forge to a single residential dwelling and change of use of the land to the front of the proposed dwelling from highway land to residential curtilage. (The applicant will also need to follow the appropriate procedures to extinguish highway rights over the land. This procedure will be through the Highways Authority, Northamptonshire County Council).

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2006/0119/F Proposed conversion of derelict forge into two bedroom dwelling – withdrawn.

The above application was withdrawn in light of the information that part of the site comprises highway maintainable at the public expense and that a change of use of this land would be required as part of the application.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: G1, G4, G12, H3 and H12 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

7 T

HE 9 S

O 488500 WP/2006/0296/F 488700 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved.RR Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 06/09/2006 2 E 886 L

274100 S 274100 1

l

e

p

a

m h ar Isham 33 35 n F C to am Farm ng Ish E a of STREET L C ry H

ima C

1 r R 4 6 P ol U 2

cho CH S 2 2

1

2

5 0

2 3

2

3

1 0

43 1 T 2 9 S Pear Tree Cott 3 LE D 15 ID

740 740M 11 8 T All Sa E Pear Tree Cott 5 E 2 Hou TR

3 HS 4 RC 1 U J H u C b S 19 P il t e P A e C 17 T et T R T h Hall E e

E ur er E 1 K r r R a

R c 's T C c

h S e 8

I E 2 L N L O G 1 D

k 1 ID 3 S

( E 7 R @ M 6 O 9

A

1 4 D 4 5 9

6 7 ET

BM 76.21m 2 RE Grey ST ( 1 Gables H 3 UT

739TCB O739 8 Tithe Barn S

Manor

0 1

8 House 1

Farm

2 M 1

2 4

B 1 A N

( 74.3m O GP R

1

6 6 C 1

L

O

S

E 3

rack 273800 T 273800

488500 886 488700 Scale 1:1250 19

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Highways Authority – objections previously made have been withdrawn and no objection is raised providing that the appropriate procedure to extinguish highway rights is followed and that a 1m service strip is provided over the frontage of the site. Requests that the local planning authority satisfies themselves of the adequacy of parking accommodation.

2. Isham Parish Council – objections on the following grounds:

• The property is unsuitable in a conservation area. • It does not fit in with the streetscene. • The access for the building is not agreeable to either neighbour. • Refuse bins will have to remain in front as there is no garden space for them to be kept. • Site is situated on a dangerous bend.

Site viewing is requested by the Parish Council for the above reasons.

3. Conservation Officer – the scheme is acceptable in principle as it will not detrimentally affect the character or appearance of the conservation area. A number of conditions and a design change to the dormer windows in the front elevation are suggested.

4. Third Parties – five letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of four neighbouring dwellings. Grounds of objection are:

• Noise from new dwelling. • No access to rear of proposed dwelling for construction or maintenance. • Exacerbate existing parking and congestion problems in the area. • Inadequate parking accommodation. • Construction traffic and obstruction of the highway by construction vehicles or building materials. • Damage caused by construction vehicles. • Lack of or inadequate foundations. • Damage to the adjoining dwelling caused by building work. • Problems with drainage and guttering. • Overlooking. • A dwelling and car parking area would look overcrowded.

ASSESSMENT: Principle of Residential Development Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan designates Isham as a Restricted Infill Village. In such locations residential development will be permitted providing that there is no adverse impact on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs, and that it will consist of a small group of dwellings or infilling or the redevelopment or conversion of existing buildings. In this case it is considered that conversion of a derelict building to residential use is acceptable in principle as it will not have an adverse impact on the above elements.

20

Residential Amenity The site is within an existing residential area. The proposed use is therefore considered to be compatible with the surrounding environment. The proposed conversion will not have a detrimental impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. A window which was originally proposed in the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling has been omitted and a condition is recommended to ensure the proposed rear roof light is obscurely glazed and non- opening and that it remains so at all times thereafter. A further condition is recommended to ensure that no further windows or other opening can be inserted in the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling. It is considered that none of the proposed works will have a detrimental effect on the level of light currently received by neighbouring dwellings. Noise has been highlighted as a potential problem by the occupier of the adjoining property at no. 2 Middle Street. Consequently it is considered necessary to recommend a condition requesting that a scheme for protecting this occupier from noise should be implemented prior to the occupation of the dwelling unit. The proposed dwelling will have no rear residential amenity space. However this is not considered unusual in a village location and is considered acceptable in light of the positive environmental effect that conversion of the derelict building will have on the surrounding conservation area.

Parking Accommodation and Effect on the Highway The Highways Authority has confirmed that they have no objection subject to the applicant completing the appropriate procedure to extinguish highway rights and a 1m service strip being provided over the frontage of the site. The 1m service strip can be achieved on site and a condition is recommended to ensure that this is implemented. With regards parking accommodation, dwellings generally should be provided with 1.5 car parking spaces. However in this case it is considered that an exception to this guidance should be made due to the difficult location and nature of the site and the environmental benefit of converting and refurbishing this derelict building.

Design The design of the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of the location which the site occupies in the conservation area. Conditions are recommended to ensure that a number of design features are agreed by the local planning authority. It is considered that the proposal will have a positive impact on the streetscene.

Effect on the Conservation Area The conservation officer considers that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area and therefore raises no objection to the application. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of Policy G12 which relates to development within conservation areas.

Other Considerations Details relating to foundations, drainage and obstruction of the highway by construction vehicles or building materials are not considered to be material planning considerations in the determination of this application.

21

Summary On balance it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the relevant policies of the development plan and there are no other material planning considerations which constitute sustainable grounds for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plan(s) deposited with the local planning authority on 11th July 2006. 3. The rooflight in the rear elevation shall be a conservation roof light and shall be obscurely glazed and non-opening and remain so at all times thereafter. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any order revoking or re-enacting that order, no additional windows or other openings shall be formed at any time in the rear elevation of the dwelling hereby permitted without the express prior permission in writing from the local planning authority. 5. Prior to commencement of development full details of all windows and doors and their surrounds shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The agreed details shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the houses are occupied. 6. Prior to commencement of development full details of the eaves and verges shall be submitted to the local planning authority. The agreed details shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the houses are occupied. 7. A scheme for boundary screening shall be agreed with the local planning authority before the start of construction. The agreed scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the houses are occupied. 8. The rainwater goods shall be metal. 9. A minimum 1m highway service strip shall be provided and maintained over the frontage of the site. 10. The vehicular crossing and service strip shall be constructed in accordance with the specification of the Northamptonshire County Council. 11. The area shown for parking on the approved plans shall be laid out and surfaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the premises are occupied and shall be permanently set aside and reserved for the purpose. 12. Before any development is commenced a scheme for protecting the neighbouring dwelling at No. 2 Middle Street from noise from the proposed dwelling shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Any works forming part of the scheme shall be completed before the permitted dwelling is occupied (unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority).

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 22

2. To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the agreed amendments. 3. To ensure that the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers are not adversely affected by loss of privacy. 4. To ensure that the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers are not adversely affected by loss of privacy. 5. To protect the character and appearance of the conservation area. 6. To protect the character and appearance of the conservation area. 7. In the interests of amenity and privacy. 8. To protect the character and appearance of the conservation area. 9. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway/s. 10. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway/s. 11. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway/s. 12. In the interests of residential amenity.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with regional guidance and the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically Regional Spatial Strategy 8 and the following policies: G1, G4, H3, H12 and G12 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 06/1025/01 REV. 11/07/2006 23

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 19th September 2006 at 2.20 p.m.)

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0320/F

PROPOSAL: Habitable dwelling - amended application forms and certificate of ownership.

LOCATION: Rear of no. 18 Church Street, Isham, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr R Reading.

This application is referred to the Regulatory Committee for determination because more than two letters of representation have been received from nearby residential occupiers. The Isham Parish Council has objected to the proposal and has also requested that the application be the subject of a visit from the Site Viewing Group.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above.

The site was formerly part of the rear garden area of no. 18 Church Street and is situated in the Isham Conservation Area. Number 18 is a grade II listed building as are numbers 12 and 16 Church Street.

Number 18 is built upto the back edge of the footpath and the neighbouring dwelling to the east (no. 20 Church Street) is set an irregular angle to the road frontage and has a 1.1m high fence on its front boundary. There is a gate post at the entrance to the site’s access and the measurement from the front corner of no. 18 to the gate post is 4.5m. The access to the site narrows to 3.0m wide at a point 8.0m back from the highway boundary. Number 18 is situated on the inside of a slight bend in the road and has a footpath that measures as 1.5m at this point. The driveway appears to have recently received a dressing of gravel and there is a newly erected boundary fence and wall along the side and rear boundaries of no. 18 that only has a pedestrian gate for an entrance to the rear of the dwellinghouse. The fencing has resulted in no off road parking provision for no. 18 Church Street which appears to be the situation with many other properties in the historic part of the village.

The land noticeably slopes up from the north to the south and on the boundaries is a variety of fencing and walls of differing ages. The wall on the site’s southern boundary has three distinct sections and elements of it are integral parts of outbuildings

Pond Y 488600 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. WP/2006/0320/F 488800 Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 06/09/2006 887 274200 274200 Issues (

Isham

5

T H E M 9 I 2 L L G

L 741 741 1 A D The E Lilacs E N A (PH) 1 L 1 L IL M

l

e 3

p

a Isham 33 35 h 1 Farm C STREET

CH

1 R 4 6 U 2

CH 2 2

1

2

0 25 3

4

2 5

3

1 0 S O 43 U T T 5 S 0 39 H Pear Tree Cott LE D S ID T 740 M 740

4

6 8 All Saints Pear Tree Cott 5 2 House

1 J u b 19 P il 3 e 8 e 7 A 1 T R T E e

3 E 1 K r r 6 R a ( a

T C c

S e 5 8

E 2 L 1 LB L O 1 D

1 D 3 S

I E 7 M 6

9

3

3

6

6

4 b

4 5 9

6 7

ET 2 E Grey TR

1 S

Gables 2 TH 8 3 OU Tithe273900 Barn S 273900

488600 887 488800

0 1

Scale 1:12508 1

2 M 1

2 4 1 A

N

O 24 associated with a terrace of cottages that are numbered 27 – 31 Middle Street that all have minimal amounts of rear amenity space. The lowest part of the rear boundary wall measures as 1.4m high. The next lowest measures as 1.65m above the existing ground level and in the elevations of the dwellings that back onto the proposal site are windows at ground and first floor levels. The higher sections of wall measure as approximately 2.2m and 3.2m high respectively. Within the site there is evidence of felled trees and demolished outbuildings.

Locally the development comprises of a variety of dwellinghouses and a farm with the Isham Primary School some 100m. to the west.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2005/0062/F Single storey rear extension - conditionally approved. WP/2005/0063/LB Single storey rear extension - conditionally approved. WP/2005/0535/F Habitable dwelling - withdrawn.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Regional Spatial Strategy 8. Northamptonshire County Structure Plan – AR6, GS5, H3, and H6. Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan – G1, G4, G9, G12, G21, H1, H3, H12, and T9. Supplementary Planning Guidance – Building Better Places, Parking and Planning Out Crime. Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development. Planning Policy Guidance 3; Housing. Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport. Planning Policy Guidance 15; Planning and the Historic Environment. Planning Policy Statement 23; Planning and Pollution Control. Northants County Highway Authority Guidance Notes - ‘Minor Planning Applications that have an Effect upon the Highway’.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Isham Parish Council – objects to the application and makes the following observations:

• Comments regarding the width of the access and possibility of impaired visibility. • Development is inappropriate taking into account its size and design. • Loss of privacy for neighbours. • Additional parking in Church Street which will have safety issues for pedestrians and other road users. • Additional property will affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

2. NCC Highway Authority –

“It is understood that it is now intended that the means of access alongside 18 Church Street is to be used as a vehicular access to the proposed dwelling only. The way is to give no vehicular access to 18 Church Street and it is presumed that alternative parking arrangements are to be made for this property 25

elsewhere. In the circumstances it is not considered that an objection to the application can be sustained on highway grounds but you will no doubt satisfy as to the acceptability of the proposed arrangements.”

3. Environmental Protection – recommends a condition that requires the submission for approval of an Environmental Risk Assessment before development commences.

4. NCC Built and Natural Environment – considers that no conditions relating to archaeology need be attached to any permission.

5. Conservation Officer – Is conscious that there may be planning problems with the proposal but in conservation terms has no objection to the application. This is because the medieval layout of a traditional village such as Isham often had cottages built in arbitrary locations. Requests minor amendments to elements of the design of the proposal which are not traditional.

6. Neighbours – letters of objection have been received from and on behalf of the occupiers of 16, 20 and 33 Church Street; All Saints House, 25, 27 and 31 Middle Street in which the respondents cite the following reasons for opposing the proposal:

• Loss of privacy due to proposed dwelling not being compliant with required spacing standards. • Loss of light. • Query regarding number of properties that the access would serve and reference to its width and identification of private rights of way over the application site. • Tandem type of development with associated loss of amenity for surrounding residents. • Information supplied regarding deficiencies in the submitted plans. • Danger to pedestrians due to cars using the access. • Increased on street parking problems. • Detrimental effect on the character of the Conservation Area and the nearby listed buildings. • Trees have been felled on the site. • Noise and disturbance caused by construction. • Reference to Government housing guidance and development plan policies. • Reference to high density development in the village that does not cause loss of privacy. • Query regarding the land ownership details of the site and the division of no. 18 from its former garden area and access. • Precedent for backland development. • Disagreement with the Council’s Conservation Officer’s opinion regarding historic haphazard locations for dwellings.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are: • Compliance with policy 26

• Effect on the conservation area and setting of a listed building • Effect on neighbours amenities • Access and highway safety • Crime and disorder • Trees and demolition of outbuildings

Compliance with policy. Isham is classified in the local plan as a restricted infill village and the proposal could be considered to be in accord with elements of national guidance and development plan policy with regards achieving new housing development in the rural area on brown field sites within the recognized confines of villages. With regards the Local Plan, Policy H3 refers to a small group of dwellings or infilling which is defined in the explanatory text (paragraph 3.14) as “the filling of a small gap which, having regard to the width of neighbouring residential curtilages and the general character of the site and surrounding area, is capable of accommodating a single dwelling, a pair of dwellings or a small terrace of dwellings not normally exceeding four in number in an otherwise built up street frontage.” The proposal is clearly a form of tandem development and does not readily fit into the criteria mentioned above that describes what form of housing development would be acceptable. The paragraph below expresses the opinion that the scheme does not adversely impact on the size, form and character of the village but it is considered however that the proposal, by way of its tandem layout, is considered to be contrary to Policy H3.3 of the Local Plan. Other policy issues will be discussed below.

Effect on the visual amenity the conservation area and setting of listed buildings. The local planning authority is required to pay special regard to applications in conservation areas to ensure that they preserve or enhance their visual amenity. The position of the plot is at the rear of a mainly built up street frontage and the public will only be afforded a brief glimpse of the proposal through the gaps between nos. 18 and 20 Church Street. The proposed dwelling would perhaps be much more visible due to the larger gap in the street frontage in Middle Street to the southeast. Residents have expressed their own views regarding the effect of the development on the character of the conservation area and the setting of nearby listed buildings, but the advice from the Council’s Conservation Officer is clear and it is considered therefore that the application cannot reasonably be refused on detrimental impact on the conservation area or adversely affecting the setting of nearby listed buildings.

Effect on neighbours’ amenities. The applicant has supplied a cross section that illustrates a reduced ground level to accommodate the proposed dwelling together with a detailed layout plan. Despite the intended reduction in ground level it is clear that the development will still have a detrimental effect on the standard of amenities that are currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the dwellings who bound the application site. It is considered that the effects on the neighbours will be sufficiently harmful to warrant refusing the proposal for the following reasons:

• The Building Better Places SPG in paragraph 3.34 promotes a minimum privacy distance of 21m between rear facing windows of neighbouring dwellings and the plan that accompanies the application illustrates a distance of 14.5m between the proposed rearward facing bedroom windows and the existing fenestration in 27

the rear of the dwellings in Middle Street. Also the approximate distance between the proposed first floor windows and the properties in Church Street is 19m. Although PPG3 in paragraph 41 makes reference to adopting a flexible approach to amenity space standards the heading for the paragraph refers to re- using buildings and conversions. It is clear that the proposed spacing between the existing and proposed buildings do not meet the suggested minimum privacy standards which would result in a loss of amenity for the surrounding residents. • Policy H1 states that consent will be granted for residential development in residential areas, except where the proposal is a form of tandem development involving the construction of one dwelling immediately behind another and sharing the same access would result in deterioration in residential amenity. The access has been arranged so that only the proposed dwelling will benefit from it, but it is considered that the principle behind the policy i.e. prevention of undue loss of amenity can still reasonably be applied to the proposal.

It is considered that the proposal will cause demonstrable harm to the residential amenity that the occupiers of nearby dwellings currently enjoy. It is recommended that the application be refused because it is contrary to Policies G.1.2, H1.1 and H12.4 of the Local Plan and the provisions of the Building Better Places SPG.

Access and highway safety. The arrangement of the boundary fencing of no. 18 has resulted in no off street parking provision for its occupiers and it would appear that locally there are many dwellings that also do not have the benefit of off road parking. It is considered that the numbers of cars parked on Church Street as a result of the development will not make matters materially worse than they are already with regards to pressure for on street car parking spaces and danger to highway traffic. Concerning the access to the site and bearing in mind the comments of the Highway Authority, the numbers of vehicles that could use the access would be no different from when the residents of no. 18 had its exclusive use to the off road parking spaces. It is suggested therefore that there are now no substantive reasons to refuse the application on highway safety grounds.

