borough council of wellingborough agenda item 4 · 2014. 6. 23. · borough council of...

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM 4 Development Committee 11th February 2009

Report of the Corporate Director

Parking – Swanspool Gardens

1 Purpose of Report To set out the current position and enable Members to make a decision regarding the provision of car parking in Swanspool Gardens.

2 Executive Summary 2.1 The issue of car parking provision for users of Swanspool Gardens and

Swanspool Pavilion has been under consideration by the Council for many years. A summary of the history since 1998 is attached as appendix 1.

2.2 Five options for dealing with car parking within the gardens have been drawn up

taking into account the Health & Safety requirements for all users of the Gardens. 2.3 The options range from not allowing any public vehicles to access the gardens to

the provision of 27/28 car parking spaces with access either to the rear or to the front of the Pavilion.

3. Proposed Action 3.1 The Committee is invited to approve option v, the provision of car parking

for 28 vehicles with access to the larger car park in front of Swanspool pavilion at an estimated cost of £114,000, subject to funding being available and planning approval being given.

4. Background

4.1 In September 2008, following the drawing up of a parking proposal which was

considered by a User group consisting of Members and Officers and following a consultation with User Groups, a proposal for car parking for 27 vehicles was considered by the Committee and a recommendation for approval subject to available funding was agreed.

4.3 The recommendation was withdrawn prior to consideration by Full Council. 5. Discussion 5.1 Following consideration of the proposal for car parking at the September

Committee, five options have been prepared for further consideration by the Committee.

5.2 In considering all the options Members should consider that the peak use of the

1

Park is in the evenings and at weekends when the Bowling Greens are in use. At these times, generally, parking is available in the Swanspool House Car Park, Doddington Road Car Park and the Multistorey car park (MSCP). The distance from nearest pedestrian exit of the MSCP to the furthest bowling green is approximately 300m although there is a steep rise into the gardens from the Swanspool House Car Park. There is, however, considerable usage of the greens on some summer weekday afternoons, after the greens have dried out from the dew, and on these days parking in the Swanspool Office and Doddington Road car parks is unavailable.

5.3 In preparing the options consideration has been given to Health & Safety and in

particular to the need to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of both pedestrians and vehicles users in the gardens where there is a shared use.

5.4 The five options are as follows:

i. Take no action apart from construction of a separate pedestrian access at the vehicle entrance and ensure adequate warning signs are posted and that pedestrian crossing points are marked outside the pavilion. (Drg. No. 665/18).

ii. Carry out the works as in (i) but only allow works and staff vehicle to access the gardens (Drg No. 665/18).

iii. Construct a small car park in the rose garden adjacent to the gates catering for 9 vehicles (2 disabled) in addition to the works in (i) & (ii)(Drg No.665/17).

iv. Construct car parks catering for 27 vehicles (4 disabled) in two locations at either side of Swanspool Pavilion with a connecting road to the rear of the pavilion. Works as in (i) & (ii) as access by maintenance and staff vehicles still to the front of the pavilion. (Drg. No. 665/15).

v. As (iv) but with vehicle access to the lower car park in front of the pavilion instead of to the rear. (Drg No. 665/16).

5.5

5.5.1 Option (i) includes works to make pedestrian access to the gardens safer from

Swanspool Parade. It still allows car parking on the existing tarmac areas in front of the pavilion, but provides additional measures to make both pedestrians and vehicle drivers aware of the shared use of the area. The available area for parking is insufficient for demand at busy times. There are no marked parking areas. In the past there have been incidents of minor damage to vehicles following low speed parking collisions. Although signs and crossing markings will be installed it provides more risk than the other options. Users have stated that more space for parking is needed. Cost: £15,000.

5.5.2 Option (ii) includes works to make pedestrian access to the gardens safer from Swanspool Parade. It still allows vehicle access for maintenance and staff, which is minimal. Adequate parking is available nearby (see para. 5.2). This option provides very low risk of vehicle/pedestrian accident as vehicle usage will be very low. Users are not in favour of the option as available parking is between 100m and 300m

2

from the furthest bowling green and includes a steepish rise from the Swanspool Car Park. (Bowlers often are transporting bowls equipment). Cost: £15,000

5.5.3 Option (iii) includes works to make pedestrian access to the gardens safer from Swanspool Parade. It still allows vehicle access for maintenance and staff, which is minimal. A car park for 9 vehicles including 2 disabled spaces is constructed adjacent to the vehicle entrance off Swanspool Parade allowing public vehicle movement to be kept segregated from the gardens and front of the pavilion. This provides low risk to pedestrians within the gardens but does not provide enough spaces in the view of the users. Cost: £30,000.

5.5.4 Option (iv) includes works to make pedestrian access to the gardens safer from Swanspool Parade. This scheme provides parking for 27 vehicles including 4 disabled spaces in two locations at the side of the Pavilion. Access to all the parking would be as (iii) with an access road to the second car park running behind the pavilion. The scheme provides a greater number of parking spaces and as (iii) allows public vehicle movement to be kept segregated from the gardens and the front of the pavilion, therefore providing low risk to pedestrians within the gardens. This scheme was presented at the September meeting. This proposal has been considered by user groups, who have supported the proposal. Cost: £123,000.

5.5.5 Option (v) is similar to (iv) but access to the larger lower car park is taken in front

of the pavilion and there is no access to the rear connecting the two car parks. This option allows one extra parking space to be created giving a total of 28 spaces. While humps and road markings reduce the risk to pedestrians there is still a greater risk than in (iv) due to the higher number of vehicles passing in front of the pavilion. To reduce the speed of vehicles and to lessen the likelihood of an accident speed humps would be installed in front of the pavilion. Cost: £114,000.

5.6 The options have been circulated to User Groups for their comments which are

summarised in the attached appendix 2. 5.7 A table showing a comparison of the options is attached as appendix 3 5.8 Should the Committee give approval to any of options (iii) to (v), planning

approval will need to be sought to enable the proposals to be implemented. 5.9 Members should be aware that if the Council allow public parking within the

gardens it is always vulnerable to potential claims should there be an accident between a moving vehicle and a pedestrian unless proper control measures are put in place. All the above options take this into account and propose control measures to increase safety.

6. Legal Powers

We have no statutory requirement to provide car parking however in terms of accessibility could be criticised for not making a provision.

