East Northamptonshire Council Cedar Drive THRAPSTON Northamptonshire NN14 4LZ APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 6 January 2010 INDEX OF APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Application Location Recom. Page EN/09/01313/FUL Land Adjacent Walters Coppice, Main Street, Grant 2 Hemington EN/09/01329/FUL Caravan Site, Mill Road, Yarwell Refuse 10 EN/09/01330/FUL Caravan Site, Mill Road, Yarwell Grant 25 EN/09/01380/FUL The Water Tower, Ashton Wold, Ashton Grant 33 EN/09/01867/LBC The Water Tower, Ashton Wold, Ashton Grant 39 EN/09/01855/FUL 1 Pightles Terrace, Rushden Grant 43 Development Control Committee 1 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 Committee Report Committee Date : 6 January 2010 Printed: 16 December 2009 Case Officer Carolyn Tait EN/09/01313/FUL Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 19 August 2009 3 September 2009 29 October 2009 Barnwell Hemington Applicant Mr T Littler Agent Stuart Long Architect Location Land Adjacent Walters Coppice Main Street Hemington Northamptonshire Proposal Two proposed detached houses (renewal of consent EN/06/01452/FUL) This application is brought before Development Control Committee after an objection was received from Hemington, Luddington and Thurning Parish Council. 1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That permission be GRANTED subject to conditions. 2. The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes two detached houses. This proposal is the same as a previous application that was approved under reference EN/06/01452/FUL, which at the time of receiving this application was still extant. That permission is however no longer extant. 3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The application site is currently vacant and is situated at the end of a row of large detached residential properties which were built on land allocated within the East Northamptonshire District Local Plan Policy HE1. This policy is no longer saved. 3.2 To the East of the site is a wooded area known as Walters Coppice which separates the site from a further row of old cottages situated beyond the curve in the road. 3.3 To the south of the site is a row of smaller affordable housing built as a rural exception site. To the north of the site is open countryside. 4 Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Guidance PPS1– Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing 4.2 East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design Policy 3 – Distribution of New Development East Northamptonshire Local Plan There are no relevant saved policies Development Control Committee 2 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Housing Policy 10 – Distribution of Housing Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction 4.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Out Crime In Northamptonshire February 2004 Highway Authority Standing Advice for Planning Authorities, Working Draft, July 2008 4.5 Other Documents Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan (Inspector’s Modifications, 8 July 2009) The Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan went through an examination process in 2008 and 2009. Following this examination on 8 July 2009 the Inspector found the document sound. However, as yet the council has not adopted the Plan as a Development Plan Document as such the Council is still treating the document as emerging policy. Policy 1 – Settlement Roles Policy 2 – Windfall Development in Settlements 5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 03/01230/FUL Erection of two detached dwelling houses. REFUSED. The Officer report describes the site as not being located within the settlement boundary as defined in the Local Plan and would lead to an increase in size of the village. It also discusses the proposal being contrary to GEN2 of the Local Plan and would result in overdevelopment of the site by virtue of the cramped appearance. Subsequently, an appeal was submitted that was then dismissed. In the report, the Inspector states that the plot should not be left vacant as it would not contribute to the street scene. The Inspector considered the site to be within the confines of the village due to a strong relationship with existing buildings and the changes in the street scape that take place beyond. It is considered that the Inspector agreed to the principle of development on this site, however, had concerns regarding the design of the proposals. The houses would have been in line with one another with parking to the front and gardens to the rear. The Inspector pointed out that housing in this location could re-establish a frontage at this important bend in the road, accomplishing a visual transition between the new detached houses to the west of the site, agricultural buildings and the woodland adjacent. However, the siting of the two proposed dwellings would be a continuation of the line of previous detached houses and the siting would fail to respond to the bend in the road and would not enclose the street scene. The close spacing and narrow width with their tall, fully gabled roofs, the side by side spacing on the site and deep form plan accentuating the narrowness of the separation would lead to a cramped appearance. 5.2 06/00237/OUT Outline residential development (All matters reserved). PERMITTED. This application followed the previously refused application. The principle of development on this site was considered acceptable based on the Inspector’s appeal comments and on the basis that the RNOTP was subject to change at this point. The visual impact of this proposal was discussed in the Officer report where it was stated that appropriately designed properties could address the curve of the road and enhance the visual impact. The report stated that new development could be stepped around the curve to create a gateway to the village. It was considered that smaller properties would not adversely affect the character of the street scene and that the site if designed appropriately could enhance the appearance of the village. 5.3 06/00578/FUL Erection of two detached houses. WITHDRAWN. Development Control Committee 3 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 5.4 06/01452/FUL Two detached dwellings (resubmission of planning permission 06/00578/FUL). PERMITTED. This proposal is the same as the current application and was given a three year time limit for the commencement of development. This three year time limit expired on 8 November 2009. 5.5 08/01417/OUT Residential development comprising of one detached dwelling and three terraced dwellings with improved access to Main Street. REFUSED. This application was refused for three reasons. The first reason was the proposal was located outside of the settlement boundary. This proposal included the detached dwelling being located in the same location as the houses proposed in this application, and three further terraced dwellings being located to the east of the site and therefore located outside the village settlement as identified in the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan. It was also considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact to the ecology of the site and the application failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact to the trees within the site. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbours: Comments received from Coppice House on 17 September 2009 and 30 September 2009. Comments can be summarised as: • Fumes and noise from traffic using the proposed driveway would affect bedroom windows. • Flooding would be caused by additional hardstanding. • Possible damage to Oak trees. • The development would encourage on road parking on a dangerous bend. • Traffic using the proposed new access would cause damage to fencing. 6.2 Parish Town Council: Objection received on 30 September 2009. Comments can be summarised as: • The proposed site boundary crosses the village boundary as identified in the RNOTP. • The proposal would involve the destruction of 185m2 of woodland, thereby causing a loss of amenity value to the village. • The site is not suitable for two houses. • Proposal will lead to an increase in people parking on the road. • The proposal will exacerbate flooding problems. • Concerns regarding the preservation of the Oak tree. 6.3 Site Notice posted: 10 September 2009 on a post to the front of the site. 6.4 Conservation Officer: 6.5 Design Officer: Objection received on 15 September 2009. Comments can be summarised as follows: • The scheme of design of the proposal is not of sufficient quality to warrant an approval and would be contrary to the principles of PPS1 and Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. • The layout of the scheme is not considered acceptable, as the proposed small dwellings that vary significantly in scale and proportion to the large detached properties to the west, and are not in keeping with the character and urban grain of adjacent development with which it would be visually connected. • Properties along Main Road generally have proportionately wide frontages, this characteristic is not shared by the proposal. • The rear car parking spaces provide an over engineered design and the land take for driveways and parking is disproportionate to the development, and would significantly reduce the amount of amenity space. • Appropriate measures should be taken to protect the Oak trees on the adjacent site. • Reduction in natural surveillance. Development Control Committee 4 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 6.6 Local Highway Authority: “No objection in principle to this proposal subject to our standard conditions for the construction of a vehicle access being met however if you are minded to give approval to this application please impose conditions with any permissions granted”. 6.7 Sustainability Officer: Comments received on 7 October 2009.