Crime and disorder Access to the rear gardens that adjoin the application site can be gained via the existing ungated entrance. It is considered that this application could have a beneficial effect on crime and disorder by establishing additional levels of natural surveillance onto the neighbouring rear garden areas.

Non-material considerations • Blocking of private right of way • If noise from a building site constitutes a nuisance powers are vested in the Council’s Environmental Protection Service to take action as necessary. • Private rights of way.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

28

1. The proposal by way of its detrimental effect on the standard of amenities that are currently enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby dwellings is contrary to Policies G1.2, H1.1, H3.3 and H12.4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan together with Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Building Better Places'.

POLICY G1

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

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

POLICY H1

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

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

POLICY H12

PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROVIDED THAT:

4. REASONABLE STANDARDS OF PRIVATE AMENITY ARE AFFORDED TO ALL DWELLINGS.

POLICY H3

WITHIN THE RESTRICTED INFILL VILLAGES, SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE VILLAGE POLICY LINES PROVIDED THAT THE PROPOSAL:

3. WILL, WHERE APPROPRIATE IN THE CONTEXT OF CRITERION 2, CONSIST OF A SMALL GROUP OF DWELLINGS OR INFILLING OR THE REDEVELOPMENT OR CONVERSION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: Site location plan, 05 and 06 24th May 2006

29

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

SITE VIEWING (Date of visit 19th September 2006 at 12.15 p.m.)

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0369/F

PROPOSAL: Telecommunications base station comprising a 20 metre high mini macro macrocell column, 6 antennas, 2 x equipment cabinets, electrical meter cabinet and ancillary development.

LOCATION: Knuston High Copse Farm, Knuston High Farm, Station Road, Irchester, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: O2 (UK) Limited.

NOTE: This planning application was deferred for Site Viewing at the Regulatory Committee held on 16th August 2006. The recommendation put forward in the previous committee report is retained. A further representation from a neighbouring occupier has been made following the Regulatory Committee. This representation is quoted below.

“I would like to direct your attention to the Hyland Report of 2003 entitled:- How Exposure to GSM & Tetra Base Station Radiation Can Adversely Affect Humans. It is 15 pages long and can be downloaded from the internet. All the adverse effects are explained in scientific and layman's terms and provides very disturbing reading indeed. I repeat that the people on this estate will not tolerate the erection of this mast as already stated in a petition I believe you have already received. “

The views detailed above are noted. However in this case current national government advice which should be considered when determining planning applications for telecommunications development is Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 8. This planning guidance has been considered in the assessment of the application.

WP/2006/0369/F 30

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 16/08/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0369/F

PROPOSAL: Telecommunications base station comprising a 20 metre high mini macro macrocell column, 6 antennas, 2 x equipment cabinets, electrical meter cabinet and ancillary development.

LOCATION: Knuston High Copse Farm, Knuston High Farm, Station Road, Irchester, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: O2 (UK) Limited

This application is subject to the Regulatory Committee due to the number of objections being received.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site is positioned within the open countryside adjacent to the boundary with the built up area of Rushden. The site is situated adjacent to the boundary of an agricultural field and is positioned within a natural clearing of trees, which are approximately 17m high. The nearest residential properties are those situated within Sylmond Gardens and Lyneford Way. There will be approximately 34m between the boundaries of the nearest properties and the proposed installation.

This application seeks planning permission for a 20m telecommunications mast, 6 antennas, 2 x equipment cabinets, electrical meter cabinet and ancillary equipment.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: No planning history for the site.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: T12 and G6 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 8: Telecommunications.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Conservation Officer, Borough of Wellingborough – no objections.

2. Irchester Parish Council – objection. The area is sufficiently covered.

31

3. East Northamptonshire Council – no objection.

4. Rushden Town Council – objection. Detrimental to the amenities of nearby properties.

5. Landscape Officer, Borough of Wellingborough – the proposed mast is within the belt of trees which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). They state no trees are to be removed. It is not likely that the hedge would qualify for retention under the Hedgerow Regulations, and replacement planting is proposed for all but the access.

6. Third Party Letters – 11 individual letters have been received. Grounds of objections are:

• Health risks. • Too close to residential area and children. • Too close to children’s playground. • School located nearby. • Detrimental effect on the environment. • Land is designated as Green Belt land. • Detrimental impact on visual amenity, especially at times when trees are not in leaf. • Alternative locations are available which are located away from residential and built up areas. • Less sensitive location should be found. • On-going maintenance of the site would contravene the government’s policy for sustainable development. • Delay in painting the equipment will lead to the structure being more obtrusive. • Noise pollution. • Interference with home communications – e.g. car immobilisers or car/house alarms. • Loss of woodland. • Concern regarding removal of trees and consequent damage to wildlife. • Damage to bridleway which will be used to access the site. • The access is used by many including cyclists, horse riders and dog walkers. Will this access currently enjoyed be retained? • Future expansion of the site. • Problems with vandalism and arson at the site could result in extra costs and safety checks.

A letter and petition of objection with 155 signatures has been received. Grounds of objection are as follows:

• Too close to a residential area, properties do not have substantial gardens. • Too near to play areas situated in Sylmond Gardens. • Heath risks. • If installed it would become a site sharing location for other providers. 32

• Detrimental impact on residential properties, would people want to move to properties located so close to a telecommunications installation. • Concerned as the site will be in a screened area where many children play. Is it secure and tamper proof? • It appears that rail users will mainly benefit from the installation, could an alternative location nearer to the actual line and away from residential areas be found? • Is it correct that there is a possibility of overexposure if the case surrounding the antenna is removed or damaged?

No other representations have been received at the time of writing this report.

ASSESSMENT: The proposed base station is required to provide second generation (2G) and third generation (3G) mobiles services to the mainline railway line to the south west of the proposed installation and to the residential areas of South Rushden. The proposed site will enable the required level of coverage to be provided to both areas. The height of 20m is required to clear the localised tree clutter.

The site is located within the open countryside on the edge of agricultural land and in relatively close proximity to residential properties within Rushden. The nearest residential properties are those situated within Sylmond Gardens and Lyneford Way. There will be approximately 34m between the boundaries of the nearest properties and the proposed installation. Policies G6 and T12 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan and the representations received will be taken into consideration in the determination of this planning application. T12 relates to telecommunications development whilst G6 concerns development generally within open countryside locations.

Policy T12 of the local plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 8, national planning guidance regarding telecommunications development, advocate a sequential approach to site selection. In the first instance site sharing should be considered in order to minimise the proliferation of base stations. If no such opportunities are available and no other structures can house the proposed equipment greenfield sites will then be considered. The applicant has considered a number of alternative sites within the search area. Many of these have been discounted for technical reasons, as they would not be capable of providing the necessary coverage, whilst others have been discounted for predominantly visual amenity reasons. In this case it is considered that no opportunities for site sharing exist within the search area which would provide the coverage required. A greenfield site is therefore considered to be needed. The location of the development is such that it will be relatively well screened by trees. It is considered that other locations discounted by the applicant do not benefit from the same level of screening. Consequently the proposed site location is considered to be the less obtrusive option. With regards the design of the mast, a slimline structure, to be painted green, is considered to be relatively unobtrusive in a location which is screened by established trees. Overall the local planning authority is satisfied that there are no alternative locations for this development and that a location has been chosen which minimises visual intrusion. A number of concerns have been raised by nearby residents regarding the loss of trees. The applicant has confirmed that no trees 33 will be lost as a result of the development and a condition is recommended to ensure that no trees are removed from the site in the future.

Although benefiting from some screening the site does lie in close proximity to the built up area of Rushden and a residential area. Local residents have also stated that the site is in close proximity to a children’s play area located in Sylmond Gardens. 11 third party letters and a letter and petition, with 155 signatures, objecting to the scheme have been received. The grounds of objection put forward by the objectors have been carefully considered in the assessment of this application. With regards health concerns in particular PPG 8 regarding telecommunications states the following:

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

The applicant has submitted a declaration of conformity with ICNIRP with this application. It is therefore considered that an objection on health grounds is not sustainable. Overall it is considered that the application is in accordance with Policies T12 and G6 of the local plan and there are no other material planning considerations which would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Prior to the commencement of development the colour of the hereby approved mast shall be approved in writing by the local planning authority and implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 3. No trees shall be removed without permission in writing from the local planning authority.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. In the interests of amenity.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with regional guidance and the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically 34

Regional Spatial Strategy 8 and the following policies: T12 and G6 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: P/37245B/001/A 09/06/2006 P/37245B/002/C 09/06/2006 P/37245B/003/C 09/06/2006 P/37245B/004/A 09/08/2006 3. With regards public rights of way the following points should be taken into account: i. The routes must be kept clear, unobstructed and safe for users at all times. No structures or materials may be placed on the right of way. ii. Any damage to the surface of the path must be made good by the applicant, specifications for any repair or surfacing work must be approved by the Rights of Way office at Northamptonshire County Council. iii. If as a result of the development the right of way needs to be closed a Traffic Regulation Order will be required. An application form for such an order is available from Northamptonshire County Council, a fee is payable for this service and a period of six weeks notice is required. 35

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2004/0367/F

PROPOSAL: Demolition of part of redundant industrial buildings, conversion of original factory and outbuildings, alterations and extensions to provide 31 units of accommodation + parking areas.

LOCATION: Wilby Homes, 97 Ex Works, Eastfield Road, Wollaston, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Wilby Homes Limited.

NOTE: The application was deferred for a second time at the meeting of Regulatory Committee held on 1st February 2006 to allow for the possibility of a letter being received from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) indicating that they no longer objected to the proposal. After a protracted delay and some strong prompting from the Corporate Manager, Sustainable Development the HSE have responded and their letter is copied in full and attached to this report.

The applicant’s planning agent who is acting on behalf of Wilby Homes has written in response to receiving a copy of the HSE’s letter as follows:

“As you are aware the above planning application was deferred from the Regulatory Committee Meeting of 1st February 2006 to “wait for the confirmation letter from HSE that they no longer objected and that they would confirm that they “Don’t advise against“ (DAA)”.

We all have been pressing the HSE to confirm that their objections are withdrawn, since that time. In addition, we met with you and Mr Wilson on Friday 16th June and you agreed to also press the HSE for a response, which you kindly actioned.

I thank you for forwarding a copy of the letter dated 9th August sent to Mr Wilson and prepared from the HSE by Mr Kevin Myers. This gives, at least, some response from the HSE, but it is not as clear a response as we were expecting and indeed inviting them to prepare.

FR

ANC 491000 9 491200

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. WP/2004/0367/F 2 Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 06/09/2006 Tanks 911 263000 263000 D D

81

Works The Vicarage

79 73

D GP B 56 B ( 9 569 BM 90.34m 87.9m (

B @ 2

2 TCB IR

6 C

3 HESTER 2

4 R ( OA

6 D

4

5

4

6

4

2 7

8 4

8

629 2 629

8 0

Factory BACKWAY W

Factory Works

39 43 45

101

6 3

2 4

8

4

6

6

5 0 E 0 A

7 STFIELD RO El Sub S 4 A

7 D

8 7 2 8

4 8

2 S 9

6 9

R 1

1 4 a 0 P 1

E 3

H 2 5 6

2 2 GA T

A 1 E

HE 9

H

T 628 628

31 E 37 H

39 2 Works Club 2 T 51

57

61

23 1

6

HOLY 5

O 1 6 A 1 a

KE R 8

0 O

3 AD 1

4

3 7

6

3

8 3

0 5

0 6

9

1

2 7

27

22

3 E 73 1 LOS 77 MILL C 83 WIND

91

1 2

1

5

1 QU 0

EENS ROA 0 D 1

8 1

1

262700 7 3 262700

1 491000 16 491200

1

1 911 9

1

6

1 4

9

0 Scale 1:1250

E 1

OS 8

7

L 6 7 C 5 STONE 36

I attach some comments on that letter made by Dr Vince from ASK Consultants who is our advisor on the Health and Safety aspects. I also attach a copy of an email forwarded from our client Angus Lawson to Dr Vince asking him to seek further clarification from Kevin Myers. Therefore the discussions with the HSE still continue.

In your fax to me you asked whether we would withdraw the current application in the light of HSE reply. I am confirming that my clients do not wish to withdraw the application and confirm that we wish instead for the application to be reported to the Regulatory Committee Meeting of 20th September 2006 for a determination, in the light of the continued dialogue with HSE and your update of this dialogue to Members.”

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: (As above). The proposal and description of the site is as set out above and also as is in the earlier Committee Reports that are attached.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: (As set out in the earlier reports which are attached).

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: (As set out in the earlier reports which are attached).

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: (As set out in the earlier reports which are attached).

The following is a summary of the late representations reported to the Committee meeting on 01/02/2006:

Wollaston Parish Council –

Maintain their earlier objection and suggest that the decision on the application is deferred, so that they can comment further.

Letter received from representative of Scott Bader:-

“Reference the planning application for Shelton’s factory. I am surprised at the comments by Ivan Vince as they are not how I understood the situation when I last had contact with him and the HSE on planning consultation distances from our site. I have asked the local HSE Office for an up-date from them but this is awaited. I cannot attend the Meeting today as I am away on business.

Scott Bader built most of its facilities in Wollaston long before Hazardous Planning requirements were ever considered and since the introduction in early 1990, the basis on which the HSE gives this advice has changed. Originally, the distance was based on a single raw material that we used now all hazardous materials on the site need to be considered. Part of the reasoning for a New Polymer Plant at the end of the site was the removal of the 1 named hazardous material storage to that of plant – well away from the village. This was done, the 37

old tank decommissioned and the off-site consultation distance are now not affected by it.

With the new regulation being applied recently, the distance changed and we worked with the HSE and imposed limits on material types and specified storage location when that was practical and the result reduced the off-site distances.

Dr Vince has spoken to me several times and visited the site once. To change the effect on Sheltons factory, we were advised that we would need to move a 200 tonne storage tank, holding a raw material for plants other than the Polymer Plants, and limit the location of catalyst used in the Old Polymer, Alkyds and Pilot Plants. Both of these are not practical.

Scott Bader’s intention is to continue to have our main manufacturing site in Wollaston. We will continue to invest in the site and introduce new produce ranges especially replacing those that are no longer viable. We aim to continue to minimise the potential effects on our existing neighbours but would not wish to have development around the site than impacted on the potential for change.

In all planning decisions, we must abide with the decision of the HSE.

I note that the proposal on Sheltons factory is proposing approval subject to receiving revised guidance from the HSE. I cannot understand the logic in re- submitting this application when the advice from the HSE has not changes, and, with the work following the incident at Buncefield, an early revised advice is unlikely.”

ASSESSMENT: Whilst this scheme would continue to be recommended for approval by your officers if the HSE confirmed that they no longer objected to the scheme (and in addition there is are clear benefits in townscape terms from the renovation of the former factory which is currently prone to vandalism) the local planning authority cannot ignore its duties and responsibilities in the light of the continued objection maintained by the HSE. Therefore for this reason alone there is not considered to be any option now, other than to recommend refusal purely on the grounds of the risks arising in respect of the proximity to the storage of hazardous substances.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. If permitted the proposal would represent an unacceptable risk to future occupiers of the residential units given its proximity to an area that has been granted Hazardous Substances Consent and is used currently by Scott Bader Limited to store potentially unstable although not inherently dangerous materials. However the nature of the Hazardous Substance Consent granted also potentially allows for the storage of a range of materials such as some kinds of explosives that are much more dangerous than those materials in current storage. Therefore whilst there is negligible harm arising from the existing materials stored on the site, if the precautionary principle is applied in respect of 38

the potential for much more dangerous substances to be theoretically or potentially stored in the senstivie area, then a significant risk to the health and safety of the potential occupiers of the proposed residential units arises.

As such therefore, the proposal, if permitted, would be contrary to the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G1 (8) which is expressed as follows:-

POLICY G1

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

8. WILL NOT REPRESENT AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK OF WIDESPREAD POLLUTION OR OTHER HAZARD FROM THE PRESENCE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. 39

40

41

S E C O N D R E P O R T

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 01/02/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2004/0367/F

PROPOSAL: Demolition of part of redundant industrial buildings, conversion of original factory and outbuildings, alterations and extensions to provide 31 units of accommodation + parking areas.

LOCATION: Ex Works, Eastfield Road, Wollaston, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Wilby Homes Limited.

NOTE: The application was deferred at Regulatory Committee on 10th November 2004 to enable officers to negotiate with the applicant on revisions to the access and car parking arrangements to the scheme. In addition, in the light of an objection from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the applicants were asked to investigate the whole matter further to establish what steps, if any, could be taken to enable the HSE to withdraw their objection.

This report is therefore now re-presented to Committee in its original form (attached) so that, together with the information set out below, an update is provided on the progress made over the last 14 months by the applicants in seeking to address the outstanding issues and, in addition, to recommend how the application should now be determined.