7. Financial Implications

3

7.1 The costs of the options are as follows:

Option Description Cost

i Retain as existing + separate pedestrian access £15,000 ii Separate pedestrian access - no public vehicles £15,000 iii Separate pedestrian access – 9 vehicle car park £30,000 iv Separate pedestrian access – 27 vehicle car park access

to rear of pavilion £123,000

v Separate pedestrian access – 28 vehicle car park access to front of pavilion

£114,000

7.2 The scheme is in the capital estimates under J072 and the allocation is£46K. Options (i), (ii) & (iii) can be carried out with the available funding. Should either options (iv) or (v) be chosen further funding (£77K or £68K) will need to be sought and a report made to the Resources Committee

8. Risk analysis and Implications

Nature of risk Consequences if realised

Likelihood of occurrence

Control measures

Injury to user or damage to a vehicle Loss of income

Liability of the Council. Significant claim for damages Failure to provide users of the pavilion / bowling green with adequate facilities

High whilst parking is uncontained and unmanaged Medium, alternative venues exist.

Remove parking from pathway areas. Set aside parking area. Improve facilities

a. Implications for Staffing

Staff regularly face difficulties with users trying to park within the garden areas.

b. Implications for Sustainable Development The siting of a car park area on the periphery of the garden means that any negative environmental aspects of the gardens will be minimised. Any proposals will have to comply with planning regulations.

c. Implications for Equal Opportunities Better accessibility for disabled and elderly users. Encouragement of diversity of users.

4

d. Implications for Community Safety

Improvement on the safety of users of the Gardens.

e. Implications for Health Improvement Encourage usage of the gardens by the improvement of the facilities. Improvement of the environment of Residents in Swanspool Parade.

f. Implications for Property Work of this nature will improve the Gardens as an asset and would improve the viability of the Pavilion.

9. Author and Contact Officer Paul Thompson, Sustainable Infrastructure Manager

10. Consultees James Wilson, Corporate Manager John Casserly, Head of Environmental Services Chris Goozee, Sustainable Infrastructure

Alex Benoy, Opens Spaces Development Officer David Leveridge, Senior Financial Accountant

11. Background Papers Technical and Leisure Committee report 20th June 2000. Economic and Environment Committee report 12th May 2004. Environment Committee reports 6th September 2006, 19th March 2008 & 3rd September 2008

5

Appendix 1 Swanspool Gardens Car ParkTime line of reports/decisions

Date Document Comments August 1998 At this time 15 spaces on the tarmac were available near

Swanspool Pavilion. At times up to 30 vehicles were turning up to park and were parking on the ‘lawns’ between the Pavilion and the ‘bottom’ bowling Green. Following a complaint that the putting green could not be used because of parked cars, the tarmac parking area was enclosed with wooden posts which did not reduce the parking area. This led to complaints that not enough parking spaces were provided.

21st Dec1998 Report to Technical & Leisure Services Cttee

Following the above complaints this report highlighted the problems and identified additional spaces to accommodate 23 vehicles. It was resolved that the provision of additional car parking be deferred and further report submitted in 12 months.

20th June 2000 Report to T & L Cttee

In reconsidering the parking, the report stated that with the exception one weekday in the week during the summer when the ‘Pensioners Club’ and the ‘Bowlers were competing for parking spaces in the Gardens, the Swanspool House Car Park provided adequate facilities. It was therefore resolved that the provision of additional parking facilities be refused

12th May 04 Report to E & E Cttee

Five options were considered which included: (i) Do nothing to provide parking within the grounds, (ii)Introduce four disabled spaces near the pavilion, (iii)provide parking for 20 vehicles on the old tennis courts, (iv) a combination of (ii) & (iii), and (v) reopen the Swanspool House car park in the evening and at weekends. Although option (iv) had been recommended, no decision was made and the Officers were tasked to take the matter back for further consideration and to consult with local residents, Ward Councillors and interested organisations.

Late Spring/early Summer 2004

Public Meeting The options were considered by the public meeting and of the 64 people present 59 were against converting the tennis courts to a car park and, therefore, no further action was taken at this time.

22nd June 06 Public meeting A further public meeting was held at which further ideas were discussed. Votes held on various options for parking1 and the use of the rose garden at the side of the pavilion as car parking was favoured.

6th September 2006

Report to Environment Committee

Two options to providing car parking for 11 0r 17 cars respectively were considered and it was recommended and approved that option 2 2 considered as solution and bid submitted to capital programme for 2007/2008.

19th March 2008 Report to Environment Committee

Report indicated that the preferred scheme was unlikely to receive Planning Approval and the Committee were invited to decide whether or not to proceed with provision of car

1 Old tennis courts: 4 in favour, side of pavilion: 23 in favour, no parking within gardens: 4 in favour 2 This option indicates 17 parking spaces and would enable complete management of parking is a set aside area of the gardens. Approval would be required from NCC for the inclusion of the highway verge. Drainage would be required and permission from Anglian water would be required. This option includes fencing, surfacing, bollarfds, acquisition of highways land and construction of turning head. The cost of this option would be in region of £38,000.

7

parking in Swanspool Gardens and, if so, to ask the officers to bring back to a future meeting a revised scheme which met planning requirements. This was approved as well as the formation of a User Group to liaise with the Bowling Clubs. A new proposal was tabled at the meeting which provided a further 22 spaces alongside the pavilion with access at the rear of the building and Officers were asked to develop this into a firm proposal.

2nd July 2008 User Group Meeting

Two revised schemes were presented which met both planning service requirements and enough spaces for the users. Following consideration one of the proposals was approved by the working group of Officers and Councillors to be sent out for consultation and to be presented to the September Development Committee Meeting.

1st August 2008 Members briefing note

MBN sent out to inform all Councillors on progress on the scheme.

3rd September 2008

Report to Development Committee

The Committee was invited to decide whether or not to proceed with the provision of car parking in Swanspool Gardens as detailed on drawing No 665/13/A, subject to funding being made available and planning approval being given. The scheme had not received any adverse comment in the consultation. About 30 Bowlers attended the Committee and 4 presentations were made to Committee. The Committee approved the recommendation.

23rd September 2008

Full Council Recommendation from September 3rd Development Committee meeting withdrawn and not considered by Full Council

8

Appendix 2 Swanspool Gardens Car Park

Summary of Responses from Consultees Name Organisation (where

known) Option Comments

Mr Golding Earls Barton

Swanspool Bowls Club i Option i but only if the existing area adjacent to Swanspool Pavilion currently used by Amenities is made available for parking without alteration.