Following the consideration of the application at Regulatory Committee in November of 2004, the applicant’s appointed a specialist consultant (Dr Ian Vince of Ask Consultants) to investigate and report upon the concerns of the HSE. He has reported upon his findings and presented a comprehensive document setting out all the issues, including detailed chemical analysis. Arising from Dr Vince’s recent discussions with HSE, the following summary is provided from him:

“I have had several phone conversations with Dr David Painter of HSE Hazardous Installations Directorate concerning the Consultation Zones around Scott Bader. He has confirmed that the only hazard on the Scott Bader site that affects Sheltons is that of the so-called "explosives" in Area 3. When I pointed out that the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005 would prohibit, with the utmost clarity, the storage of explosives where they could compromise the safety of residents of Sheltons - or, in HSE land-use-planning- speak, where Sheltons would fall into the Middle Zone - he agreed. He also 42

gave me the strong impression that HSE would be bound to withdraw its advice against the development. However, because national policy will need adjusting as a result of this case, he was unable to provide written confirmation pending an internal panel meeting - which has now, unfortunately, been delayed by the Buncefield incident. (Perhaps I should add that Buncefield has no relevance whatsoever to the Scott Bader-Sheltons situation.)

With the caveat that I'm not a lawyer, I can't see how (or why) HSE would avoid the implications. The hazard contours in the vicinity of Scott Bader Area 3 will have to contract. The automatic result spat out by HSE's PADHI (Planning Advice near Hazardous Installations) methodology will have to be DAA. ("Don't Advise Against").”

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: (As above). The proposal and description of the site is as above (and as set out in the original report which is attached), save for the fact that amended plans have been received from the applicants in response to the issues raised by Members of Regulatory Committee at the meeting in November 2004 relating to the means of access from Irchester Road, and the car parking area on the site.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: (As set out in the original report which is attached).

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: (As set out in the original report which is attached).

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED (As set out in the original report which is attached). In addition, the County Highway Authority’s comments on the recent revisions set out on drawing No. 04008/101C are as follows:

1. In view of its width and the existing on-street parking demands, it is recommended that no vehicular be formed onto Eastfield Road. The use of Eastfield Road as an emergency route from the site by way of collapsible bollards is not considered appropriate. 2. As a minimum requirement access must be laid out as a shared private drive having a width of 4.5m over a distance of 10m from the highway boundary and to prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway must be hard-paved over at least the first 5m. In view of the size of the development it may be appropriate for a pedestrian facility to be provided alongside the vehicular access. 3. Vehicle to vehicle visibility of 2m x 70m and pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2m x 2m must be provided and maintained on both sides of the point of access t the site. 4. The applicant should be advised to discuss refuse collection aspects of the proposal with the appropriate officer of the Borough Council of Wellingborough. 5. Measures must be provided to prevent opportunist crossing of the footway and misuse of the strips of land adjacent to the buildings in Eastfield Road and Irchester Road for parking purposes. The use of low fencing or bollards is suggested. 43

6. The applicant will be required to close all redundant footway crossings on the site frontage, reset the dropped curbs over the Irchester Road frontage of the site and to make good the footway to normal levels in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council.

The following is a summary of the late representations reported to the Committee meeting on 10/11/2004:

Petition received strongly objecting to scheme (31 names).

Objections received from residents on grounds of:

(i) the numbers and type of dwelling units proposed; (ii) impact of extra traffic generation and parking; (iii) impact upon the already overstretched local services; (iv) the precedence that will be set for the development of further residential schemes of this kind in the village; (v) insufficient provision for the parking of visitors vehicles and the impact of this aspect of traffic generation; (vi) Wollaston has had enough residential development in the last few years; (vii) hazards arising from the existence of asbestos and underground fuel tanks on the site; (viii) lack of a 'Contaminated Land Report'; and (ix) too close to the Scott Bader works.

Letter from Agent:-

“We have now had the opportunity to consider the letter from Mrs Shelton in more detail, we therefore comment as follows:-

• Access to the development has been considered by our engineers and confirmed by the Council’s Highway Department as acceptable. A contribution by way of a s.106 agreement will be made as per the report. • Parking has been provided on site strictly on the basis of the Local Plan requirements providing 1.5 spaces per unit. • The Council and Scott Bader have addressed the health and safety issues. • A £35,000 contribution by way of a s.106 agreement is to be made for off site facilities as per the report. • A structural assessment has been made of the buildings by engineers and surveyors and found to be structurally sound for the domestic loadings proposed. • Refuse bind will be distributed in the vacant areas adjacent to the parking facility to both sides of the site to the Council’s instructions. • Traffic surveys and assessments have proved that the scheme is less than that for industry and is acceptable to the Highways Department. • Sewers and drains have been deemed adequate for the development. • Consultative departments have not raised the issues of the medical and education facilities.

44

The affordable housing provision ratio is in accordance with the requirements of the Local Plan for developments in excess of 15 units. The allocation of the housing is in the gift of the relevant housing association and not the developer. Any suggestion that the affordable housing would be for immigrants is both racist and erroneous. It is for the Council to decide who lives there not the Developer.

The scheme has been provided to comply with Government policy for development of such sites and in accordance with the demand, which prevails for economic and small unit requirements for the first time buyers and single occupants. We understand that even the smallest terraced houses in Wollaston are beyond the reach of first time buyers.”

ASSESSMENT: Given that the outstanding issues have now been addressed by the applicant’s, they have requested that the report be re-presented to Regulatory Committee as it is now 14 months since the matter was last considered. The amended plans relating to revisions to the access and car parking arrangements are in line with the request made by members of the Regulatory Committee in 2004, however it is appropriate to consult all interested parties, although it is anticipated that no new substantive and material planning objections are likely to be made. The points made by the County Highway Authority are addressed in the proposed conditions and Informative Note (as appropriate to meet the requirements in respect of Government advice on the ‘Use of Conditions’). As indicated above it is also now highly likely that the HSE objection will be withdrawn. In the light of all of the above probabilities there is no reason now for Regulatory Committee not to determine this application subject to the stated caveats.

RECOMMENDATION: That the issue of planning permission is delegated to the Responsible Officer, subject to the conditions set out below and the prior signing of a Section 106 legal agreement in respect of affordable housing provision, highway improvements and a pro-rata commuted sum in lieu of open space provision. This is also provided that no new substantive and material planning objections arise as a result of the re-consultation with all interested parties and that the outstanding objection to the proposed development from the HSE is withdrawn.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plan(s) deposited with the local planning authority on 9th December 2005. 3. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed.

45

4. As a minimum requirement access must be laid out as a shared private drive having a width of 4.5m over a distance of 10m from the highway boundary and to prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway must be hard-paved over at least the first 5m. In view of the size of the development it may be appropriate for a pedestrian facility to be provided alongside the vehicular access. 5. Vehicle to vehicle visibility of 2m x 70m and pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2m x 2m must be provided and maintained on both sides of the point of access t the site. 6. Before the development commences a scheme for refuse collection shall be submitted in writing and approved by the local planning authority. 7. No alteration or demolition shall take place until the applicant (or their successors in title) has secured the implementation of a programme of buildings recording in accordance with a written scheme of investigation submitted by the applicant, in response to a recording brief issued by the Northamptonshire Historic Environment Team. 8. Development shall not begin until a scheme to deal with contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an investigation and assessment to identify the extent of contamination and the measures to be taken to avoid risk to the public/buildings/environment when the site is developed.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the agreed amendments. 3. In the interests of visual amenity. 4. In the interests of road safety for vehicle and pedestrian uses. 5. In the interests of road safety for vehicle and pedestrian uses. 6. In the interests of road safety for vehicle and pedestrian uses. 7. To ensure that any potential items of historic interest are recorded for posterity. 8. To avoid any detrimental effects from contamination.

INFORMATIVE/S: 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: GS2, GS3, GS5, H3 of the County Structure Plan and Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policies: G1, E4, E10, G4, G10, H3, H8 and H12. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 0304/03, 04, 05, 06 11/06/2004 04008/101 C 09/12/2005 3. Please see the final paragraph of the attached copy letter from the Environment Agency regarding the suggestion that contact should be made with the Agency's PIR/RSR team. 46

4. In view of its width and the existing on-street parking demands, it is recommended that no vehicular be formed onto Eastfield Road. The use of Eastfield Road as an emergency route from the site by way of collapsible bollards is not considered appropriate. Measures must be provided to prevent opportunist crossing of the footway and misuse of the strips of land adjacent to the buildings in Eastfield Road and Irchester Road for parking purposes. The use of low fencing or bollards is suggested. The applicant will be required to close all redundant footway crossings on the site frontage, reset the dropped curbs over the Irchester Road frontage of the site and to make good the footway to normal levels in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council. 47

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 10/11/2004

Report of the Director of Environment and Economy

APPLICATION REF: WP/2004/0367/F

PROPOSAL: Demolition of part of redundant industrial buildings, conversion of original factory and outbuildings, alterations and extensions to provide 31 units of accommodation + parking areas.

LOCATION: Sheltons Factory, Irchester Road and Eastfield Road, Wollaston, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Wilby Homes Limited.

PROPOSAL: (As above). The applicant’s point out that the application has been submitted to provide a viable use of buildings which are a good example of traditional industrial buildings originally constructed for the Northamptonshire Boot and Shoe industry. The design of the conversions, alterations and extensions the applicant’s suggest, have been kept to simple forms to retain the features and historic interest of the original building and to keep the industrial character of the fenestration. Some of the more modern buildings are to be removed so as to restore older parts of the original buildings and converting them to residential accommodation. Street frontages are to be retained wherever possible as are existing points of access, except that from Park Street is now proposed to only serve 4 car parking spaces. The Irchester Road access is to serve a parking area for 18 vehicles and that from Eastfield Road, 25 vehicles. This makes a total of 47 spaces to serve 31 units (a standard of 1.5 spaces per unit). The scheme is designed incorporating communal landscaped amenity areas with an enclosed Victorian garden at the Park Street side. The accommodation comprises 21 one bedroom units, 9 two bedroom units and 1 three bedroom units (ranging in size from 47 square metres to 107 square metres). The applicant’s are wholly willing to meet the Borough Council’s affordable housing units by proposing a proportion of the total number of units for shared ownership.

Consideration of this application was deferred at the meeting held on 13th October 2004 as the Parish Council in their first letter of representation of 5 June 2004, had requested that a site viewing take place with Councillors and local residents.

48

PLANNING HISTORY: There is a very extensive planning history relating to this site. There have been numerous planning applications made over the years relating to alterations and conversions associated with the former use as a shoe factory.

PLANNING POLICY: Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policies: G1, E4, E10, G4, G10, H3, H8 and H12. Northamptonshire Structure Plan Policies: GS2, GS3, GS5 and H3. Planning Policy Guidance Notes 1 and 3. Supplementary Planning Guidance VIII: ‘Building Better Places’.

CONSULTATIONS: 1. Parish Council – strongly object to the proposal on the grounds of:

(i) number of units proposed being far too many for the site, (ii) the scheme has the feeling of being a hostel, (iii) totally out of balance with the housing stock within the village, (iv) insufficient social mix proposed, (v) small alleyways will lead to security problems, (vi) there should only be one access from Irchester Road and an increase in traffic along Eastfield Road is unacceptable, (vii) the health and safety issues given the proximity of Scott Bader, (viii) no provision for wheelie bins and room for refuse collection vehicles on the site. (ix) if planning permission is granted a legal agreement is required to secure traffic calming and youth and adult recreational facilities within the village.

2. County Highway Authority – comments as follows:

(i) to facilitate the passage of prams and wheelchairs, the footway crossings should remain in their present form being constructed using taper and half section kerbs in lieu of radius kerbs as shown, (ii) where appropriate existing disused vehicular accesses are to be stopped up and the footway re-instated, (iii) measures are to be provided to prevent opportunist crossing of the footway and misuse of the strips of land adjacent to the building in Eastfield Road and Irchester Road for parking purposes. I would suggest the use of low fencing or bollards, (iv) I suspect that the highway boundary adjacent to the site on the Irchester Road frontage is set some 2m behind the back of the footway line. I am presently seeking confirmation of this, (v) pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2m x 2m is to be provided at each point of vehicular access from the site, (vi) all works within the highway are to be in accordance with the specification of the county Council using heavy duty construction to cross the footway, (vii) to prevent lose material being carried onto the highway at least the first 5m of all driveways are to be hard surfaced, and (viii) no parts of the internal access ways are to be adopted as highway maintainable at public expense and the application site is not affected by a public right of way. 49

3. County Council Historic Environment Team – the factory was originally built for Philip Bros. (Wollaston) with the Shelton factory built on adjoining land. Latterly occupied by R Griggs and Co. Limited who operated from the site until January 2000. The building has been assessed as being in good condition and of medium condition for further recording. A planning condition is requested to be imposed to secure this requirement.

4. Environment Agency – no objection to the proposal but comments that previous uses of the site may have caused or have potential to cause contamination of controlled waters and therefore a contamination assessment should be carried out and this and any subsequent remediation measures should be secured by imposing a planning condition. In addition, the site is within 500 metres of the Scott Bader chemical plant and the applicant should contact the Agency’s Process Industry Regulation/Radioactive Substance Regulations team.

5. Environmental Health Officer - the site has a previous industrial use and an environmental risk assessment should be required by virtue of a planning condition.

6. Health and Safety Executive – point out that they are a statutory consultee for certain developments within the Consultation Distance (CD) of major hazard installations/complexes and pipelines. The proposed development is within one such CD and the HSE’s advice is that there are sufficient reasons, on health and safety grounds, for advising against the granting of planning permission in this case. It is pointed out that although there are provisions to protect the public in respect of major hazard installations, it is still a possibility that a major accident could occur, although the likelihood of this is very small. Notwithstanding this likelihood, the HSE’s assessment methodology indicates that the risk of harm to people at the proposed development from the hazardous substances at the major hazard site is sufficiently high to justify advising against the grant of planning permission on grounds of safety. Attention is also drawn to Circular 04/2000, which states:

Where a local planning authority or hazardous substances authority is minded to grant planning permission or hazardous substances consent against the HSE’s advice, it should give HSE advance notice of that intention, and allow 21 days from that notice for HSE to give further consideration to the matter. During that period, the HSE will consider whether or not to request the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (now Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) to call-in the application for his own determination.

The HSE also draws attention to a further letter they sent to the Local Planning Authority on 7/7/04. In this they set out the current hazardous substances consent position at Scott Bader Ltd. based on correspondence sent to them by the Borough Council. They highlight the fact that due to the consent given to allow for a new Acrylonitrile facility to the north of the site, the Borough Council had indicated it intended to revoke existing deemed consents from 1992 and 1999. As the revocation had not yet occurred, the HSE indicated its advice on the proposed development of the Shelton’s factory site, was made on the situation as it existed in July 2004.

50

7. Third Parties - 9 letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following points of objection:

(i) the scheme amounts to over development of the site, (ii) it will lead to an overloading of the sewage system, (iii) it will generate too much traffic, (iv) health and safety hazards as a result of proximity to Scott Bader, (v) poor provision for vehicular access, (vi) noise impact from increase in number of residents and lack of privacy for existing residents, (vii) no provision for refuse storage and collection, (viii) no provision for emergency vehicle access, (ix) provision lacking for disabled persons, (x) insufficient provision for social mix in dwelling types, (xi) development of excessive scale and density, (xii) housing provision quota already met in village, (xiii) does not meet the criteria set out in policies in the development plan and will be a poor scheme having an adverse impact upon the local environment, and (xiv) lack of amenities for proposed occupiers of the units.

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

(i) Policy considerations (ii) Consideration of the objections from the Parish Council (iii) Consideration of objections from third parties (iv) Consideration of the objections from the Health and Safety Executive

(i) Policy E4 of the Borough Local Plan requires applicants to prove the case that any scheme seeking the residential conversion of former factory buildings is the only viable use. In other words, the buildings are unsuitable for commercial and employment uses. The application is accompanied by detailed survey information undertaken by professional and competent surveyors. An assessment has been made of the nature of the buildings, their structural characteristics and the difficulties of accommodating modern businesses without major alterations. Such alterations would be harmful to the integrity of the buildings and would be most likely to lead to increase in traffic movements, particularly in many instances in the generation of large numbers of HGV movements. The traffic assessment that accompanies the application compares the traffic implications of a typical mix of B1 and B8 uses in comparison with residential use. The latter is shown to produce far less traffic congestion within the site and on the surrounding road network. Survey information is also supplied to demonstrate that there is sufficient provision of employment floorspace within Wollaston available to rent, without the need to convert the buildings on the application site. In addition, 5 of the residential units proposed on the site are designed to include work studios. On the basis of the information and analysis supplied by bona fide professional practices it is considered that the requirements set out in Policy E4 have been addressed. As the applicants also point out, a Planning Inspector in granting planning permission for the residential conversion of the Trylon Factory premises in Thrift Street (WP/2003/0168/F) found 51

that these proposals would not conflict with the objectives of the Development Plan policies nor there be any harm to the character or appearance of the surrounding area. Policy H12 requires the scheme to result in an attractive environment compatible with the surrounding area and this is achieved by retaining and converting the historic buildings on the site and using existing accesses. It is considered that this proposal satisfies the criteria of this policy.