Mrs Smith Swanspool Parade

Friends of Swanspool Gardens iii

Mr & Mrs Bell Doddington Road

Friends of Swanspool Gardens iii Concerned about possibility of parking on Swanspool Parade with i & ii and feels iv & v are too expensive

Mrs Pateman The Drive

Friends of Swanspool Gardens Expressed no preference but stated that if a Car park is to be constructed it should be adequate for purpose for which it is required

Mrs Stapleton Doddington Road

Friends of Swanspool Gardens Prefers the least expensive option

Wellingborough Swanspool Senior Citizens Bowls Club

v

Considered at their AGM that v would cover all bowlers and guests needs

Mears Ashby Bowls Club v 75% of Membership in 70’s or 80’s and require parking on site as cannot carry heavy bowls bags any distance

Swanspool Bowls Club

v

Discussed at recent Cttee Mtg. Unanimous that v is favoured – iv is too expensive, iii is inadequate, ii unacceptable and accept i is not ideal

Stanwick Bowls Club v Agreed at Cttee Mtg. Feel no available parking would stop people using the Gardens.

Earls Barton Ladies Bowls Club v Considers option iv ideal but goes for v as adequate and cheaper Mr Chapman

Doddington Road Friends of Swanspool Gardens

and Bowler v Considers that iv is best but that v is adequate and saves on additional

expense and construction at rear of pavilion. Mrs Haybyrne

The Drive Friends of Swanspool Gardens iii Considers iv & v far too expensive and that iii strikes the right balance. If not iii

would prefer I or ii. Important to retain tree and hedge along footpath boundary Favours iv as it minimizes vehicles in front of pavilion. 2nd preference is v, 3rd preference iii. Agrees car parking provision is necessary

Mrs Robinson The Drive

Friends of Swanspool Gardens iv

Mrs Plummer The Drive

Friends of Swanspool Gardens iv Best suits all needs

Ms Worrell Doddington Road

Friends of Swanspool Gardens Never owned a car so go with what the majority decide

Mr Craig The Drive

Friends of Swanspool Gardens iv Very concerned that cars will park in roadway in front of pavilion - favours iv if roadway behind pavilion is wide enough to accommodate cars in both directions.

Mrs Sanders Swanspool Parade

Friends of Swanspool Gardens iv

9

Appendix 3 Swanspool Gardens Car Park

Options Comparison

Option Description Car Park Spaces

Estimated Cost

Comparable Degree of

risk*

Health & Safety Comments No. of Consultees

in favour i Retain as existing 15

uncontrolled on tarmac +

overspill onto grass

£15,000 1 Vehicle movement by public uncontrolled. No specific separation of pedestrians/vehicles. Additional signage would slightly reduce risk.

1

Ii Close gate to park 0 £15,000 5 Minimal vehicle usage by maintenance and staff. Controlled by signing

0

iii 9 vehicle car park adjacent to

Swanspool Parade

9 £30,000 4 Vehicle access to limited area of Gardens adjacent to entrance – Very little pedestrian/ vehicle mix – similar to ii

3

iv Full scheme with access to lower

car park at rear of pavilion

27 £123,000 3 More vehicles in car park areas – No public vehicles in front of pavilion.

4

V Full scheme with access to lower

car park at front of pavilion

28 £114,000 2 Public vehicles pass in front of Pavilion – speed controlled by humps. Separation by lining and signing

5

* Degree of risk is indicated relative to the options with 1 providing the greatest risk and 5 the least risk. It should be borne in mind that apart from some minor vehicle scrapes, there have been no recorded vehicle/pedestrian accidents in the Gardens to date.

10

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM 5 Development Committee 11th February 2009

Report of the Corporate Director

WELLINGBOROUGH TOWN CENTRE SHOP FRONT AND ADVERTISEMENT DESIGN GUIDE

1 Purpose of Report 1.1 This report introduces the draft Town Centre Shop Front and Advertisement

Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which is attached to this report and invites Members to recommend that the Guide be approved for public consultation. The guidance supports policy in the Development Plan and is intended to contribute towards the Council’s objectives of delivering high quality growth; reducing crime and anti-social behaviour; and enhancing the environment.

2 Executive Summary 2.1 The SPD will supplement policy in the Development Plan, promoting

improvements in the design and quality of shop fronts and advertisements and, by extension, the wider street scene. Implementation will contribute towards making the town centre a more attractive place to use and will help to conserve and enhance its heritage.

3 Proposed Action The Committee is invited to RECOMMEND that: 3.1 The Shop Front and Advertisement Design Guide Supplementary Planning

Document be approved for public consultation; 3.2 Delegated authority be granted to the Corporate Director in consultation

with the Chairman to approve the Sustainability Appraisal of the Shop Front and Advertisement Design Guide for public consultation; and

3.3 Delegated authority be granted to the Corporate Director in consultation with the Chairman to approve the public consultation material.

4 Background 4.1 The intention to prepare a Shop Front and Advertisement Design Guide SPD is

set out in paragraph 5.3.10 of the Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP). The SPD will be used primarily to assess proposals against the criteria in policy WTC6 of the AAP which promotes improvements in the design and quality of shop fronts and advertisements and, by extension, the wider street scene.

4.2 Prior to the formulation of this SPD a Baseline Study was undertaken in the form

of a review of the main commercial and shopping streets in order to establish the general quality of the existing shop fronts and to identify relevant issues that should be addressed in the guidance. To help inform the Baseline Study stakeholder workshops were held in October 2008 to discuss the issues with various interested parties and build on the findings of the initial review.

19

4.3 The workshops helped to establish the current condition of the town centre’s shops; the problems associated with shop fronts; and an agreed consensus on the need to provide guidance on better shop front design in order to enhance the quality and appearance of the town centre in the future. The Baseline Study and stakeholder workshops identified the following main issues:

Inappropriate design of shop fronts in relation to the character and proportion of the building;

Inappropriate design of shop front in relation to wider street context; Use of inappropriate materials in relation to the host building and location, such

as extensive plate glass or plastics, often appearing garish, cheap and crude; Replacement of period shop fronts and loss of architectural details; Security shutters appear extremely unsightly and damage the street scene, but a

recognition of the need for retailers to protect themselves; Visual impact resulting from the addition of inappropriate features, particularly

signage, satellite dishes, aerials and other clutter; Poor night-time illumination, particularly the internal lighting of shops. This issue

is closely associated with the extensive use of security shutters; Sustainability/energy efficiency should be considerations for shop front lighting; No significant disabled access issues, although some entrances are problematic; Other associated signage, such as hanging signs generally of an acceptable

size, but designs are often basic and unimaginatively handled. Posters and signs in windows obscure displays and detract from the buildings’ appearance;

Takeaways often perceived as low quality shop fronts (often in secondary/peripheral streets) and causing associated problems such as litter;

Consideration should be given to possible grant assistance and/or other incentives to help raise the quality and standard of shop front design; and

Good shop front control and enforcement is necessary – individual decisions are having a collective negative impact.

.5. Discussion 5.1 The key objectives of the SPD are to:

improve the town centre’s image and make it a more welcoming, attractive and memorable place to use and enjoy;

ensure that a thoughtful and coherent design approach is followed based on an appreciation of local character and heritage and consideration of sustainability; and

promote inclusive access, regardless of age or ability. 5.2 Part B of the SPD sets out the principles of shop front design. It explains the

various features of a shop front and establishes key principles relating to fascias, cornices, pilasters and brackets, stall-risers, windows, doors and thresholds, separate access to upper floors, ventilation, sun blinds and canopies, security considerations and additional fixtures. Part C provides guidance on the nature and design of signs and advertisements for retail and business premises including advice on fascia, projecting, window, corporate and pavement signs and their illumination. Part D identifies the circumstances in which permission or consent is required and the drawings that will need to accompany the application.

20

5.3 A Sustainability Appraisal of the social, environmental and economic effects of the SPD must also be published. This is being finalized at the time of preparing this report and delegated authority is therefore sought to agree this prior to public consultation. It is proposed to undertake community involvement on the draft document together with the proposals for the extension of the Conservation Area and the Public Realm Strategy in March/April of 2009.

6 Legal Powers 6.1 Planning Acts 7. Financial and value for money implications 7.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report although

adoption of the SPD is likely to give rise to the need to consider ways to provide grant assistance and/or other incentives to help raise the quality and standard of shop front design.

8. Risk analysis and Implications

Nature of risk Consequences if

realised Likelihood of occurrence

Control measures

Failure to improve the quality of shop fronts and associated signage.

Adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre and failure to achieve the renaissance that is sought through the Town Centre AAP.

High

Consultation, adoption and implementation of the SPD.

Implications for Resources

8.1 See 7.1, above. In addition, the Borough Council owns a number of shops within the town centre which would be subject to the guidance contained in the SPD.

Implications for Stronger and Safer Communities

8.2 The Strategy includes measures to assist in the development of stronger and safer communities. For example, it includes a section relating to community safety and shop front security.

Implications for Equalities

8.3 The SPD is intended to enhance access and inclusion so that potential users, regardless of disability, age or gender can use the town centre safely and easily.

9. Author and Contact Officers Mike Haybyrne - Planning Policy Manager

10. Consultees

Steven Wood – Head of Built Environment. Paul Thompson – Sustainable Infrastructure Manager

21

Robert Vaughan – Property Services Manager Mike Kilpin – Development Control Manager Ola Duyile – Principal Development Control Officer Alex Stevenson – Design and Conservation Officer Tim Lucy – Building Control Manager 11. Background Papers None unpublished

22

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM 6 Development Committee 11th February 2009 Report of the Corporate Director PROPOSED CONSERVATION AREA FOR HARDWICK 1. Purpose of Report 1.1 To report the results of the consultation process in respect of the proposed

designation of Hardwick as a conservation area, as set out in Appendix 1. 1.2 To seek Members’ authority to formally designate the Hardwick Conservation

Area in accordance with the character appraisal and accompanying map, as amended following the consideration of the views of consultees, comprising Appendix 2 to this report.

1.3 If approved, the new designation will allow tighter controls on the form and

appearance of new development and will require application to the Council for any substantive demolition or tree felling, in the interests of protecting and enhancing the areas’ existing character.

1.4 Additionally, approval will commit the Council to seek the implementation of the

items included in the management plan contained within the character appraisal.

1.5 The report addresses the Council’s “PRIDE” agenda, covering the promotion

of high-quality growth and caring for and enhancing the environment. 2. Executive Summary 2.1 The necessary process of consultation with interested parties, including local

residents, has now been completed. No objections in principle were received in respect of the proposals.

3 The Committee is invited to RECOMMEND the formal designation of Hardwick village as a conservation area in accordance with the Hardwick Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Map comprising Appendix 2 to this report 4. Background 4.1 At the Committee meeting of 19.3.08 Members recommended, with Full Council

subsequently agreeing on 15.4.08, that formal consultation be undertaken upon the proposed designation of Hardwick Conservation Area.

4.2 The following parties were consulted on the proposals, and

comments/responses are covered in Appendix 1: Ward Councillor – Councillor Geoff Timms Hardwick Parish Meeting Northamptonshire County Council Wellingborough Civic Society English Heritage Local Owners/occupiers. 4.3 The aim of designation is to preserve and enhance the character and

appearance of the designated area and to provide a basis for making sustainable decisions about its future through the development of

23

management proposals. Identifying those elements which contribute to the special architectural or historic interest of the village also enables the Council to develop a robust policy framework for its future management, against which applications for planning permission and conservation area consent can be considered. In turn, the character appraisal can be used at appeals to help fight the Council’s case where development is being opposed as detrimental to the character or setting of the conservation area.

5. Discussion 5.1 None of the respondents was opposed in principle to the designation and it

seems clear that there is a general culture of support for the initiative (see Appendix 1).

5.2 The two local residents who did make substantive detailed comments were

concerned about the justification for including the open land opposite The Rookery in the designation area, defining of the western boundary and the environmental effect of traffic speed. These points are addressed in the appendix.

6. Legal Powers Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990. 7. Financial Implications

Budgetary provision will be required for implementation of the items in the draft management plan, and a bid for the necessary funds would, therefore, need to be made as part of the Council’s capital programme. Officers are currently in discussion with both the County Council regarding funding for the traffic calming element, and the telecoms and electricity utilities in respect of services under-grounding.

8. Risk Analysis and Implications

Nature of risk Consequences if realised

Likelihood of occurrence

Control measures

Failure to meet the Council’s statutory duty to designate appropriate conservation areas.

Council open to criticism by Government and other interested parties. Also, the village environment is likely to deteriorate if no designation is made.

Likely Proceed with designation

9.1. Implications for Resources None The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer would deal with any extra workload as part of his existing duties. 9.2 Implications for Stronger and Safer Communities None. 9.3 Implications for Equalities None.

24

10. Author and Contact Officer Alex Stevenson, Design and Conservation Officer. 11. Consultees Ward Councillor – Councillor Geoff Timms Hardwick Parish Meeting Northamptonshire County Council Wellingborough Civic Society English Heritage Local Owners/occupiers

25

APPENDIX 1 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION ON DRAFT CHARACTER APPRAISAL/MAP

Respondent Summary Response

Ward Councillor: Geoff Timms

Very happy to support designation Noted.