(ii) In response to the objections of the Parish Council it should be noted that the number of units proposed, is compatible with the Development Plan. The latter includes a requirement to achieve high density development where this is appropriate. The scheme is also a function of the ability of the fabric and layout of the buildings to allow for the different styles and types of accommodation (including live/work units) whilst retaining original features, in particular the industrial fenestration. Sufficient social mix will be provided in the scheme both by virtue of the small size of some of the units and the provision of 8 affordable housing units, in accordance with the Council’s requirement, secured by virtue of a Section 106 legal agreement. The scheme is to include points of access and pedestrian entrances in line with the requirements of the Highway Authority with no small alleyways. Areas for refuse bins are to be provided in accordance with the requirements of the waste disposal service and contributions for recreational provision in the village are also to be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement.

(iii) In respect of those points of objection made by residents that are not addressed in (i) & (ii) above it should be noted that the proposals will not result in a loss of light to neighbouring properties as the existing boundaries, buildings (for the most part) and trees are to be retained. The internal layout is such that any overlooking is minimised. Any noise generation would be kept to a minimum because of the need to comply with stringent Building Regulations. Car parking provision meets current standards and the respective statutory undertakers do not consider the scheme will overload foul and surface water drainage systems in the vicinity of the site. The proposals will not dominate the area being based as they are on existing buildings, the retention and conversion of which has been supported in principle by the County Council’s Historic Environment Team. It is intended that the communal garden and car parking areas will be managed by a resident’s committee which is the usual practice for schemes of this form. The number and variety of unit sizes will include those suitable for disabled persons. The scheme does not amount to overdevelopment but is one that uses existing buildings in an efficient and effective fashion. The detailed design has been undertaken to enhance the quality and amenity of the local environment, to remove the negative impacts of noise and inconvenience of HGV movements and industrial/commercial processes and operations inside the buildings. A conversion scheme is more fitting for the local environment than wholesale demolition and new build and it will help to preserve the essential scale and form of this part of the village. The development proposes the re-use of previously developed land and it is therefore not subject to any development quotas in respect of housing figures for Wollaston.

(iv) Notwithstanding the somewhat alarming advice from the HSE to refuse the application on safety grounds, the current situation is that the legal work to complete the revocation of earlier hazardous substance consents is almost complete. It is anticipated that on completion the HSE will be in a position to withdraw its current 52

advice that planning permission should be refused.

RECOMMENDATION: That the issue of planning permission is delegated to the Director of Environment and Economy subject to the outstanding imminent completion of the hazardous substance consents revocation and the expected withdrawal of the HSE’s objection. This delegation also to be subject to the prior signing of a Section 106 legal agreement in respect of affordable housing provision, highway improvements and a pro-rata commuted sum in lieu of open space provision, and subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plan(s) deposited with the local planning authority on 17th August 2004. 3. The site shall be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with a comprehensive scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 4. The vehicular crossing into the development must be widened and reconstructed as appropriate, all existing points of access closed and the footway made good all in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and using materials compatible to the existing surfaces. The gradient of the means of access is not to exceed 1 in 15 for a distance of 5m from the highway boundary. 5. To provide pedestrian to vehicle visibility, splays of 2m x 2m must be provided and maintained on both sides of the point of the access. 6. Before the development commences a scheme for refuse collection shall be submitted in writing and approved by the local planning authority. 7. Before the development commences a scheme showing how the structural integrity of the public highway shall be submitted in writing and approved by the local planning authority in conjunction with Northamptonshire County Council. 8. No alteration or demolition shall take place until the applicant (or their successors in title) has secured the implementation of a programme of buildings recording in accordance with a written scheme of investigation submitted by the applicant, in response to a recording brief issued by the Northamptonshire Historic Environment Team. 9. Development shall not begin until a scheme to deal with contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an investigation and assessment to identify the extent of contamination and the measures to be taken to avoid risk to the public/buildings/environment when the site is developed.

53

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 2. To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the agreed amendments. 3. In the interests of visual amenity. 4. In the interests of road safety for vehicle and pedestrian uses. 5. In the interests of road safety for vehicle and pedestrian uses. 6. In the interests of road safety for vehicle and pedestrian uses. 7. In the interests of safety. 8. To ensure that any potential items of historic interest are recorded for posterity. 9. To avoid any detrimental effects from contamination.

INFORMATIVES 1. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 0304/03, 04, 05, 06 11/06/2004 0304/02 17/08/2004 2. Please see the final paragraph of the attached copy letter from the Environment Agency regarding the suggestion that contact should be made with the Agency's PIR/RSR team.

54

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0253/F

PROPOSAL: Construction of two new dwellings.

LOCATION: Land off Church Way, Grendon, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr R Merrington.

NOTE: This application was deferred at the Regulatory Committee meeting on 21 June 2006 as Members requested clarification on two matters of concern.

These matters related to, firstly, the issue of the involvement of the elderly tenant living at no. 71 Church Way (The Old Forge) in the planning process, and, secondly, the legal/technical implications of a dispute over rights of access to the present proposed development site.

The items are taken in turn:

1. Tenant Members were concerned that the tenant living in The Old Forge had not been asked for her views and was perhaps being actively ignored in the planning process. It is confirmed that a letter has now been received from the tenant indicating that she is aware of the proposals and has no objections to them. In fact, following the meeting in June the Council’s Conservation Officer took the opportunity to meet her and discuss the development scheme and at no time did she appear to express any anxiety or particular concerns in the matter.

2. Access Legal advice was sought from the Joint In-house Legal Department on the issue of the access dispute and this is as follows:-

“The Planning Acts allow planning permissions to be granted over land owned by someone other than the applicant. In circumstances where the planning authority considers the application to be acceptable development then the permission can be granted. But particularly if it is clear that the third party owner opposes the development of his land then the planning permission can contain conditions to prevent the development commencing unless certain conditions be first met. WP/2006/0253/F 55

In this application there is a dispute between the applicant and a neighbour concerning rights over the access road, which is apparently owned by that neighbour. It is not for committee to judge that dispute. Agreement or dispute resolution between the parties will determine that. However, there is a danger that the applicant will not be in control of the land so as to satisfy the conditions concerning the upgrade of the access road and thus complete the development.

In these circumstances, a condition can be imposed with the effect that until required works have been completed no other development works be commenced”.

Accordingly Members are invited to determine the application in accordance with the recommendation in the attached Original Report, but with the following conditions substituted:

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Prior to the commencement of the development, a scheme for the protection of the trees on, and in the vicinity of, the site that are to be retained during construction works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority following a meeting on site and incorporating any amendments the local planning authority may require. The scheme shall be carried out concurrently with the development to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 3. The site shall be landscaped in accordance with details to be submitted to the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development and incorporating any amendments the local planning authority may require. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 4. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The dwellings shall be constructed of natural local stone with slate roofing materials. 5. Full details of the layout for vehicular parking and manoevring shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any work is commenced. The area thus shown and agreed shall be laid out and surfaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the dwellinghouses are occupied and shall be permanently set aside and reserved for this purpose. 6. The shared private drive serving the existing and proposed development is to be no less than 4.5m wide over the first 10m and must be hard-paved over the first 5m. Pedestrian to vehicle visibility over a height of 0.6m must be provided within splays of 2m x 2m on each side of the access point. The strip of granite setts over the frontage of the site must be laid flush with the existing surface of the carriageway so that the available carriageway width is not further reduced. 56

7. No other development work shall commence until the requirements of condition 6, above, have been met in full, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 8. Any windows proposed on the Church Way frontage of the development shall be of a type which open inwards only. 9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order), no extensions or other forms of enlargement to the residential development hereby permitted, nor the erection of porches or outbuildings, shall take place without the prior approval of the local planning authority. 10. Development shall not begin until a scheme of investigation and assessment to identify the extent of any contamination on the site and the measures necessary to make the land fit for porpose has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and implemented, including any amendments the local planning authority may require.

Reasons:- 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. In the interests of amenity and to protect the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties. 4. In the interests of visual amenity. 5. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway/s. 6. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway/s. 7. In view of the existing dispute between the applicant and a neighbour concerning rights over the access road, the purpose and effect of this condition is that the substantive development cannot be carried out until such time as the works to the access road can be legally implemented. 8. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highways. 9. In the interests of amenity. 10. To mitigate any problems from site contamination.

57

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 21/06/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0253/F

PROPOSAL: Construction of two new dwellings.

LOCATION: Land off Church Way, Grendon, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr R Merrington.

This application is brought before the Committee because it is subject to a number of objections including one from the Grendon Parish Council.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: Application for two dwellings on land in the Conservation Area, in front of a Listed Building and opposite the church in Grendon.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Most recent are: WP/2005/0615/LB and WP/2005/0616/F – applications for Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission for the erection of three dwellings – both withdrawn.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policies H3, H12, G1, G4, G9 and G12. Supplementary Planning Guidance VIII, Building Better Places and the Countywide item of Supplementary Planning Guidance on Parking.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. County Highway Authority - the shared private drive serving the existing and proposed development is to be no less than 4.5m wide over the first 10m and, to prevent loose material being carried out onto the public highway, must be hard- paved over the first 5m. I have expressed some concern with regard to the lack of visibility between the access to the site and Church Way but acknowledge the importance of the buildings and structures on this site to the quality of the conservation area. As a minimum requirement it is required that pedestrian to vehicle visibility over a height of 0.6m be provided within splays of 2m x 2m on each side of the point of access. Although it is noted that the proposed external wall of Unit 1 corresponds with the external boundary wall of the site it must be ensured that no part of the proposal extends over or into the public highway. 58

Any windows proposed on the highway frontage of the building must be of a type that opens inward only. The innovative feature, comprising a strip of granite setts over the frontage of the site, is noted. Whilst its use to enhance available visibility may be of value it must be emphasised that it should not be regarded as a form of defence between the building and passing traffic. Church Way is already of inadequate width and, if provided, the feature must be laid flush with the existing surface of the carriageway so that the available carriageway width is not further reduced. This feature must be constructed in accordance with the specification of Northamptonshire County Council and subject to a suitable agreement. You should satisfy yourself as to the adequacy of parking accommodation provided to serve both the existing and proposed development affected by this application. The applicant is advised to discuss refuse collection aspects of the proposal with the appropriate officer of the Borough Council of Wellingborough. The Application Site is affected by a Public Right of Way. Public Footpath TF16 passes through the site of the proposal and the application must also be referred to the County Rights of Way Officer.

2. County Council, Public Rights of Way Officer - we have no objections to the application but I would make the following comments in respect of public rights of way. I would draw your attention to the existence of a public right of way, footpath TF16 through the proposed development. The following points should be taken in to account: The routes must be kept clear, unobstructed and safe for users at all times. No structures or materials may be placed on the right of way. Any damage to the surface of the path must be made good by the applicant, specifications for any repair or surfacing work must be approved by this office. If as a result of the development the right of way needs to be closed a Traffic Regulation Order will be required. An application form for such an order is available from Northamptonshire County Council, a fee is payable for this service and a period of six weeks notice is required.

3. Grendon Parish Council – strongly objects to the application. The reasons for this are as follows: a. There is an unresolved dispute about the applicant’s rights of access to the site and whether the occupiers of the new dwellings will be able to use it. b. The proposal will add to parking problems in the area (especially if the access issue cannot be resolved) and cause highway safety issues including poor visibility from the access. There are also issues related to people using the public right of way through the site being in conflict with those using the proposed parking area. There no need for the dwellings as the County Structure Plan target for new housing in rural area has been exceeded, and d. The windows at the rear of the dwellings will overlook and cause a loss of privacy to nearby properties.

4. Third Parties – a number of objections received on the following grounds:

a. Grendon is a conservation village and placing 2 cramped modern dwellings into a small space in the historical heart of the village would be very damaging to the village landscape and would not add appropriately to it. b. The applicant does not own the access road required to give access to the proposed houses or the car parking spaces. 59

c. The development will add to parking problems in this part of the village including a loss of on street parking provision. d. This site, on a corner, will become dangerous for traffic on what is quite a blind bend at one of the busiest roads in the village – especially with another lot of traffic leaving the proposed car park not to mention their visitors. e. Quite considerable traffic and other disruption would ensue for the village over an extended construction period - which could easily block the road in this part of the village which would cause havoc. f. The Old Forge is a listed and protected building - it would be seriously compromised by this development and would almost completely block three windows of that property. g. The building as proposed is too close to the Old Forge and it is in breach of the planning requirements that new builds are a certain specified distance from a neighbour's windows and walls. h. The construction of this development is likely to damage what foundations there may be at the Old Forge and this must risk damaging this old building. i. The Old Forge it does have an elderly and protected tenant. This scheme requires the use of her vegetable garden for the proposed car parking and her front garden for the houses. This is an unacceptable loss of amenity space for the Forge j. The proposed building plot is quite small and this development is an over use of this small plot. This will have an adverse effect on the character of this part of the village. k. The development will block existing views in the locality including ones of the Church. l. There is concern that if any windows open outwards in the new development this will extend into the highway. m. The proposed development will result in a reduction in the width of Church Way because of some granite setts proposed in front of the building. This will increase problems caused by traffic at this location. n. The new development will make access for emergency vehicles difficult. o. There is a Right of Way running through the site and users of this will face safety problems as a result of cars exiting the proposed parking spaces. p. The development will result in the loss of an important wall and trees and have an adverse effect on the Conservation Area. q. The development will result in extra noise and disturbance for the surroundings. r. The new houses will have inadequate amenity space.

One third party supports the proposal and points out recent cases where applications have been refused in Grendon and the applicants have won on appeal.

ASSESSMENT: Grendon is regarded as a ‘restricted infill’ village in the adopted Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

The proposal is located within the Village Policy Line for Grendon as defined in the adopted Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. It is also within the Conservation Area 60

for the village and in close proximity to the church and a number of other Listed Buildings. The site also has a number of trees within it and close to its boundary.

Policies G1, G4, G9, G12, H3 and H12 of the adopted Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan accept development of the type proposed at this location providing that it is an acceptable design and does not have an adverse effect on its surroundings.

Impact on Conservation Area and Listed Buildings This is clearly a sensitive location and the proposal has been subject to extensive pre- application discussions with the Council’s Conservation Officer. As a result, the scheme has been reduced from three in a previous application to two. The Conservation Officer considers these are of an acceptable design in keeping with their surroundings including the nearby church. The materials that are to be used in their construction have not been agreed at this stage but this aspect can be controlled by condition to ensure they are in keeping with the Conservation Area. The use of a local stone has been suggested by the applicants and is supported. This can be confirmed by the addition of wording in the conditions attached to any planning permission.

Proximity to other properties In terms of effects on the amenities of adjacent properties, the Council’s adopted item of Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Building Better Places’ contains a number of standards including one which suggests that the rear facing windows of properties should be at least 12 metres from ones in the flank walls of others. Due to the orientation of the properties in this scheme and their relationship with others nearby, this is considered to be the best standard to apply in relation to proposed unit 2 and number 7 Church Way to the East. The scheme complies with this standard and therefore any effects on number 7 are considered insufficient to justify refusing the application. Unit 1 in the development will be alongside number 7 but with a gap of over 6 metres between the two dwellings. There will only be a small attic window in the roof of this unit which faces number 7. Any implications of overlooking from this are not sufficient to justify refusing this application.

A Listed property known as the Old Forge is located within the application site adjacent to the proposed dwellings. Unit 2 in the new development will be built alongside the Old Forge with a gap of about 2 metres between the two buildings. There will be no windows in the side elevation of Unit 2 facing the Old Forge. The rear elevation of unit 1 will also face the side of the Old Forge. There has been concern about the impact of the new development on the amount of light that the Old Forge receives. The main window to a habitable room which will be affected in this way is a 1st Floor window in the side elevation of the Old Forge which faces the side of unit 2 and the rear of unit 1 in the new development. This is thought to serve a bedroom. Unit 2 in the new development has been designed so as not to totally obscure this window. In addition, even though it is less than the usual 12 metres from the rear of unit 1 in the new development, the proposal has been designed on an angle so that no windows in the new dwellings will directly look towards this window. Similarly, this window will not look directly into windows in the new development. Any effects of the development on the amenities of the Old Forge are therefore not considered sufficient to justify refusing the application.

61

Finally, on this subject, with the previous scheme, there were concerns that the Old Forge would have an adverse impact on the amount of light received at the rear of the new dwelling proposed for unit 2. However, in the latest proposal, a pair of patio doors has been moved slightly further away from the Old Forge to allow more light in and address this concern.

Private amenity space There have been concerns that this development will leave the Old Forge with an inadequate amount of amenity space. However, even with the dwellings on site, the Old Forge will still be left with a garden that is 12 metres wide by 13 metres long. This exceeds the 10.5 metres specified in the Council’s adopted item of Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Building Better Places’ as a suitable garden length. The development is therefore acceptable in terms of the amount of amenity space that the Old Forge is left with.

Neither of the new properties will achieve this distance. However, it is common in the centre of villages for properties only to have small gardens. This is therefore not a reason to refuse planning permission. Furthermore, any permission can contain conditions removing ‘permitted development’ rights to add to the properties or construct buildings in the gardens to help prevent this space becoming smaller.

Impact on the Setting of the Old Forge and the Conservation Area (including views to the Church) The area between the Old Forge and Church Way is free at the moment and it is accepted that this sense of openness will be lost if the scheme proceeds. This will alter the character of the Conservation Area, setting of the Old Forge and also impact on the view of the Church which some people experience at present. However, the Council’s Conservation Officer is happy with the design of the scheme and feels that, once developed, the Conservation Area will be enhanced by this scheme. These concerns are therefore not considered sufficient to justify refusal of the application.

Highways, parking and public footpath The objections about the footpath which runs through the site are accepted. However, this is proposed to be unrestricted by the development and the County Council’s Rights of Way Officer does not object to the proposal. An informative can be imposed on any permission asking for it not to be obstructed by building materials etc. Any conflict between users of the path and the parking spaces is not considered to be significant as the parking spaces will have adequate visibility for car users leaving them.

In terms of parking, two spaces are allowed within the development for each of the new dwellings plus two for the existing cottage on site (the forge). This exceeds the Countywide parking standard. However, due to the narrowness of nearby roads, this is considered justified.

On the subject of parking it should also be noted that part of the site is currently used for informal parking for tenants of an adjacent property. Alternate arrangements have been made for this nearby.

In response to the highway concerns that have been raised, the Highway Authority does not object to the proposal and suggests a number of conditions to be imposed on 62

any condition to protect the interests of the users of the highway. There are therefore considered to be no highway grounds to justify refusal and include clauses preventing windows opening onto the highway, ensuring the carriageway is not lessened in width and requiring adequate visibility.

Need for the development The County Structure Plan target of 500 new dwellings in the rural areas of the Borough up until 2016 has been exceeded. However, this is not seen as a valid reason to refuse small infill developments such as this which are required to meet a need for small dwellings in individual villages such as Grendon.

Trees There are a number of trees within the site and close to boundary. Some will be lost if the development proceeds and additional landscaping can be secured as compensation for this. A number of other tress will also be retained near the boundaries of the site. The most important tree in this respect is located within the boundary of 7 Church Way. There were concerns about this in relation to a previous scheme on this site because the development was proposed too close to it. This latest scheme moves the dwellings further away from the boundary with number 7 and means it is easier to protect this tree. Protection measures for this and any other trees to be retained can be secured by planning condition.

Possible contamination on site For a number of reasons including the proximity to an adjacent former forge, the site is likely to be contaminated. At the request of the Council’s Environmental Health Officers, some work has been done to examine this. Further works to ensure this is not a problem can be secured by planning condition.

Ongoing dispute over rights of access In response to concerns that the occupiers of the new dwellings will not enjoy rights of access to the site, the applicant maintains they will. It is uncertain who is correct but this is not a valid reason to justify refusal of this planning application.

Other matters There have been concerns expressed about the effect of construction works on the stability of the Old Forge and also the related noise and disturbance that they will bring. There are other items of legislation to protect residents on these matters and therefore these concerns are not sufficient to justify refusal of the application.

Conclusion Overall, there are considered to be no reasons to justify refusing this application.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Prior to the commencement of the development, a scheme for the protection of the trees on, and in the vicinity of, the site that are to be retained during 63

construction works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority following a meeting on site and incorporating any amendments the local planning authority may require. The scheme shall be carried out concurrently with the development to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 3. The site shall be landscaped in accordance with details to be submitted to the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development and incorporating any amendments the local planning authority may require. The scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and shall be completed not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted or other species as may be agreed. 4. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. The dwellings shall be constructed of natural local stone with slate roofing materials. 5. The areas shown for parking and turning on the approved plans shall be laid out and surfaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority before the premises are occupied and shall be permanently set aside and reserved for the purpose. 6. The shared private drive serving the existing and proposed development is to be no less than 4.5m wide over the first 10m and must be hard-paved over the first 5m. Pedestrian to vehicle visibility over a height of 0.6m must be provided within splays of 2m x 2m on each side of the point of access. The strip of granite setts over the frontage of the site must be laid flush with the existing surface of the carriageway so that the available carriageway width is not further reduced. Any windows proposed on the highway frontage of the building must be of a type that opens inward only. 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order), no extensions or other forms of enlargement to the residential development hereby permitted, nor the erection of porches or outbuildings shall take place without the prior approval of the local planning authority. 8. Development shall not begin until a scheme of investigation and assessment to identify the extent of any contamination on the site and the measures necessary to make the land fit for the proposed use has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and implemented including any amendments the local planning authority may require.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. In the interests of amenity and to protect the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties. 4. In the interests of visual amenity. 64

5. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway/s. 6. In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway/s. 7. In the interests of amenity. 8. To mitigate against any problems from contamination on the site.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: G1, G4, G9, G12, H3 and H12 of the adopted Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: 457/10B, 457/11B, 457/12A, 457/13A and 457/14B 25th April 2006 3. Before any work begins on site, a meeting should be arranged between the developers and the Council's landscape officer to agree the precise measures for the protection of the trees to be retained in the vicinity of the site's boundaries. These should be in accordance with BS 5837. A protective fence must be erected to exclude access from as much of the root zone as possible. This should be supported with clause 8.2 of BS 5837, the height to be agreed on site. The routing of services to avoid roots being severed is also to be carefully considered at the initial site meeting. Any crown lifting which may be required will need consent and must be carried out in accordance with BS 3998. 4. The applicant is advised that planning permission does not automatically allow the construction of the vehicle crossing, details of which require the approval of the Highway Authority. In this regard you should contact the Area Maintenance Engineer, Northamptonshire County Council - Atkins, Highways Depot, Harborough Road, Brixworth, Northamptonshire, NN6 9BX, tel. (01604) 883400 prior to any construction/excavation works within the public highway. 5. Footpath TF16 passes through the proposed development. The following points should be taken in to account: The routes must be kept clear, unobstructed and safe for users at all times. No structures or materials may be placed on the right of way. Any damage to the surface of the path must be made good by the applicant, specifications for any repair or surfacing work must be approved by this office. If as a result of the development the right of way needs to be closed a Traffic Regulation Order will be required. An application form for such an order is available from Northamptonshire County Council, a fee is payable for this service and a period of six weeks notice is required.

65

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0316/F

PROPOSAL: First floor extension to provide bedrooms and bathroom and garage with balcony over.

LOCATION: 4 Dovecote Yard, Orlingbury, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: R Berry.

NOTE: This application was deferred at the last Regulatory Committee meeting to enable officers to negotiate alterations to the first floor bedroom window above the proposed garage to control unsatisfactory overlooking of an adjoining residential property.

The architect has submitted plans showing a narrower window as an alternative to the originally-suggested recessed window. This appears to officers to achieve the same purpose of providing reasonable privacy for the neighbour and the scheme can be favourably recommended.

B M 9 1 3 03

486100 .9 486300

© Crown Copyright.6m All rights reserved. WP/2006/0316/F Borough Council Of Wellingborough:@ Licence No.100018694. Published 06/09/2006 (

862 2

272500 4 272500

2 7 0 2

1 T HE

LE

1 Y 8 S D A O

R 6

5 1 1 1 M A ms H IS

724 724 B

103.0m

3 8

El Sub Sta 4

3 4 d

r 7 2 a

Y E S

e t O

o

c L

3 e v C o 1 D D R A H 1 5 C 1 R

9 O 1 2 4

( 2

1 2 O Pp 9 CL rd S a A 723 ll Y 723 M Ha M

R LA 8 E s C r T te n O e p D R r D Y a L C

gbury AN

E 9

3 0 D The 42 Haybarn

El Sub

2 8 Sta

2

3

8 36 D

272200 272200

486100 862 486300 D Scale 1:1250 D

Orlingbury Hall 66

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 16/08/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0316/F

PROPOSAL: First floor extension to provide bedrooms and bathroom and garage with balcony over.

LOCATION: 4 Dovecote Yard, Orlingbury, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: R Berry.

This application has been referred to the Regulatory Committee for determination at the request of the local Ward Councillor who also asks for a visit from the Site Viewing Group.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described above.

The site is one of a pair of simply designed cottages that are located in the Orlingbury Conservation Area. The site is set back from the highway and the proposal site is somewhat screened by a mature conifer.

An amended plan has been received on 29th June 2006 that deletes the formerly illustrated balcony and replaces it with a bedroom window.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None recorded.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Regional Spatial Strategy 8. Northamptonshire County Structure Plan - GS5 and AR6. Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan – G1 and G13. Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development. Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Planning Policy Guidance 15; Planning and the Historic Environment. Supplementary Planning Guidance – Planning Out Crime and Trees on Development Sites.

67

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Orlingbury Parish Council – no objection provided the exterior facing materials are in keeping with a conservation area. The Parish Council also requests that the construction workers park with due consideration because access from Rectory Lane is difficult.

2. Neighbours – letter of objection received on behalf of the adjoining neighbours which mentions loss of privacy as the reason for opposing the scheme. The writer also suggests that the tree on the site should be the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

3. Central Networks – no objection.

ASSESSMENT Main Issues and Material Planning Considerations: • Effect on the visual amenity of the Orlingbury Conservation Area • Effect on neighbours amenities • Crime and disorder

Effect on the visual amenity of the conservation area It is considered that the proposed extension which displays a sympathetic design and is detailed with matching exterior facing materials will have no material harm on the visual quality of the conservation area.

Effect on neighbours’ amenities It is anticipated that the proposed development will have an effect on the standard of amenities that are currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties but it is considered that the effects will not be so serious to warrant refusing the application for the following reasons:

• Adequate intervening distance between the first floor window in the east elevation and the bordering neighbours who reside in Orchard Close. • Any loss of light that will be experienced by the occupiers in Isham Road to the north will be to garden areas. • The amenity area that is available to the occupiers at no. 3 Dovecote Yard is at the front and is already overlooked by the adjoining residents and it is visible from Rectory Road. Also, the conifer will help to mitigate any undue loss of privacy and the tree is afforded a degree of protection because of the Conservation Area status of the application site and the suggested tree condition.

Crime and disorder It is considered that a new first floor window could have a beneficial effect on crime and disorder by introducing a first floor window that has a view along the private driveway to the entrance with the public highway.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

68

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plan(s) deposited with the local planning authority on 29th June 2006 . 3. The external walls and roof of the extension shall be constructed with materials of the same type, texture and colour as the external walls and roof of the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, no window shall be introduced into the hereby approved extension above ground floor level, other than expressly authorized by this permission, without the consent in writing of the local planning authority. 5. Any driveway works under the canopy of conifer to the front of the hereby approved garage shall be undertaken in accordance with British Standard 5837 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the agreed amendments. 3. In the interests of visual amenity. 4. In the interests of privacy. 5. To protect the tree on the site that has visual amenity value.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: Regional Spatial Strategy 8 Northamptonshire County Structure Plan - GS5 and AR6 Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan - G1 and G13 Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Guidance 15; Planning and the Historic Environment Supplementary Planning Guidance - Planning Out Crime and Trees on Development Sites. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: B/152/1 and 2 22nd May 2006 B/152/5 and 6 29th June 2006

69

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0385/F

PROPOSAL: New dwelling and double garage.

LOCATION: 30 High Street, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Executors of Dr W D Arthur.

This application is included on the Regulatory Committee agenda as a result of a request by the Ward Member, Councillor Mr Paul Bell who indicated a desire to allow various people to speak on the matter.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed dwellinghouse is located in the rear garden of the Grade II Listed 30 High Street. The high wall which runs along the return frontage in Salem Lane is also separately listed at Grade II. It is intended to access the development by widening an existing gated opening towards the north-east end of the wall. Any works to this wall would obviously also require a separate Listed Building Consent.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Following a permission in 1955 the premises were used in part for many years as a doctors’ surgery and waiting room.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan – G1, G8 and H12. County Structure Plan AR6 (item 3). PPG15.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Application published in local newspaper on 3 July 2006 in view of the implications for the listed building.

2. County Council Highways :

• The conservation aspects relating to the development are acknowledged but the proposal raises some concerns on highway grounds. Although it carries very little through traffic Salem Lane presently provides parking and service access to buildings occupying substantial commercial uses. It is 2

NE 6

LA ET AW 1 E TL TR OU S

13 S 2 Posts G 6 IN ( ( K (

488900 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. WP/2006/0385/F 489100

2

3 4

Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 06/09/2006 1

8

t 1 o 1 0 890 Works 268200 268200 71.1m

B 2

27 1 to 4 17

1 5 E S 29 LO C N O 1 35 a ET Christian Centre RE

ST

70.7m 3 B 2 CK LO VE

HA 3

2

a

a

0

Garage 1

b

B 0

a 1 3 1 4 k

e 1

r 0 a y 1

3

Garage Garage 4 3 6 a

1

4 2 0

8

4

2 o

t

Garage 5

5 2

9

2 1 5 to 9

my F Ar u n l o l 681 l ti e 681 a d Works 72.8m T G lv ta E a Ci 6 RE o S to T ( s 1 S P p

B 'S e

n e N 3

H 3 t l

6 O e C 5 J T c S o h Garage Club s t u a r l ) c h 1 2 NE LA M LE SA El Hall Sub Sta B 72.5m Albany LB ( House

2 1 2 1 a

2 2

T Society of Friends E E R House T S (Quakers) s e N ic

s ff E

le 8 O b 1 t E b H v b o U

o I E G

C G N Q 1

e H A t

h o L

T O 3 S rc Surgery M h T E a R L rd E A T e E S

r T

ra

2

1 c

o e t

3

2 0 Tresham Institute

5 High Street 1 m Wellingborough Campus 32 Congregational

9.

4 6 1 ( @BM Church 680 680

e Tresham Institute

0 Church c 1 a PH rr Wellingborough Campus s e T rk T E o rd E W a R h T rc S Q

O N u 66.4m

a E e 8 E e H U n IG s B Q L H a n

S e T 3

R

1 3 2 E 1 FS ( E 3 Hall T 2 ET TRE

3 S

3 2 H 7 RC 3 U 4 CH 65.8m B Priory Cottage TCB ( Wa

Club 2 ( 7 3 7

1 6 3 9 m

.87 5 65 @( BM

TA Centre e Cromwell

c 3

Cottage 3 1

la 1 0

P 3

t 2

e 2 64.6m e 3

tr B 3

S 3 5

h 3 ig 4 Garage H Orient House 4 0 Y H A Leighton IG W 4 H W House H 1 C R S 4 U Club 2 H T C 267900 Club R 267900 E 5 O E o 488900 t 489100 R T 2 IE ce 890 NT

la 1 WAY P 1 4 n 5 to Scale 1:1250 igh Factory e d

L 1

c 1

W PH E

b N

o 1 A r ks L EL G AN 16 70

unlikely that the way would be considered suitable to function as part of the main circulation system within the town centre of Wellingborough but it may be possible that future central area developments in the immediate vicinity could affect the character and frequency of usage of Salem Lane.

• The existing gateway at the eastern end of the site is situated immediately adjacent to the carriageway and it is considered that, to provide intervisibility between emerging traffic and passing pedestrians and other road users, splays of 2m x 2m should be provided on both sides of the point of access.

• The design statement submitted as part of the application suggests that the existing means of access will adequately accommodate the access requirements of the proposed dwelling without alteration. There is no doubt that the turning movement of a private car can be accommodated but it must be ensured that adequate access can be found for all construction and delivery traffic during the time of construction to ensure no obstruction of the highway takes place.

3. Wellingborough United Reform Church. Drawing attention to the common boundary wall at the east end of the site and the burial area on the URC side. Suggest Salem Lane should be made a one-way street (north-eastwards).

4. Northamptonshire County Council, archaeology. No special measures or safeguards required in any development approved.

ASSESSMENT: The proposed dwellinghouse and garage are sensitively designed and located in relation to surrounding residential and other properties, particularly the listed 30 High Street. There are therefore no amenity or aesthetic issues with the buildings themselves.

However, in order to comply with the safety requirements of the highway authority a portion of the listed wall fronting onto Salem Lane would need to be demolished to create a wider vehicular access way.

The wall appears to have been substantially unaltered since its original construction, presumably at the time the house was erected in the 18th century. When it was listed in 1950 this was presumably an important factor in the listers’ assessment of its “special interest” as defined in conservation legislation. The Council’s Conservation Officer is certainly of the opinion that the wall is a rare survivor from Wellingborough’s Georgian past and that as an individually listed building (i.e. not curtilage listed by dint of association with No 30 High Street), its survival as an intact structure is important for the following reasons, as set out in PPG15 the Government’s guidance on Planning and the Historic Environment:

• Its intrinsic architectural and historic interest and rarity. Not much of this type of walling survives in the town – one might compare it with the walls facing Church Street at All Hallows Church, or that in London Road opposite the Swanspool Pavilion (both also individually Grade II listed). 71

• The particular physical features of the wall. The external face is local ironstone and is thereby linked to Wellingborough’s heritage if only because the material is no longer quarried in commercial quantities. • The building’s setting and its contribution to the local scene. The wall forms an element in the intimate street scene associated with the adjacent Congregational Church and its own listed boundary walls. The form of dressing on the stones’ face is common to both, and the street scene thereby benefits from a pleasing compatibility of traditional form and presentation. • Possible effects on area economic regeneration. As Committee is aware, ambitious plans are currently being drawn up for town centre improvements related to the need to regenerate and partially redevelop the central area in response to the substantial increase in population arising out of the planned urban extensions. As this regeneration process must factor in retention of significant historic fabric, it is particularly important that irreplaceable listed structures such as the present wall are preserved intact.

It is clear that the ironstone wall was listed as of national importance as seen in 1950. This means that to remove or otherwise modify approximately 5 metres around the existing cart access at its eastern end would materially and irrevocably affect its special architectural and historic character, contrary to Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G8, County Structure Plan Policy AR6 and to PPG15 itself. Committee is therefore recommended to refuse this application.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The widening of the existing cart access in Salem Lane necessary to provide adequate highway/pedestrian safety would materially and irrevocably affect the special architectural and historical interest of the listed wall, contrary to Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan Policy G8, County Structure Plan Policy AR6 (item 3) and to PPG15.