Hardwick Parish Meeting

At the Parish Meeting held on 20.5.08 a vote was taken on the proposal and the result was FOR: 10; AGAINST: 3. The Meeting asked that the following items should be prioritised in the Management Plan:

• Speeding and traffic management issues.

• Under-grounding the BT and electricity cables.

Support noted. As it was apparent from the meeting (which was attended by the Design and Conservation Officer) that problems of speeding were seen as rather more pressing than management of trees, it is proposed to amend the draft Management/Enhancement Proposals accordingly. Item 8 of the amended draft Appraisal now covers traffic management and services under-grounding, in that order of priority.

Northamptonshire County Council

No response to date

English Heritage

No response to date

Wellingborough Civic Society

Fully supports designation. Congratulates officers on technical work carried out

Noted.

Local owners/occupiers

2 letters received from local residents. The first letter expresses support for the designation and asks for action to be taken to slow or limit traffic going through the village, for cable under-grounding and supply of mains gas to the village. The second letter questions the significance that is attached in the Appraisal to the open land around The Rookery, suggesting that, historically, it would have been at least partially built on. It is also suggested that the conservation

Letter 1: Traffic management has been added to Item 8 of the draft Appraisal (in substitution for tree-management). Mains gas provision is outside the terms of reference of the project. Letter 2: The Appraisal text has been altered to remove any suggestion that the open space in question is necessarily the medieval village green. It still remains designated as “Important Open Space”, however, in view of its positive contribution to

27

area boundary west of The Rookery is arbitrarily drawn.

local character. With regard to the west boundary, this line is considered appropriate as, although not shown on the OS base map, it is nevertheless embedded in the landscape as a functional division between cultivated and uncultivated land.

28

APPENDIX 2

HARDWICK CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL

1. ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT 1.1 Hardwick village lies approximately 3 miles north-west of Wellingborough

and 8 miles north-east of Northampton. The roughly rectangular parish covering just over 500 hectares is bounded north and east by Great and Little Harrowden. The ground is mostly undulating, and covered by boulder clay, between 114m and 137m AOD, except in the north-east where the down-cutting of a small stream near the village has exposed limestones, clays and silts along its valley sides [RCHME Vol. II 1979 HMSO].

1.2 The suffix of the place name suggests a farm, as in Bulwick (“Bull Farm”) or Southwick (“South Dairy Farm”), and its early form, as in Herdewic (11th century) and Heordewican (c. 1067), is apparently in the dative plural form, suggesting a group of “hard-wicks”. Later spellings include Herdwiche (1086) (to 1313, with –wik(e), wyk(e)), Hardewiche (1086), Herdwyk (1220), Herdewike (13th century), Herthwyk (1250), Hardewyke (1397) and Hardwyk (1428). [Gover et al].

1.3 Whilst it appears from the foregoing records of its place name extending at least as far back as the Domesday Survey, that an agrarian settlement has existed here from early times, it is not possible to say with any certainty why the village came to be located in this particular place. A possible clue may lie in the nearby watercourse inasmuch as it would not only have provided drinking water, but also that natural geological erosion processes, as indicated above, made building materials such as limestone and clay readily available.

1.4 Historically the village does seem to have extended south and south-west of the church and manor house. Analysis of (much damaged) medieval and later earthworks here by the Royal Commission for Historic Monuments in England suggests settlement remains. Although only a group of rectangular paddocks bounded by shallow ditches or low scarps survive, they are interpreted as part of a rectilinear layout which follows the existing arrangement of village streets [RCHME]. This supposition is supported by two maps of 1587 [NRO, copy] and 1684 [NRO]. These show the area of the southern earthworks already abandoned, but indicate at the north end (i.e. the present open space around The Rookery) “an ‘island’ bounded by roads on each side and to north and south by roads no longer in existence. This area may have existed as a rectangular village green which by the 16th century had been partially encroached upon” (i.e. by The Rookery or a predecessor property). Traces of these roads and part of the island still survive today as earthworks. The conclusion of the Royal Commission is that the whole arrangement of earthworks and existing village may reflect a consciously arranged plan for the original settlement.

29

1.5 Despite suggestions of an earlier larger village, however, available documentary evidence indicates that Hardwick was always small and never suffered a major reduction in population. Domesday Book lists a resident population of 14. Bridges records 16 families in the parish in 1741, and this had increased to 68 people by 1801 and to just 121 by the 1931 census.

1.6 Perusal of more recent Ordnance Survey plans shows that Hardwick’s physical layout changed very little between 1886 and 1938, and that only limited additional residential development took place in the latter half of the 20th century. In view of the relatively compact form thereby maintained, the present village conservation area is drawn around the entire extant built-up area.

2. KEY ELEMENTS OF STRUCTURE 2.1 The village is essentially linear in form and is located on a left/right-hand

bend configuration on a by-road running east-west, linking Wellingborough with the A43. Its houses are fairly evenly spread out along the village street and most are set back from the road with generous gardens, creating a pleasant informal rural atmosphere. Nevertheless, there does remain a clear sense of being “at the centre” at the street junction opposite the church.

3. ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORIC QUALITY OF BUILDINGS

3.1 Listed buildings in the conservation area (see tonal shading notation on the Appraisal Map) are limited to the Manor Farmhouse and St Leonard’s Church (both Grade II*). The oldest part of the picturesque 2.5-storied manor house appears to be 14th century in date, a two-light traceried window on the north side being of this period, but the building was altered and largely rebuilt in the latter half of the 16th century by Thomas Nicolls whose coat-of-arms is displayed over the front entrance. The building assumed more-or-less its present appearance, with three-storey mullioned bay windows, but was again restored and enlarged in 1775 and 1887, indicated by datestones on the façade. [VCH IV 1939. OUP; List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest 1986. DoE]. The parish church is 13th/14th century early Gothic period with later Victorian alterations. The 13th century west tower is one of the oldest parts of the building and is of three stages with a single lancet window on its west face. It features large buttresses, a bell-chamber and a (later) castellated parapet. The interior contains monuments and brasses to the Nicholls and Bagshawe families [DoE].

3.2 “Other Buildings of Note” are shown on the Appraisal Map in a lighter tone. These are good quality examples of historic architectural styles mainly of the 18th and 19th centuries, with heights varying between 1.5 and 2.5 storeys, mainly eaves-on to the road, some with 2-storey front gable projections. These unlisted buildings thereby make a positive

30

contribution to the setting of the listed buildings and by the same token to the character and appearance of the conservation area as a whole.