POLICY AR6

PROVISION WILL BE MADE TO CONSERVE, AND WHERE APPROPRIATE ENHANCE, THE FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS:

y THE ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC INTEREST OF LISTED BUILDINGS, OR THEIR SETTINGS;

POLICY G8

PLANNING PERMISSION INVOLVING ALTERATIONS, EXTENSIONS OR CHANGES OF USE OF LISTED BUILDINGS WILL ONLY BE GRANTED WHERE THEY WILL NOT RESULT IN AN ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THE ESSENTIAL ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING. 72

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0419/F

PROPOSAL: Demolish existing garage and erect detached garage with workshop over (amended scheme- omission of two storey rear extension).

LOCATION: 6 New Street, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr S James.

This application is referred to the Regulatory Committee for determination because there have been more than two letters of objection received from nearby neighbours.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The location of the application is situated within 100m north of Wellingborough Town Centre and forms a development of terraced properties built in the pre-war period and is accessed off the unclassified New Street, although there is limited rear access on to Kings Street. The proposal is made up of 2 principal parts, located to the rear of the property. The proposal involves the demolition of a garage to the rear garden and erection of a garage with room over.

Note: This is an amendment to the original scheme, which initially involved an addition 2 storey extension, this has subsequently been withdrawn.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2006/0294/F Demolition of existing single storey rear extension and erection of 2 storey extension. Demolish existing garage and erect detached garage with workshop over – refused.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Wellingborough Local Plan Policies: G1 and H1. SPG II: Building Better Places.

7 4

Ly 489000 489200 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. B WP/2006/0419/F Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence77.5m No.100018694. Published 06/09/2006 891

1

5 9

3

5 1

268400 El Sub Sta 268400 T H E

S A V B 5 o 6 1 W x t E G o 4 M a 5 r

d K

5 e 2 R n s A 20 P 1 4

1

2

3 7

3

8 1 1

1 6

F a c

t

3 o 1 r 5 y

4

c 1

s 3 ork Warehouse W

73.0m 4a

1 5 6 s ork 1 W 0 B b 54 Epworth

2

6 1

8

7 a

2

8 5 rt 5 u Co The Avenue th 2 BM r 2 o Infant School a ew

72.00m ng 4 @ Be 683 ( 683 3

22 1

3

5 5 12

1 ET

a 2 3 RE

1 ST NO T RTH 1 W

S E

3 TRE E

1 ET N Park House 1 E

a 1

1

R 1 1

0 Nursing Home

1 T S 8

BM 74.94m

5

6 5

4 a 0

@( E G 6

R

O 2

E

G

1

t t o

r

1

2 u 7

2 a

3 2 21 o 3

C B B ALL e IAN c 68.7m P C n E AR TE a R i 74.1m R l l 7 A K 1 A 5 LLIA R 1

NCE a TE 5 O 11

RRAC 3 3 1 E A 1

70.8m 25 1

D

1 1 B B68.0m T

2 S

B

6 M K

1 C

3

3 6 O

T 2 7

4 L 1 E . ( 6 6 E E 9 @

R m 1

T b AV 9

H 2 S 2

13 S R

2 NG 6 PE KI UP 66.9m

B

2

3 4

1

8

t 1 o

Works

4

2

1

682 4 682

15 a

71.1m to 9

1 2

B 9 2 2

27

to

17

1 5

8 2

9 3

2 2

2 0

1 35

a 3

T 2

E 9

Christian Centre E 1

R M 1 T Works 2

S O

70.7m 7

1 3 6 B 2 F K F C A P LO a E T r V T k A 1

H 1 C

3 T 5 o 2 1

a E u

a r

0 R t Garage 1 F

R a

b c

B 0 A to

a 1 r

3

3 1

y 2 4 k C

e 1 1

r 0 a y 1 E

3 Manse

Garage 4 4 3 6 a

1

4 2 0 1 0 T h

e

7

8 T B

Hall

4

2

o a a t

b p 5 1 e ti 3 r s n t

a

9 c

le

5 2 1 4

9

2 1 5 to 9

y Factory F rm 1 A 6 u n l o l 268100l ti e 268100 a d G lv ta H a Ci 6

o S to E ( 489000 1 4 489200

P s

p 1 e R 0 n e 891 t l R e C c I 18 o h O

s Garage

u t 3 a r T l 3 ) c 1 h Scale 1:1250 T

S

a E 2 N L A A

L Works M 2 N LE E A El 2 S 0 Hall Sub 1

1 Sta 8 Albany 73

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

‘Although the rear access track giving access to the proposed garage does not comprise highway maintainable at the public expense and its use is unlikely to affect safety on the public highway it is pointed out that an aisle width of 6m is required to enable a vehicle to turn into a garage or parking space. You may wish to oppose the application accordingly. I do not wish to oppose this application.’

2. Occupier (4 New Street):

• ‘The 2 storey kitchen extension will severely unbalance the look of the houses from the rear as my house has only a single height kitchen. • The 2 storey kitchen extension will severely block natural light falling across my garden and into the rear rooms including hall and landing, bedroom, bathroom, dining room and kitchen. • The 2 storey kitchen extension is planned to extend behind the line of my kitchen. This will compound all of the problems listed above and severely affect my garden • The 2 storey kitchen extension requires demolishing a shared chimney that runs from my kitchen. This is unacceptable. Even if this is rebuilt to satisfactory standards it will ruin the line of my roof. • The 2 storey kitchen extension must not result in any extension of the shared (I believe this is called party) wall between the 2 properties. • The 2 storey kitchen extension must not result in any disruption to my property including roofing. • The 2 storey garage will severely unbalance the look of the houses from the rear as other house either do not have garages or only have low garages. • The 2 storey garage will severely block natural light falling across my garden and into the rear rooms including bedroom, bathroom, dining room and kitchen. • The 2 storey garage is planned to extend well back into the garden. This will compound all of the problems listed above and severely affect my garden. • The 2 storey garage is planned to have a workshop on the second floor. This can only increase noise and traffic at the rear of my house. • Mr S James has over previous years left scaffolding against 6 New Street for many years when there were no safety reasons for so doing. This has resulted in many complaints to the council and has involved the local MP. Mr James continued to deny that he either owned or was responsible for the house. This makes me doubt that he can be trusted to complete the work to a satisfactory standard. • Mr James owns a business that includes scaffolding in the next street. 74

There is no doubt that he will use the garage and workshop facilities as additional business premises resulting in additional noise and safety concerns. This is no doubt why his plans include toilet facilities as part of the garage and workshop. His previous evasions and untruths mean that any assurances given by him will be worthless. In conclusion this is an ill-conceived, intrusive and unacceptable plan by a man unconcerned with his responsibilities to his neighbours. I trust that it will be rejected.’

Occupier (6a, New Street)

`- Erection of two storey building extension: This would seriously impact on our daylight available, and our quality of view. This would also have a costing implication as our electricity costs would rise due to having to always use artificial lighting at the rear of our property.

- Erection of a two storey garage/workshop: This again would have serious implications on our natural daylight, in fact it would leave us in complete darkness at the rear of the property. It would also leave us very little natural daylight in our garden.’

Occupier (2 New Street):

‘The two-storey extension will look out of place, as the houses on our side of the road are at the moment all single.

The two storey garage come workshop with toilet, means that it will be used for commercial purposes, there can be no other reason for two stories and a toilet! Is this acceptable in what is predominantly a residential area?

As a teacher there are periods in the year when I am at home during the day. If the extension is used for business purposes this will increase the amount of noise in the area during the day and make the garden less private.

Refuse collection, recycling and deliveries are done via the rear access. This may not be possible if there was additional traffic in the access area because of the restricted width of this area. The area around us although close to the town centre is very quiet and at the moment it is a pleasure to sit in the garden at any time.

The two storey workshop would seriously prevent our garden from getting the early morning sun, which means while we can now sit in the garden in the morning (at the weekends) we would have to wait possibly till lunch time before we can enjoy what little sun there is in this country.

Therefore we are objecting most strongly to this proposed planning application, in its present form.’

The above objections were received prior to the omission of the rear two storey element of the application. 75

ASSESSMENT: Affect upon Neighbours Amenity As the extension and other works are to be located to the rear of the site there is no impact upon properties fronting the site. Due to the properties to the rear being located to the south of the site the garage to the rear garden does not result in any increased loss of sunlight to the rear gardens of the properties on Kings Street. Although there is a velux window proposed in the workshop/ garage roof front, south-east elevation, this is predominately intended for light purposes, although the obscured glaze condition prevents any potential overlooking there are therefore no loss of amenity issues with regard the terraced properties on Kings Street.

Although it is accepted that the height of the rear garage and workshop building is uncommonly large in terms of its overall height at 5.7m due to its distance away from the rear of 6a, 4 and 2 New Street coupled with the existing light loss from the terraced properties on Kings Street to the south-east, the loss of light is not considered to be of sufficient impact as to warrant refusal of the application. There are no windows proposed in the north-west elevation in the roof of the detached garage/workshop and therefore no loss of amenity issues.

It is also acknowledged due to the nature and close proximity of the terraced dwellings that a certain amount of overshadowing can be tolerated, and therefore, together with the above considered not to be contrary to planning Policy G1 and does not justify refusal of the application on loss of amenity grounds.

Loss of Amenity Space Although the garage/workshop proposed results in a minimum garden length of 9.5m due to a rear extension not covering the full width of the rear of the property the maximum garden length is 14m. The property is not directly backed onto another property and is therefore considered to be in accordance with SPG VIII: Building Better Places that states a minimum garden length of 10.5m for back-to-back gardens. The loss of amenity space therefore does not justify refusal of the application.

The rear garage/workshop is not considered to be a form of tandem development and this can be ensured with conditioning and is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy H1 of the Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan.

Character and Setting of Locality As the property is of no particular architectural importance similarly the neighbouring properties the proposed works will not be to the detriment of the character of the property or the area it is located in. There are also a variety of rear garden structures to properties in the area. It is therefore considered that the application is in accordance with Policy G1 of the Local Plan.

Planning Out Crime Implications Having consulted Supplementary Planning Guidance IV: Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire there are no crime implications with regard the extension.

76

Highway Implications The extension is to go no closer to the highway than the existing dwelling therefore there is no increased implications to the safety and convenience of highway, there is also no loss of off street parking. Therefore having consulted the NCC document ‘Minor Planning Applications that have an effect on the highway’ be applied to this application there are no highway grounds for refusal of this application. The comments made by the Highways Authority to the previous application suggests that the garage is poorly situated to offer ease of access to and from the proposed garage due to the width of the shared access to the rear being only 3m. The Highways Authority are however, unable to object as it is set away from maintainable highway, although refusal of the application on these grounds could be argued.

Response to Representations The advice given by the highways authority has been taken into account and the relevant guidance applied as discussed above.

It is accepted from the comments made by the occupier of 4 and 6a New Street, as discussed above, that there will be a degree of light loss to the rear windows of the properties. It is however that the loss will be sufficient enough to justify refusal and the impact upon 2 New Street is not accepted. The comments received relating to refuse collection difficulties, shared chimney problems, constructions/scaffolding issues and the business practices of the applicant are not considered to be material planning considerations and therefore not taken into account when determining the application.

Summary Having considered the above, there are no material planning considerations to justify refusal of this application and is therefore in accordance with policy G1, and highway guidance and is hereby recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The external walls and roof of the extension shall be constructed with materials of the same type, texture and colour as the external walls and roof of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 3. The detached garage hereby approved shall always remain ancillary to the main residential unit on the site and shall not be subdivided from it so as to create its own planning unit. 4. The velux window proposed in the garage/workshop front south-east elevation shall remain permanently obscured. 5. The permission does not include the construction of the two storey extension, Drawing Number PC06/W10, which was withdrawn 04/09/2006.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 77

2. In the interests of amenity. 3. To ensure that the annexe remains at all times in residential use dependent on the existing use of the existing dwelling the whole being and continuing to be in the same curtilage and a single planning unit. 4. In the interests of neighbours privacy. 5. In the interests of amenity.

INFORMATIVE/S: 1. Pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policy: G1 of the adopted Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: PC06/W10 & PC06/10A 04/07/2006 3. Although the rear access track giving access to the proposed garage does not comprise highway maintainable at the public expense and its use is unlikely to affect safety on the public highway it is pointed out that an aisle width of 6m is required to enable a vehicle to turn into a garage or parking space.

78

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0432/F

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and construction of 2 no. flats.

LOCATION: 5A Rock Street, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr Hudson.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: (As above). The surrounding area is one of mixed uses with terraced residential properties interspersed with established commercial buildings (some of which are vacant) and with a former school converted into Youth Centre/Afro-Caribbean Centre, occupying part of south side of Rock Street. The proposal is to demolish the vacant former workshop and store/workshop building and carry out a residential redevelopment scheme to create accommodation providing 2 flats. The vacant former workshop is located to the rear of a terrace of older residential properties, specifically nos. 6 and 6A Rock Street. The proposed larger ground floor flat comprises a kitchen/diner and lounge (open plan area), 2 bedrooms and a bathroom. The smaller first floor flat has the same accommodation save for there being only 1 bedroom proposed. Fenestration is restricted mainly to the rear and side elevations with only 2 high level and obscured glazed windows serving the landing area and bathroom at the first floor front elevation (there are not any ground floor windows to this elevation). Following the refusal of planning permission of the last 2 applications aimed at providing similar accommodation from a conversion and adaptation of the existing buildings, discussions have been held with your officers. This application is the re-submission of a completely new scheme based on a ‘new build’ solution. Compared with the original submissions, the revised scheme has eliminated the potential overlooking of the rear of nos. 6 and 6A Rock Street from the front elevation. In addition, the new building at its south-western end has a lower profile than the existing building and this will improve the available light to the existing terraced properties should the application be approved and the development undertaken.

This application has been referred to the Regulatory Committee by the Ward Councillor.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: BW/89/824 Re-roofing WP/2004/0676/F Conversion of existing building, including first floor extension to create 2 flats. AL

E

1 R 2 O A Hatton Hall

D 42

7 1

488600 D 488800 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. WP/2006/0432/F Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 06/09/2006 4

5

3 1 887

y 8 d B rd 268200 a 268200 W R d n C a D 4 E D 8 Works ( TCB

Shelter

4 PH r 9

no 3 a e M s ou 18 2 H Broad Green t Posts o 19 ( D (

5

1 W I 5 CK 3 R Works O ( A Posts ( D ( D Cintra 2 B

80.2m 6

2 D

76.5m

B 1

81.4m 2 1 B B

82.6m 8 1 (

3 (

6

5 1 War Meml (

s

t 7 ( 1

Buckwell

s ( 6 ( 1 (

o 4 ( ( 1 ( (

P ( Green ( (

5 (

( Posts ( Posts

2 1

6 2

4 2

4

1 2 1 2 Depot 681 681

Tank Warehouse 9

y k or 8 an ct T Depot Fa B 14 1

81.4m 2 7

18 hy C Works y 17 d B rd a W R C Club T

AD E

6 3 E 9 O 1 R o R T tre D S en L K C IE C ity F O un ST 79.2m R m om E B C W 9 n's a so 8 ck s S Ja lat

H 8 F 21

1 ne

7 O La

t a

o

D R 7 1 1 to 6

7 T

7 2 Paradise

L 1

t o

A N 6 House 9 9 D E 1 P ( o ( s ( 5 N ts ( LA @( N'S

The Salt BM 77.87m O 3 S

B K Box 7 C

D U JA B 4

C 76.8m K 6 W Works E

L ssett's Close D 4 10 L E N D Rosebank

680 S 680 H L O A R N T E E AN 5 L 1 'S ON B KS

UCKWELL END AC

74.4m J

1 11

2 B

4 5 5 t o o

D 9

Factory

2

5 7 D D 7 3 to e 1 ac Pl 4 ll we ck D D D Bu D D D 1

to

8 6 0

F la ts B 1 D D a t s o s 7 6 e 8 tt 's D Co u D r D t

7 6 D D Bassett's Close B 71.3m D D 267900 267900 488600 D D 887 488800 Scale 1:1250 D D 6 2 D D D D D 79

WP/2004/826/F Conversion of existing building, including first floor extension to create 2 flats.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Local Plan – G1, C10 and UH5. County Structure Plan – GS2, GS3 and GS5. SPG VIII: Building Better Places. Supplementary Planning Guidance - Parking, Building Better Places and Planning Out Crime. Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development. Planning Policy Guidance 3; Housing.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. County Highway Authority - the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document 'Minor Planning Applications that have an effect on the Highway' be applied.

2. Third Parties – 3 letters of objection from neighbouring residents raising objections on the grounds of: (i) overlooking from obscured glazed windows when these are open; (ii) exacerbation of existing car parking problems; (iii) Party Wall disturbance and safety issues; (iv) adverse impact upon residential amenities by reason of smell, light, noise and building work; (v) severe adverse impact from construction work; (vi) retention of commercial use would be better as this would not cause problems during non working hours; and, (vii) structural damage could result to existing properties.