3.3 The imposing Rectory is 17th century in date, its steep roof pitch and coped parapets indicating that it was originally thatched. Features include local brown stone construction, chimneys of red brick above stone and traditional flush-closing casement windows. By the second half of the 19th century the building had fallen into disrepair (although since tastefully extended and restored) and so the rector built Hardwick House at the north-east end of the village as a replacement. Hardwick House is a fine example of mid-Victorian decorative polychrome brickwork, seen in the contrasting buff/blue/red brick window heads, blue brick string-coursing and the chimneys articulated in receding blue engineering bricks on a red base. The original sliding sash windows, patterned Welsh slate roof covering, large glazed cast iron porch and stone pillars at the entrance with pyramidal weathering capping are also notable.

3.4 Having become functionally obsolete, the traditional barns at Manor Farm are presently undergoing a programme of refurbishment for a combination of domestic and business use. In addition, following the successful negotiation of the planning permissions and listed building consents with the Council, three new dwelling units have been consented and at time of writing are under construction. As a result of extremely high standards of architectural design and materials specification, the presentation of the emerging development scheme is wholly commendable, making a worthy contemporary contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

4. SPACES/GREENSPACE: CHARACTER AND RELATIONSHIPS

4.1 The spatial aesthetics of Hardwick village derive fundamentally from the interrelationship between a relatively low development density and the large numbers of trees which are apparent both in the public realm and as a backdrop within property gardens. Accordingly, whilst there is no significant “townscape enclosure” (which would conventionally have been the result of built-up frontages on the back-edge-of-pavement), north of Medlows it is the street and property trees themselves which create a striking and characteristic sense of intimacy. As shown on the Appraisal Map, the regularly-spaced street limes run from the north entrance to the village down to Medlows, and this treed setting becomes more marked at Hardwick House where garden specimens on either side of the street contribute to a dense forest-like atmosphere.

4.2 In contrast with the northern part of the village, the main street between Medlows and The Rookery is much more open in nature. The main contributor to this characteristic sense of openness is the undulating sparsely-treed land to the west of The Rectory. This connects visually with the adjacent deep grass verges, and is shown collectively in blue shade notation on the Appraisal Map as "Important Open Space". The St Leonard's churchyard provides additional pleasant breathing space for the village and is shown in yellow "Area Identity" notation on the

31

Appraisal Map in recognition of its significance as a place of tranquil retreat.

4.3 Traditional limestone (and occasionally brick) walling at back-edge-of-pavement, shown in the dotted notation on the Appraisal Map, positively contributes to the character and appearance of the conservation area by helping to create an overall sense of continuity and enclosure when read together with associated vernacular buildings.

4.4 In terms of the wider landscape setting, as a result of Hardwick’s peculiar topography it is a settlement which is neither readily seen from outside vantage points nor itself provides obvious viewpoints of the surrounding terrain. The only exception to the latter, perhaps, is the middle-distance view at the top end of the village looking approximately due north to the Orlingbury church tower (duly marked with a “Vista” symbol).

5. BUILDING MATERIALS Common building materials and features of special architectural or historic interest visible from the public realm include: • Walling Limestone/ironstone admixture - regular coursed rubble or cut

stone; red-brown stock brick, or polychrome (as at Hardwick House); stone cartshed with brick segmental arches/pillars, seen at The Rectory.

• Roofing Welsh slate; plain tiles; concrete. • Free-standing walling Regular-coursed rubble stone. Capping in “cock-and-hen” or

triangular-section engineering brick. Boundary treatment also includes timber wicket gates.

6. EXTENT OF LOSS OR DAMAGE TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

6.1 20th century expansion of the village is represented by a total of 13

dwellinghouses (not including the three already mentioned as under construction at Manor Farm). These are shown on the Appraisal Map without any notation. Whilst they are all generic building types and therefore lacking in true local distinctiveness, they may nonetheless be viewed as benign or “neutral” elements in conservation terms because they: (i) respect the low-density tradition; (ii) are acceptable in terms of massing (bulk and height), proportions

and relationship to the road frontage; (iii) are built of materials which, if not traditional, are mellow enough to

blend visually in a satisfactory manner with the older vernacular buildings.

32

6.2 There are not considered to be any elements in the designation area which could be said to represent damage, intrusion or a loss to the built environment which it is desired to conserve.

7. NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES

These are limited to: • The Church of St. Leonard’s. The building continues to function as

a place of worship, but as the Hardwick parish alone is unviable, the appointed vicar has responsibility for a group of local parishes/churches. The church as a “land use” is the single most significant built component of the conservation area’s character, both as a building type and as regards its apparent relationship with the plan form. It is therefore shown on the Appraisal Map with a “Landmark” symbol.

• Manor Farm. The farm has been gradually winding down as an operational unit over the last five years or so. This is perhaps to be regretted given the farming tradition which, from the etymology of the place name, appears to have remained in existence for a thousand years. Although the present owners are still actively involved in farming, the yard itself will never now be used for its original purpose. However, it is intended to reuse the two barns on the south side of the yard for business purposes, and this is to be welcomed as a means of maintaining a modicum of active commercial life in the village. A glimpse “G” symbol is placed at the entrance to the yard in recognition of the point of interest which it will continue to represent as a former working farm.

• Livery Business. A livery yard and horse paddock is accessed off the road to the west of the church. Again a business enterprise like this provides valuable local colour and activity, and is recorded on the Appraisal Map by the arrowed “Transparency” symbol.

8. MANAGEMENT/ENHANCEMENT PROPOSALS

As a result of survey work and public consultation associated with this Character Appraisal, three potential project areas have been highlighted to achieve sustainable enhancement of the conservation area, viz:

1. Identifying and implementing appropriate measures to control traffic speeds through the village. 2. Under-grounding of the telephone/electricity cables and removal of poles. 3. Drawing up of a scheme for the management and long-term preservation/replacement of the significant trees. DAS/C/10/16. 15.1.09

33

1.22m RH

CSFoxdales

21

22

Medlows

25a

Linden House

HouseHardwick

The Rookery

25

House

29

Victoria

Church

St Leonard's

6

5

8

Manor Farm

The Rectory

13

Townsfield

Crieg

ian H

ouse

14

19

(

(

Pond

Pond

Pond

�

DDDD

DDDD D

DDDD

D

DDD

D

DD D

D

D

DD

DD

DDA

DD

DD

D

D

DD

DDDDD

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

DD

A

DDDDD D

DD

DDD

D

DD

DDDD

A

D

D

DDDDDD

A

DDD

DDD

D

D

DDD

DDD

DDDDDDA

DDD

DD

DD

AA

DDDD

DD

D

D

DD

D

D

DDD

D

D

DD

D

A

DD

D

DDDA

A

�

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Appendix 2 - HARDWICK CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL MAP