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

(i) Design and impact upon character of the area (ii) Impact upon the amenities of adjacent land users (iii) Parking

(i) The design of the proposal is considered to be entirely in keeping with the neighbouring buildings and the street scene (it is difficult to see all of the changes as the premises are set back from the street frontage), and the overall character of the area. The new building improves substantially upon the existing building both in terms of appearance and bulk. In terms of present planning policy considerations, redevelopment of a site of this kind in this type of location is permissible in that it would contribute to a mixture of land uses and in particular, provide for housing close to the centre of the town. The national planning policy guidance advice is to concentrate new development within existing settlements whenever this is possible and to re-use existing sites. This guidance is reflected in the Development Plan policy framework. At the strategic level the overall thrust is one of urban concentration of development and rural restraint overall in the interests of sustainability. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with specific elements of Government guidance and Development Plan policy in regard to directing new housing development to brownfield sites within the urban areas.

80

(ii) Whilst there is still some impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings (given the siting of both the proposal and these neighbouring buildings) and some loss of light will occur, the latter is less though than that arising from the existing. The proposal is sited to the north of the nearest affected neighbouring properties and therefore this factor means that any loss of light is negligible. The possibility of any overlooking can be prevented entirely from the obscure glazed high level windows as a condition can be imposed requiring that they are fixed shut. Although the minimum distances between residential properties as set out in the Borough Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance are not met at all, this factor must be weighed carefully against the present situation. Consideration must therefore be given to the possibility of fairly severe amenity impacts arising, if a new commercial tenant was found for the existing buildings exercising the lawful use rights that currently exist.

(iii) Given the amount of accommodation proposed, there is a deficiency in parking provision but as the location of the development is in the centre of an older developed area, it is in line with recent Government advice suggesting standards can be relaxed in such areas.

There are not any valid reasons or material planning considerations why planning permission should not be granted to this new scheme subject to the conditions set out.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. 3. The obscure glazed high level windows to the front elevation shall be fixed shut rendered incapable of being opened and be retained as such.

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity. 3. In the interests of residential amenity.

INFORMATIVE/S: 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with the Regional Guidance and the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically the following policies: GS2, GS3 and GS5 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and G1, C10 and UH5 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 81

2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 27.06.0/A; 27.06.02A; 27.06.03 10/07/2006 3. In carrying out the development hereby approved please ensure that the provisions of the Party Wall Act 1996 are upheld. 82

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0439/F

PROPOSAL: Conversion of bungalow to house.

LOCATION: 38 Manor Road, Mears Ashby, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs J Lodge.

This application is subject to the Regulatory Committee due to three objections from neighbouring occupiers being received.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: An existing bungalow and its surrounding curtilage form the application site. The site lies within the village confines of Mears Ashby. Two storey and single storey properties surround the site.

This application seeks planning permission to erect a first floor above the existing ground floor of the dwelling. The height of the dwelling will be increased by approximately 1.3 metres, the maximum proposed height being 6.8 metres.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: There is no planning history relevant to the determination of this planning application. However it is noted that an extension was granted permission under planning reference BW/81/901.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: G1 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Mears Ashby Parish Council – no objections.

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

3. Third Parties – objections from neighbouring occupiers nos. 41, 31 and 37 Manor Road. Grounds of objection are as follows:

GP

2 1

1 7

483600 5 483800

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. WP/2006/0439/F

Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694.2 Published 06/09/2006 4 837

266800 266800 4

1 8 6 ENT S CRESC TINKER Slope House

3

4

8 D

2

1 1

5 D

1

0

7 1

6

1 C

0 2

2

1

667 4 667

2 2

2 D D

M

A

N Pond

O

R

2 R 5

O

AD

B 4

105.8m E 3 Issues ( A

R

L 1

0 S

B Mears A

666 R 666

T

O 2 |( 9 Ashby 40 N

R

O 3 1

A

D

2

6

41 2

11 4 TCB The

(

2 ( LB 2 Paddocks

8

6 1 NE K LA DOC 97.8m PAD B

266500 266500W

483600 483800 I 837 LB YR O Scale 1:1250 A Rose Hill House

BM 104.68m @

( 83

• Proposed property too large for plot. • Proposal is not in keeping with adjacent properties. • Property has been extended twice before and is adequate for the family’s needs. • No access for lorries unloading or workmen’s vehicles. • Ambience of area would be spoilt. • Loss of privacy. • Loss of visual amenity.

ASSESSMENT: Residential Amenity It is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on terms of loss of light on any of the residential properties neighbouring the site. A concern has been raised by the occupiers of no. 41 Manor Road regarding loss of privacy. These concerns are noted however it is considered that the proposed development will not lead to any overlooking or loss of privacy to this property. It is also considered that no direct overlooking of the properties to the rear will be caused by the addition of the first floor. The addition of the first floor in this case involves the increase in height of approximately 1.3 metres. The effect on visual amenity is therefore considered to be minimal. Overall it is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.

A minimum rear garden depth of 12 metres will be retained on site. This is in excess of the 10.5 metres recommended in Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) VIII: Building Better Places.

Character of Area and Streetscene The area surrounding the site is comprised of two storey and single storey properties. It is considered in this case that the addition of a first floor would not be out of character with the surrounding area and will not have a detrimental impact on the streetscene. It is considered that refusal on the grounds of the proposal having a detrimental effect on the character of the area cannot be sustained.

Design In addition to the above points, it is considered that the proposal design is acceptable and will not have an adverse impact on the streetscene.

Other Considerations Concerns raised regarding construction vehicles and their movements are appreciated. This however is not regarded as being a material planning consideration and does not constitute a reason for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions.

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Representative samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is commenced. 84

Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. In the interests of amenity.

INFORMATIVE/S 1. Pursuant to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposed development complies with regional guidance and the applicable development plan policies and there are no other material considerations that would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal. These include specifically Regional Spatial Strategy 8 and the following policies: G1of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. 2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: Drg 1: Site Plan Drg 2: Layout & Elevations Drg 3: Plans & Sections Drg 4: Elevations 12/07/2006 85

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0459/F

PROPOSAL: Two storey side and rear extension to develop new flat and refurbish existing areas.

LOCATION: Toy Box Nursery, 63 Croyland Road, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: Mr A Mahon.

This application is referred to the Regulatory Committee for determination because there have been more than two letters of objection received.

PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The application site is approximately 1 mile to the south-west of Wellingborough Town Centre on Croyland Road, the property is backed and flanked to the east by Croyland Park. It is a detached property with a flat on the first floor, the ground floor is currently a children’s nursery called the ‘Toy Box’, there have been a number of extensions to the property. The works proposed are single storey extensions to the nursery to the rear and a first floor extension to form a new flat over the nursery.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WU/70/243 Childrens Day Nursery – approved. WP/91/323 New single storey building (linked to existing) to provide extension of kindergarden from 32 children to 60 children – approved with conditions. WP/1996/0519 Extension of day nursery and demolition of existing portacabins – approved with conditions. WP/2001/0681/F Side extension and improvement to front elevation – approved with conditions. WP/2006/0209/F Ground floor extension to create staff room and first floor flat – withdrawn.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan – G1 and T10. Parking SPG.

8

2 2

3

5

6

3 2

2 3

1

3

9

0 4 6

3

2

3

2 4 9

0 0 6

2

3

7 P 4 4

I 4

1 L

3 G 8

R

488600 488800 4

6 1 I 2

4 M

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. WP/2006/0459/F2 1 0 3 1 9

Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 06/09/2006 WA

2

9

6

0 Y

4 2 887

H

267500 IL 4 267500 8

2 8 L

8

S 2

0 8 T

R 6

E P 5

E I T L

G 7

R 7

7 I M to

8

7 W

A

Y Wr T

(

8

7 8

10 9

2 t

o 2

9 6 9

4 8

2 2

88

9

7

0 2

74

(

9 6 LB 55.8m 62 B

674 674 CRO

YLAND

Croyland BM 55.75m ROAD

6 7

3 1 @ Court 63

51.5m

t

o (

B 4 D D V D V The Beck Day and Nursery School

2

1 5 AD O

R

1

9

1 W 9

HA a NS

HE

2

B 1

53.9m

3 3

y Bd d ar W nd

a

ED 673 Y 673

ok ro B

l o o p s n Swimming Baths a D w S D

D

S C D

BM 5 9.4 D 1m

( @ Croyland Park D

D 54

267200 267200

488600 D 488800 887 D Scale 1:1250

8 6

D D A O R Y 86

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Highways (NCC): recommends that the highway standards and planning conditions set out in the NCC document ‘Minor Planning Applications that have an effect on the highway’ be applied to this application.

2. Environment Agency – ‘no comments’

3. 9 letters of objection received from employees of the nursery and parents of the children who attend the nursery; summary of responses:

• Health and Safety concerns during construction • Concerns over parking/ congestion • Loss of amenity during construction • Overlooking of children’s play area by occupants of the flat

Plus letter of objection from the lessee of the Toy-Box, detailing the same objections as the above.

ASSESSMENT: Affect upon Neighbours Amenity The proposed extension is to go no closer to properties fronting the site than the existing and therefore does not result in any additional loss of amenity than exists at present. The property is backed and flanked to the east/side by Croyland Park. Having performed the 45 degree angle test with the nearest rear middle window of 65 Croyland Road to the west of the site the additional first floor extension is not dissected by and therefore offers no addition loss of light implications than currently exist. In addition any windows in the side, west elevation of the extension are screened from view by the existing property. The additional single storey rear extensions proposed to the rear have no additional windows in the west/side elevation and are largely obscured from view by boundary fencing and planting and by the existing property.

It is therefore considered that there are no loss of light or overlooking issues with regard this application and is therefore in accordance with Policy G1 of the Local Plan.

Loss of Amenity Space As the first floor extension is above an existing single storey extension there are no loss of amenity implications with regard this portion of the application. It is accepted that the single storey rear extensions will result in the loss of amenity space but given the nature of the use of the ground floor as a nursery this space will be utilised by the kindergarden for recreational use or as an associated use. Therefore the loss to the properties amenity space is considered sustainable given that the use will remain for recreational use, albeit in side, and therefore does not lend its self to refusal of the application.

Character and Setting of Locality As the property is of no particular architectural importance similarly the neighbouring properties the proposed works will not be to the detriment of the character of the property or the area it is located in. It is therefore considered that the application is in accordance with policy G1 of the Local Plan.

87

Planning Out Crime Implications Having consulted Supplementary Planning Guidance IV: Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire there are no crime implications with regard the extension.

Highway Implications As the proposed works involves the building of an additional flat and the current use of the ground floor involves a degree of parking provision it is important when determining the application to employ parking standards as stated in Parking Supplementary Planning Guidance. A day nursery of this type comes under the use class D1 which requires 1 space per 25 metres squared, in this instance this equates to 11.0272 parking spaces and given that there currently exists only 5 spaces in addition to the two spaces set a-side for the existing first floor flat the current parking provision is significantly lacking. It is therefore concluded that should an addition flat be built, this would result in two additional parking spaces and would exacerbate an existing parking problem and result in an undue adverse impact of the road network of the area. Therefore the application is considered to be in contraction to Policy T10 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

Response to Representations The advice given by the highways authority has been taken into account and the relevant guidance applied as discussed above. The objections received from interested parties regarding the impact on congestion have been considered and discussed above, the points of objection concerning implication during the construction process are not considered to be a material planning consideration and therefore not taken into account.

Summary Having considered the above, there are sufficient material planning considerations due to parking concerns to justify refusal of this application and is therefore not in accordance with Policy T10 and is hereby recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The application is considered to be contrary to Policy T10 and associated Supplementary Planning Guidance of the adopted Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan as the proposed scheme would result in an undue adverse impact on the road network of the area.

POLICY T10

PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT BE GRANTED FOR PROPOSALS WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES WHERE THIS LOSS, INDIVIDUALLY OR CUMULATIVELY, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNDUE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ROAD NETWORK OR AMENITY OF THE AREA.

88

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM

FOR INFORMATION

Regulatory Committee 20/09/2006

Report of the Executive Director

APPLICATION REF: WP/2006/0406/C

PROPOSAL: To install a double mobile classroom.

LOCATION: Wollaston School, Irchester Road, Wollaston, Wellingborough.

APPLICANT: NCC.

NOTE: Approved by Northamptonshire County Council on 21st July 2006 subject to the following condition/s:-

Condition:

1. This permission shall be limited to a period of time expiring 31 July 2011. At or before the expiration of this period, the mobile classroom shall be removed and the site restored to its former condition.

Reason:

1. Site restoration is required to ensure the visual amenity of the site is retained.

Reasons for Approval:

The proposed double mobile classroom is required to accommodate additional pupils due to start in September 2006 and funding for a permanent building is not available at this time.

The location of the temporary building and the proposed colour scheme is such that it is considered to be in keeping with the relevant policies of both the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan (GS5) and the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan (G1).

1. This permission shall be limited to a period of time expiring on 31 July 2011. At or before the expiration of this period, the mobile classroom shall be removed and the site restored to its former condition.

Reason: 1. Site restoration is required to ensure the visual amenity of the site is retained. 491300 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. 491900 Borough Council Of Wellingborough: Licence No.100018694. Published 10/07/2006 914 915 916 917 918

263100 3 263100

Silo Tower Farm 4 2

Tower 92.0m

B 1 Court 5 Tow er Co ttage

16 N Wollaston School CIS D ICKIN S C 2 9

LOSE 6

5 1 5

B

1 3 630 630

9 3 6 5

B 1

87

5 7

ub l S WP/2006/0406/C E a St B se ou 90.3m l H oo ch e S Tennis Court Th 1 629 629

Works Wollaston School 2

4 Tennis Court

1 3

Sta

6

1

a

a

3 6 2 8

6 7 628 628

1

1 2

0 2 5 1 1

1 1

2

4

a

2

1

1 5 4 1 Wollaston 3 5 34

32

0

2

3 3 9 7

3 7 a

0 3 262700 262700

491300 914 915 916 917 918 491900

H O 4 3 2 6 O Scale 1:2500

K 2 H

3 A

4

3 M 55 S

P 6 E

2 l A S T u ET b H E S

STR 1

RK P ta 5 PA 6 O D 89 20th September 2006

REGULATORY COMMITTEE

The following applications dealt with under the terms of the Executive Director’s delegated powers.

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

WP/2004/0145/F Cripps Estates Limited 6 Bevan Close, Finedon Road APPSUB106 Industrial Estate, Wellingborough. Extension of access road to development to allow improved access for large vehicles.

WP/2006/0176/F Mr Andrew Howard, Krohne Limited, Rutherford AC Krohne Limited Drive, Park Farm Industrial Estate, Wellingborough. Extension to Industrial Unit.

WP/2006/0307/F Standard Life Investments 7-10 Raymond Close, AC Wollaston. Sub division of one unit into four separate units with refurbishment/construction of welfare and office areas.

WP/2006/0326/F Bob Shoemark, Winslow Ford Unit B4, Baird Court, AC Wellingborough. Change of use to B2 for servicing and repairs of cars and small vans + MOT class IV, V and VII.

WP/2006/0350/F Crowhurst Bros. 70 - 74 Winstanley Road, AC Wellingborough. Renewal of planning permission WP/2001/0404/F - Demolish existing commercial building and develop new 3 storey building to form 5 no. flats.

WP/2006/0351/F Mr and Mrs Villette 55 West Street, Ecton. AC Single storey garden room to rear and new shed.

90

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

WP/2006/0353/F Mr and Mrs B Mistry 105 Torrington Crescent, AC Wellingborough. Single storey side extension to create new garage and kitchen extension, conversion of existing garage to bedroom/ensuite.

WP/2006/0356/F Mr and Mrs G Willmott The Cottage, Knuston Home REFUSED Farm, Knuston Road, Irchester. Two storey side extension.

WP/2006/0365/F Mr R Roswell 11 The Downs, AC Wellingborough. Single storey rear extension.

WP/2006/0370/F Mr T A Siddons and Mrs M J Manor Farm, Wellingborough AC Willmott, C/o TJW Farmers Road, Hardwick. Form new dwelling (Plot D) with garage/annex and associated access and landscaping.

WP/2006/0371/RM Prologis Developments 1-11 Claudius Way and land APPROVED Limited adj. between Victoria Mills and Chester Farm, A45, Wellingborough. Details relating to the approved commercial development - amendments to approved reserved matters.

WP/2006/0374/F Mr and Mrs A Stone 5 Barton Fields, Ecton. AC Bedroom extension over existing garage with single storey kitchen extension and utility. F/F balcony to existing bedroom (amended scheme).

WP/2006/0379/F Mr K C Baxter 62a London Road, Wollaston. APPROVED Garden shed (revised footprint, size and placement) following planning approval WP/2006/0249/F.

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

WP/2006/0380/F Mr A and Mrs M Roper Land adjacent to 39 (no. 33) APPROVED Roberts Street, Wellingborough. Construction of a single dwelling with 4 bedrooms, double garage, study and a swimming pool (approval WP/2005/0549/F) - slightly amended scheme to include the addition of 4 sky facing Velux windows to the roof of the pool room.

WP/2006/0381/LB Abigaile and James Maydon 56 Wykes Farm, Allens Hill, APPROVED Bozeat. Demolition of old farm wall near the house, at right angles to it and re-siting wooden pump house adjoining it.

WP/2006/0382/F Mr and Mrs D Smith 5 Harrison Close, AC Wellingborough. Two storey side extension.