D

��G

�

CONSERVATION AREA

LISTED BUILDING GRADE II*

OTHER BUILDINGS OF NOTE

IMPORTANT OPEN SPACE

AREA IDENTITY

LANDMARK/POINT OF INTEREST

FOOTPATHS

IMPORTANT WALLS

IMPORTANT TREES

GLIMPSEFleeting glance

VISTA

TRANSPARENCYActivity visible from the street

�

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of

Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office

Crown Copyright

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution orcivil proceedings

Borough Council of Wellingborough. 100018694. 2008

LEGEND

General view

ATrees of townscape significance

The Rookery

St Leonard'sChurch

Manor House

Manor Farm

Horse Paddock

Livery Yard

�G

�

Menage

TG12

TG61

35

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM 7 Development Committee 11 February 2009

Report of the Corporate Director – Development

Town Centre Regeneration – Progress Report

1 Purpose of Report 1.1 (a) To keep members appraised of the latest progress on the project

programme for the Town Centre redevelopment and specific issues which may require understanding and guidance from members on specific projects

(b) To allow members of the Development Committee to request further information on specific issues and to take any necessary action as appropriate.

1.2 This proposed action helps to achieve the Council’s corporate objective of

Promoting High Quality Growth and Enhancing the Environment.

2 Executive Summary 2.1 This report gives an overview of the present position of implementation against

the Town Centre Project Programme.

3 Proposed Action 3.1 Members NOTE the ‘RAG’ report attached at appendix I and provide any

comment to officers as appropriate. 4 Background 4.1 Following the approval of the Town Centre Healthcheck and Implementation Plan

at Development Committee in November 2008 it was agreed that a progress report in the form of a RAG (Red-Amber-Green) report would be regularly submitted to the Development Committee. This will provide members with information on all Town Centre projects and a summary of action which can help inform members and allow them to guide officer in the implementation of the town centre redevelopment.

5 Discussion 5.1 The town centre healthcheck process developed a series of systems,

governance arrangements and reporting mechanism that would allow the Council through the Development Committee to effectively monitor and manager the town centre redevelopment programme.

5.2 The report attached as Appendix I is a monthly RAG (Red-Amber-Green) report which covers the following;

37

• Major milestones from all projects

• Achievements within the reporting period

• Current issues and changes to the programme or risk profile

• Scheduled tasks for the next period

• Financial cost planning

• Link to further documents 5.3 Members are request to note the report and provide any appropriate

comments to officers. 6 Legal Powers 6.1 Local Government Act 1972 6.2 Local Government Act 2000 6.3 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 7 Financial and value for money implications 7.1 Significant funds will be needed to achieve the project outcomes and the financial

cost planning section of the report will help members to understand the funding resources that will be required to deliver these projects. Any funding requirements not already within existing budgets will be highlighted and if approved relevant reports will be developed to bid for these additional resources.

8 Risk analysis and Implications

Nature of risk Consequences

if realised Likelihood of occurrence

Control measures

Town Centre regeneration programme does not progress as desired

What would happen if this thing did occur? The investment and redevelopment of town centre sites does not occur leaving the town vulnerable to further economic decline and stagnation.

How likely is this to occur? Medium to High

What can we do to mitigate the risk? Implement the recommendations from the Town Centre Health check and Implementation Plan and review the risk implications and project progress through the monthly RAG reports at Development Committee.

38

8.1 Implications for Resources

(a) Significant internal and external resources needed throughout the plan delivery process. A better planned and costed delivery programme will enable greater potential to access and lever in additional external funding.

8.2 Implications for Stronger and Safer Communities

(a) Major contribution to community cohesion, and community safety matters and the objectives within the local area agreement

8.3 Implications for Equalities (a) Major obligation within the design and evaluation of projects to assess

the impact of proposals both in terms of project management and on different groups in Wellingborough

9 Author and Contact Officer Steven Wood – Head of built Environment

10 Consultees

Town Centre Project Managers James Wilson - Corporate Director Joe Hubbard - Assistant Chief Executive

11 Background Papers 11.1 Copies of the weekly RAG reports, project level execution plans and associated

documents such as the risk register can be made available to all members as required to provide detailed methodology for the day to day running of the project delivery teams and development support team.

39

Borough Council Of Wellingborough Town Centre Regeneration Monthly RAG Report

Project Name Wellingborough Town Centre Regeneration Month Ending Friday 26/12//08

Programme Manager Dominic Lees Project Number 24886

Project Sponsor James Wilson Status Green - No issues. Amber – Project Board can handle any issues. Red – Project Board need input from Development committee or missing major milestone

Reason if status not Green: The funding release from the LSC has not been formally agreed to enable the Tresham Relocation. The agreement is presently forecast to March 2009 putting the GAF funding expenditure deadline at critical risk. Team to report to NNDC the critical nature of Tresham to the regeneration scheme and indicate leverage the funding could create. Project Purpose: The regeneration of the town centre incorporating Tresham college, the High Street, Church Street, Market Square, Public Realm, Transportation Projects and Town Centre Development Sites

Major Milestones (completed tasks older than 28 days have been deleted) Original (rev 1)

Revised (Rev 4)

Actual

6 Receipt of GAF III funding bids & allocation of funding streams 20 11 08 15 12 08

7 Start members consultation and workshops to Planning Support Documents in support of AAP

17 11 08 03 12 08 03 12 08

10 AAP response proposals submitted to Inspector 20 01 09 17 12 08 17 12 08

11 Review of AAP respondents submissions 06 01 09 21 01 09

9 Submit Public Realm Design for committee approval and commence planning consent 03 12 08 24 01 09

12 Commence AAP Public Inquiry 14 02 09 27 01 09

2 Issue Project Execution Plans, update strategic prog’ & project business case by team leaders

31 10 08 31 01 09

24 Wellingborough Gateway Railway Feasibility study adoption 28 01 09

21 Revise and update the strategic programme with resource and cost estimation for GAF 28 02 09

23 Draft Communication Strategy issued for consultation to committee 28 02 09

14 Agree vacant possession for Tresham College and land assembly taxation rights 25 01 09 02 02 09

15 Agree strategy for delivery of supplementary development sites 10 02 09

8 LSC National AIP to Tresham funding bid in writing 03 12 08 01 03 09

16 Submit and obtain FC approval for PR Scheme planning documents 01 03 09

22 Consultation on parking strategy 04 03 09

17 Submit and obtain approval for developers design brief (High St) 10 03 09

13 Commence full planning consent approval for Tresham College 25 01 09 23 03 09

18 Completion of developers design brief & due diligence 30 04 09

19 AAP Approval 30 06 09

20 Publish OJEU notice & prepare shortlist of developers for High St 20 10 09

Achievements this Period (Milestones or Major Tasks Completed) 1. Confirmation by secretary of state of High Street CPO reccomendations 2. Update of plan for AAP Inquiry response questions, coordinated with legal review from BJ 3. Question A, B, C, D, E & F agreed response for AAP 4. Issue of the updated BCW council owned property plan from claims and disputes workstream 5. Review and agreement of updated draft NCC transport strategy in line with AAP 6. Interview and proposal from Environment Agency to format the utilities strategy 7. Excellent results from external CEAC audit for implementation of regeneration scheme

41


Current Issues, Changes or Risks – refer to project risk register for detail Rev 4: 28/11/08 1. Delay of grant final approval from LSC has seen the agreed £63m funding for the Tresham Relocation put at risk. Support of team to

Tresham to apply pressure to LSC and central government to release funding by March 09. 2. The utility strategy work with the EA has highlighted the critical delivery of the Broadholme sewage treatment works extension. The

updated Water Cycle study is due to be issued 16 12 08 updating impact of AAP. Impact to be reviewed by team lead PT 3. The Tesco objection to the AAP is now the only major objection to the AAP inquiry, arguing for the change in policy that would allow

an increase in their convenience shopping floor space. Planning team supported with legal advocacy within process. Inquiry commences 27 01 09.

4. No strategic cost plan in place, Funding cycles are not linked to resourcing needs or timeline creating high risk of shortfall or under spend and inability to control programme delivery. Interim cost planning commission to be instructed to ensure BCW team accountable and auditable throughout development process. The cost planning commission within the team requires procurement. Strategy for service commission to be agreed to support the regeneration team and promote fund management.

5. The final draft of the implementation plan requires agreement with Cllr Lawman, Chairman of the Development Committee. Team members within the programme board require agreement and communicating to the wider team. This should consider the members delegated and mandatory consultation role together with the external funding teams.

6. Review of procurement strategy going forward to be undertaken. English Partnerships & East Midlands framework proposed for review. Mace / BCW review timeline required – propose 1st April 09 to have agreed procurement strategy for project delivery teams.

7. The benefits of the PEP may be clearly seen within the AAP work, time must be allocated to each team leader to produce an updated PEP before the next Development Committee

8 The expansion of the conservation area within the draft appraisal document must be reviewed in light of proposed PPG15 land values reduced to nil within development agreements. The proposal currently highlights potential buildings listed for CPO and demolition within the AAP for a conservation status in direct contravention of AAP policy. Consultation period ongoing to Feb 09 when changes are to be incorporated before adoption of policy.

9 The production of the Church St and Market Square ‘planning support document’ has been delayed by 6 weeks due to queries over the Roger Tyms retail figures used within the AAP. Knight Frank question the figures used given the current state of the economy. Market survey audit proposed to examine the minimum and maximum figures used in the 2005 report to ensure the scheme is deliverable and economically viable within current market conditions.

Scheduled Tasks for Next Period Ending 28/02/09 1. Review of GAF funding bid against rev4 strategic delivery programme, resource chart and cost plan 2. Commencement of AAP public inquiry process 27 01 09 3. Issue of the draft parking strategy - document to be reviewed and commented on by the team and leaders group prior to consultation 4. Review and update of utilities risk review to include the delivery of Broadholme expansion 5. Completion of the communications strategy and review of shortlist specialist consultants 6. Update and issue of ongoing consultant procurement strategy 7. Completion of the High Street Developers Briefing document part one – evaluation criteria 8. Public consultation on public realm strategy 9. Coordination of Transport team with NCC, MGWSP and Public realm strategy with regard bus lane design, HGV routing & Queen St 10. Commission and instruction of Market Square development planning support document incorporating market survey audit. 11. Inclusion of rail way station feasibility report within town centre strategic plan.

Financial Planning and Fund Management Key Issues 1. Appointment of cost planning team to enable development of project and programme level cost planning against cash flow

forecasting and funding strategy / cycles 2. Expressions of interest submitted to NEL and initial discussions with Heritage Lottery fund managers completed 3. Project level cost plans unknown to programme management team, long term (24month) forecast budget allocations unknown. 4. Funding management and active fund applications team to be commissioned to allow additional fund streams to be developed 5. Funding allocation GAF iii at risk following LSC delay to Tresham AiP.

42


Summary team / project budget allocations 2008 / 2009 Original allocation

Forecast allocation

Funding / Budget Deficit / contingency

Delivery Team 1. AAP adoption and inquiry (inc’ planning support documents) £100,000 Not

commissioned unknown

2. Tresham redevelopment team £2,450,000 £2,980,994 unknown

3. High Street Redevelopment team £350,000 £450,000 est unknown

4. Church Street and Market Square redevelopment team £275,000 £350,000 est unknown

5. Transportation Projects nil Not commissioned

unknown

6. Public Realm Delivery projects nil £750,000 est unknown

7. Supplementary development sites nil Not commissioned

unknown

Development Support Team 1. Planning team – Public Realm Strategy unknown £88,000 unknown

2. Planning team – Conservation Area Appraisal unknown £73,542 unknown

3. Planning team – Shop front Design Guide unknown £60,000 unknown

4. Planning team – Planning Support Document (Ch St/Mrkt Sq) unknown £78,000 unknown

5. Finance team nil £75,000 unknown

6. CPO – Acquisition team £1,120,000 £1,010,000 unknown

7. Transportation £7,075,000 Est £94,000 unknown

8. Parking £16,000 Est £95,000 unknown

9. Utilities nil Est £30,000 unknown

10. Housing & employment growth strategy nil Est £25,000 unknown

11. Communications Strategy nil Est £20,000 unknown

Summary Cost Report 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 1. The Budget unknown

2. The Estimated Final Cost unknown

3. The Current Commitment unknown

4. The Orders Not Placed (includes Contingencies) unknown

5. The Contingency unknown

6. The certified to date payment value unknown

Change Control Change Order Value

Funding Stream Date For Approval

Item Change order CRF 001/24886/03- 081208 £10,203.05 High Street 17/12/08

43