WP/2006/0383/F Mr S Robinson 19 Ridgeway, AC Wellingborough. Conservatory to rear of dwelling.

WP/2006/0384/LB Mr and Mrs P & J Taylor 55 High Street, Great AC Doddington. Alteration and urgent repair to stone wall.

WP/2006/0387/F Mrs S Patel 7 Covington Grove, AC Wellingborough. First floor side extension above existing garage (slightly amended scheme following approval of WP/2006/0050/F)

WP/2006/0390/F Mr Howard Jennings Land adj. 18 Knuston AC Spinney, Irchester. Amend integral garage to family room and build a detached double garage and workshop/store to the side of the house.

92

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

WP/2006/0391/F Mrs E Parker 17 Moorlands, AC Wellingborough. Erection of a white PVCu conservatory to the rear of the property.

WP/2006/0392/F Mr Howard McPherson Lymehurst, The Avenue, AC Wellingborough. Construction of a single detached garage.

WP/2006/0393/F Mr D Lunney 126 Doddington Road, Earls APPROVED Barton. Retrospective change of use - agricultural land to residential curtilage.

WP/2006/0395/F Watson and Cox Construction Site W Huxley Close, AC Limited Wellingborough. Proposed new warehouses and offices and car parking.

WP/2006/0397/F Dr and Mrs V K Mistry 228 Northampton Road, AC Wellingborough. Two storey and single storey rear extension (Amendment to planning permission WP/2005/0765/F approved 12 January, 2006.

WP/2006/0399/F Mr and Mrs P Mooney 4 Sharplands, Grendon. AC Single storey extension to side and rear.

WP/2006/0407/F Mr and Mrs S Smart 80 Wellingborough Road, AC Finedon. Change of use from hairdressers shop to residential (no external alterations).

WP/2006/0408/O Mr A Bigley Rear of 38 Cambridge Street, AC Wellingborough. Proposed detached residential development to create 4 no. self contained flats.

93

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

WP/2006/0410/F Mr T A Siddons and Mrs M J Manor Farm, Hardwick, AC Willmott Wellingborough Road, Hardwick, Wellingborough. Form new dwelling (plot C) with garage/annex and associated access and landscaping.

WP/2006/0411/F B C Technology Limited B C Technology Limited, 3 AC Wallis Close, Wellingborough. Conversion of garage to showroom.

WP/2006/0415/F Miss S King 4 Naseby Close, AC Wellingborough. Single storey side extension.

WP/2006/0416/F Mr J Richardson 125 Arkwright Road, AC Irchester. First floor side extension.

WP/2006/0417/F Rev M Ryall Land adj. 29 Alma Street, AC Wellingborough. Erection of two bedroom detached two storey house in side garden of existing dwelling (re-submission).

WP/2006/0418/F Mr Morris 34 Main Road, Wilby. AC Single storey extension to rear.

WP/2006/0420/F Mr A Drage 32 White Way, Earls Barton. AC Single storey kitchen extension to rear.

WP/2006/0421/F Mr and Mrs T White 69 Roberts Street, AC Wellingborough. Alterations and extensions (front and rear) to existing house to provide assisted living accommodation.

94

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

WP/2006/0422/F Mr and Mrs Donaldson 62 Irthlingborough Road, AC Finedon. Two storey rear extension and single storey extension. Off Road parking (Amendment to planning permission WP/2006/0141/F, approved 8 May 2006).

WP/2006/0423/F Mr and Mrs Collymore 23 Finedon Road, AC Wellingborough. Ground and first floor extension.

WP/2006/0424/F Mr I Worboys 19 Church Way, Grendon. REFUSED 1) Form new access to highway. 2) New garage.

WP/2006/0425/F Mr S Williams 49 Mears Ashby Road, Earls AC Barton. Minor amendments to replacement dwelling.

WP/2006/0426/F Ms C Mayes 39 Warren Close, Irchester. AC Front dormer and loft conversion.

WP/2006/0427/F Mr H Singh 65 Ridgeway, AC Wellingborough. First floor rear extension with ground floor supporting piers.

WP/2006/0428/F Mr R Blacklee 8 Blackmile Lane, Grendon. AC Conversion of garage annex and erection of conservatory.

WP/2006/0433/F Ms Ross 92 Orlingbury Road, Isham. AC New 5 bed residential dwelling (amended scheme).

WP/2006/0435/F Mrs V Young 135 Kingsway, AC Wellingborough. Two storey side extension and rear conservatory.

WP/2006/0436/F Mr D Clayton 7 Evelyn Way, Irchester. AC Single storey side extension.

95

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

WP/2006/0437/F Michael Smalley 1-3 Townwell Lane, Irchester. AC Replace existing wooden conservatory with UPVc conservatory with pitched roof to rear.

WP/2006/0438/F Mr J French 9 Doddington Road, Wilby. AC Proposed single storey extension and loft conversion with dormer to rear.

WP/2006/0442/F Mr Andrew Mahon Patrick, 81 Northampton Road, AC Mahon Associates Wellingborough. A log cabin located at the rear of the property

WP/2006/0447/F Nationwide Building Society Nationwide Building Society AC Technology Centre Technology Centre, 30-50 Sinclair Drive, Park Farm Industrial Estate, Wellingborough. Extension formed with modular building system at rear of existing building.

WP/2006/0448/F Mr A Metcalfe and 28 Wantage Road, Irchester. AC Ms D Dumbrell Single storey garage extension with dining room to rear.

WP/2006/0449/F Ms A Ambrose and 20 Princess Way, AC Mr C Elliott Wellingborough. Single storey side extension - bed, bath and utility room.

WP/2006/0452/F Mrs Tessa McLaughlin 51 High Street, Wollaston. AC New garage (slightly amended location to approval WP/2006/0111/F)

WP/2006/0454/F Mr and Mrs Dale 15 Pearmain Avenue, AC Wellingborough. Single storey extension and conservatory to rear elevation (amended proposal following approval of WP/2006/0156/F)

96

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

WP/2006/0465/F Mr T Wetherall 5 Little Lane, Wollaston. APPROVED Proposed loft conversion to provide an additional bedroom and bathroom - Amended Plans.

WP/2006/0476/TC LCC UK George Cox Footwear, APPROVED Westfield Road, Wellingborough. 1 No. 300mm dish onto existing 15m mast.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

The background papers for the planning and building applications contained in this report form part of the relevant files appertaining to individual applications as referenced.

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

97

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2005/1085/ B IMS Research Limited 6 Three storey office building Regent Park Booth Drive APPROVED C Wellingborough

FP/2005/1547/ 1 Mr & Mrs J Sharp 6 WILBY Construction of two detached LANE GREAT DODDINGTON houses APPROVED C WELLINGBOROUGH

FP/2005/1547/MA Mr & Mrs J Sharp 6 WILBY Construction of two detached STB LANE GREAT DODDINGTON houses APPROVED C WELLINGBOROUGH

FP/2005/1547/ 2 Mr & Mrs J Sharp 6 WILBY Construction of two detached LANE GREAT DODDINGTON houses APPROVED C WELLINGBOROUGH

FP/2005/3692/ B Mr & Mrs Roper 39 Detached house and swimming ROBERTS STREET pool APPROVED C WELLINGBOROUGH

FP/2006/0957/ A Mr K Buckby 155 Two-storey rear extension & Northampton Road conversion of garage to sitting room APPROVED C Wellingborough 98

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2006/1018/ Mrs S J Hudson 5 Meacheam Change of use of Commercial Close Broughton Premises to 3 No Residential Units APPROVED C

FP/2006/1068/MA Grace Homes Ltd Woolpack Residential development of three ST Barn St Andrews Lane barn conversions APPROVED C Cranford St Andrew

FP/2006/1068/ 9 Grace Homes Ltd Woolpack Residential development of three Barn St Andrews Lane barn conversions APPROVED C Cranford St Andrew

FP/2006/1068/ 18 Grace Homes Ltd Woolpack Residential development of three Barn St Andrews Lane barn conversions APPROVED C Cranford St Andrew

FP/2006/1068/ 10 Grace Homes Ltd Woolpack Residential development of three Barn St Andrews Lane barn conversions APPROVED C Cranford St Andrew

FP/2006/1154/ A Mrs Pamela Massingham 35c Tea room Irthlingborough Road Finedon APPROVED Wellingborough 99

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2006/1157/ Elswood Estates Limited 59 Develop 10 number flats York Road Northampton APPROVED C

FP/2006/2312/ Mr Matthew & Mrs Tanya Day Single new rear extension Occupier 5 The Pyghtle APPROVED C Wellingborough

FP/2006/2379/ Mr C Elliott 20 Princess Way Demolition of existing & Wellingborough construction of new side extension APPROVED C

FP/2006/2436/ Turnell Motors Turnell Additional workshops Motors 6 Nielson Road APPROVED C Wellingborough

FP/2006/2437/ Mr Cliff Rogers 23a Lower Extension to rear Street Great Doddington APPROVED Wellingborough

FP/2006/2441/ A Mr & Mrs T Green 9 Obelisk Two storey extension to rear Road Finedon elevation. APPROVED C Wellingborough 100

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2006/2453/ Mrs Suzanne Tofts 10 The 2 storey side extension on east Leys Orlingbury Kettering side of the house, to replace the APPROVED existing garage and utility room with an enlarged kitchen dining and utility room and a main bedroom at the first floor level. New pitched roof to replace flat roof. Replace existing windows. FP/2006/2505/ Mrs S Gage 74 Elizabeth Single storey extension to rear Way Earls Barton APPROVED C Northampton

DI/2006/2506/ Mr Sayed 96 Somerford Extension ground floor rear Road Wellingborough APPROVED C

PS/2006/2507/ London Borough of 2 storey maisonette Haringley 639 High Road APPROVED C Tottenham

FP/2006/2620/ Mr Garry West The Old Post Lean to rear extension Office 55 High Street Finedon APPROVED Wellingborough

FP/2006/2621/ Mr C Morris 34 Main Road Single storey extension to rear Wilby Wellingborough REJECTED 101

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2006/2629/ Mr I Worboys 19 Church Way Roof extension and alterations to Grendon Northampton garage APPROVED C

FP/2006/2635/ Mr G Bell 148 Melton Road 2 storey extension and alterations North Wellingborough APPROVED

FP/2006/2694/ M E Robinson 25 Duck End Single storey dining room extension Wollaston Wellingborough to the rear. APPROVED C

PS/2006/2732/ Kettering Borough Internal refurbishment and Council Bowling Green Road remodelling APPROVED Kettering Northants

FP/2006/2735/ Tingdene Holdings 1st Floor Extension Ltd Bradfield Road APPROVED C Wellingborough

FP/2006/2743/ Mr J Barker Mr J Barker 19 Single storey extension to form Hatton Avenue utility room, W.C. and garden room. APPROVED C Wellingborough 102

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2006/2744/ Cosmo Group 5 Rudolf Alteration to loading bay to form Place Miles Street London separate unit APPROVED C

FP/2006/2745/ Mr J Memoli 90 Orlingbury Single storey front extension to Road Isham Kettering replace bay window APPROVED

FP/2006/2751/ Wellingborough Structural repairs/amendment to School Irthlingborough Road west elevation APPROVED Wellingborough Northants

FP/2006/2752/ Mr & Mrs S Barnett 1 Norman Single storey rear extension to Way Wellingborough existing house APPROVED C

FP/2006/2753/ Mr K Joines 9 Heath Rise Conservatory to rear with swimming Wellingborough pool. APPROVED C

PS/2006/2778/ Daventry District Window/door replacement works Council Lodge Road APPROVED Daventry 103

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description DI/2006/2797/ Mr D Bird 94 Abbey Road Level access shower Wellingborough ACCEPTED

DI/2006/2798/ Mrs M Dinsey 26 Evelyn Way WC room constructed in the kitchen Irchester Wellingborough ACCEPTED

BN/2006/2799/ D Pegg 50 Gold Street Convert existing roof space to Wellingborough single bedroom. ACCEPTED

BN/2006/2800/ Mr & Mrs P Novell 8 2nd storey rear extension Whytewell Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough

FP/2006/2803/ Mrs R Stritharan 79 Construction of 2 storey and single Horncastle Road Lee Green storey rear extension and single REJECTED storey above store room and convert into 2 flats above shop and 1 flat at rear

BN/2006/2805/ Andrew Bartlett 19 Victoria Install French doors to replace Road Finedon kitchen window ACCEPTED Wellingborough 104

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2006/2834/ Mr R Whittaker Mr R Ground floor, erect block wall to Whittaker Repairs and form partition wall and support for ACCEPTED Improvements Manager RSJ. RSJ installed to support first Repairs Section floor joist. Boiler moved to new Wellingborough Borough position. Council

DI/2006/2862/ Mr Wright 19 Redhill Conversion of bathroom to disabled Crescent Wollaston level access shower. ACCEPTED Wellingborough

PS/2006/2865/ Daventry District Replacement windows and doors Council, Council Offices APPROVED Lodge Road Daventry

PS/2006/2866/ Daventry District Replacement windows and doors Council, Council Offices APPROVED Lodge Road Daventry

FP/2006/2868/ Dennis Pearson 10 Lovell Change of use from office to house Court Irthlingborough APPROVED

DI/2006/2871/ Mr J Caudice 7 Kilborn Close Shower room adaption Wellingborough ACCEPTED 105

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2006/2872/ Graham Edwards 130c High Two storey rear extension Street Irchester ACCEPTED Wellingborough

FP/2006/2877/ Ms J Gleave 11 Easton Lane Garage conversion and small rear Bozeat Wellingborough extension APPROVED

FP/2006/2878/ Mr & Mrs Norton The Lodge Single storey rear extension Manor Farm Northampton APPROVED C Road Orlingbury Kettering

BN/2006/2879/ Mr Lee Alan Pearce 24 Single storey garage attached to Shelley Road Wellingborough house ACCEPTED

DI/2006/2880/ Mr James 12 Bracknell Single storey bedroom/shower Shelley Road Wellingborough room extension. APPROVED C

DI/2006/2882/ Mr Lewis Cory 6 Manor Road Level access shower Earls Barton Northampton ACCEPTED 106

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2006/2884/ R Knell 113 The Drive Alteration of existing wc and coal Wellingborough store to form extension to kitchen. ACCEPTED

BN/2006/2885/ Shaun Smart Rushglenn Fully refurbished/roof re-newed Farm Cranford Road Great and supports/insulated/new ACCEPTED Doddington kitchen

BN/2006/2886/ Jeremy V Yelland 36a Change access to downstairs toilet. Newton Street Olney Relocation of bathroom to adjacent ACCEPTED room, installation of stud wall and velux window.

BN/2006/2887/ Mrs O Giwa 2 Longmead Additional bracing to roof structure Court in compliance with the Building ACCEPTED Regulations.

FP/2006/2892/ L.A. Trading Ltd C/o 22 Part demolition of extension and High Street South Olney rebuilding ext wall APPROVED C Bucks

BN/2006/2899/ A P Lewis & Sons A P Lewis Small 2 storey extension to front. & Sons Orion Way Kettering single storey extension to rear. ACCEPTED Business Park 107

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2006/2900/ Wesley Peck 30 Ruskin Convert garage to sun room Avenue Wellingborough ACCEPTED

BN/2006/2901/ Colin Wright 193 Hinwick Front porch and WC Road Wollaston ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2006/2909/ Mr P Burkhardt 1 Fairfield New WC to understair and new Road Isham Kettering inspection chamber. ACCEPTED

FP/2006/2910/ Mills Home Ltd 35 High Garage and porch extension/ Street Pitsford Northampton house alterations APPROVED

BN/2006/2911/ Zena Taylor 140 Finedon Kitchen extension Road Wellingborough ACCEPTED

WI/2006/2912/ Mrs Jowes 3 Ribble Close To replace old wood windows and Wellingborough doors. To fit new UPVC doors and ACCEPTED windows. 108

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description FP/2006/2914/ Mr G Phillips 71 Roberts Garage conversion and alterations Street Wellingborough APPROVED C

BN/2006/2915/ Mr & Mrs Nightingale 220 Internal alterations Northampton Road ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2006/2916/ Mr & Mrs Spacey 142 Create doorway from kitchen to Bourton Way Wellingborough conservatory ACCEPTED

BN/2006/2917/ Desmond Peter Blunt 122 Domestic external doors and Manor Road Barton Le Clay window replacements ACCEPTED Beds

BN/2006/2918/ Mr & Mrs A Bailey 3 London Proposed remedial works Road Wollaston ACCEPTED Wellingborough

PS/2006/2941/ East Northants District Covered play area & external store Council Cedar Drive APPROVED C Thrapston Northants 109

REGULATORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 04/09/06

Application No. Name & Address Description BN/2006/3013/ Mr & Mrs Ette 26 The Drive Single storey extension to lounge Wellingborough ACCEPTED

BN/2006/3014/ Mr H Sansome 23 Hickmire New wood burner, flue, internal Wollaston Wellingborough alterations. ACCEPTED

DI/2006/3015/ Mr & Mrs Richardson 18 Alterations to house, wheelchair Harvey Road Wellingborough access and lintels. ACCEPTED

BN/2006/3019/ Irchester Bowls Club 1 Internal alterations High Street Irchester ACCEPTED Wellingborough

BN/2006/3021/ Mr & Mrs Lindley 31 Valley Fit floor insulation into storm porch Road Wellingborough floor for future new door. ACCEPTED