borough council of wellingborough planning committee

Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire NN8 1BP Tel: 01933 229777 Fax: 01933 231684 DX 12865 www.wellingborough.gov.uk

1. Apologies for absence.

Ι 2. Declarations of Interest.

Ι 3. Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 16/2/2011.

Ι

Ι

4.

5.

6.

Applications for planning permission, listed building consent, building

regulation approval and appeals information.

Planning Appeal Decision – 27 Knox Road, Wellingborough.

Any other items that the Chairman decides are urgent.

Ι Enclosed Site Viewing Group for Tuesday 15th March 2011 will be Councillors Ward, Griffiths, Waters, Dean and Morall. Joe Hubbard, Chief Executive Date issued: 8th March 2011. For further information contact David Newbold on 01933 231511; fax 01933 231542; or [email protected] If you wish to address the Committee on an agenda item you can register by:

● going on-line to ‘on-line forms’ then ‘addressing Council meetings’; or ● completing the appropriate form which is available at reception desks; or ● contacting David Newbold.

Membership: Councillor Ward (Chairman), Councillor Griffiths (Vice Chairman), Councillors Beirne, P Bell, Dean, Harrington, Maguire, Morrall, Patel, Timms and Waters.

Planning Committee

Wednesday 16th March 2011 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire NN8 1BP

Agenda

Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Committee

Wednesday 16th March 2011 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, Swanspool House

INDEX

Page No. SITE VIEWING GROUP WP/2010/0513/F - 78 High Street, Ecton. 1WP/2010/00376/LB - 78 High Street, Ecton. 12WP/2011/0017/F - 38 Stanwell Way, Wellingborough 16WP/2011/0078/ - Hardwick Infant & Junior School, Olympic Way,

Wellingborough 24

DISTRICT WP/2011/0043/F - 51 Daisy Cottage, High Street, Bozeat. 25WP/2011/0008/O - Land adjacent to The Boot, 35 High Street, Wollaston. 31WP/2011/0055/ F - 3 School Road, Irchester 44 OTHER BOROUGH WP/2011/0082/OB Factory, Church Street, Irthlingborough 53

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM SITE VIEWING (Date of visit Tuesday 15 March 2011 10.50 a.m) Planning Committee 16/03/2011 Report of the Head of Built Environment APPLICATION REF:

WP/2010/0513/F

PROPOSAL:

New dwelling next to no. 78 High Street - all to be in matching stone work/reclaimed brick/slate and timber windows. The existing garage building will be left intact. Re-submission following withdrawn application WP/2010/0304/F.

LOCATION:

78 High Street Ecton Northampton NN6 0QB

APPLICANT:

Mr & MrsEdward Cookman

This application comes before the planning committee for determination due to an objection by the Parish Council on various grounds including concerns towards a nearby Listed Building, impact on neighbours and overdevelopment. PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site is located within the village confines and the Conservation Area of Ecton and is positioned to the rear of a Listed Building; 78 High Street and is to be accessed from the High Street via an existing un-metalled track that serves the rear Village Hall/Cricket ground and also offers rear access to a number of dwellings fronting the High Street. The proposal is as described above and utilises an existing garage that is to be converted to living accommodation and the construction of a low 2 storey element to run against the sites western boundary at roughly 90 degrees to the existing garage and linked by way of a single storey element. Off street parking will be provided to the proposed and also to the existing property. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/2010/0304/F New dwelling next to No. 78 High Street, Ecton - withdrawn WP/2010/0376/LB New dwelling next to no. 78 High Street. (Application for Listed

Building Consent) – currently pending with approval recommended.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: North Northants Core Spatial Strategy: 13 Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: G4 SPG: II, IV and V and Design SPD National: PPS 1, 3 and 5

1

± 1:1,250

Scale:

ICT Services

This map is accurateto the scale specified

when reproduced at A4

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with thepermission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s

Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorisedreproduction infringes crown copyright and may lead

to prosecution or civil proceedings.Borough Council of Wellingborough.

Licence No 100018694. (2010)

LegendWP/2010/0513/F - 78 High Street, Ecton

WP/2010/0513/F

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Ecton Parish Council -

• The proposed development would result in an over development and massing on a small site.

• Express their concerns on the effect and impact the proposals would have

on adjoining properties

• Concerns expressed that by it’s proposed siting and height that it could adversely affect the light to the adjoining property

• The proposal is also contrary to the new Planning Policy Statement 3 of

9th June 2010 which relates to over development of neighbourhoods and Garden Grabbing

• For the above reason the application should be refused.

2. Environmental Protection Department -

“The site lies on the Northampton sand strata that may contain elevated levels of naturally occurring arsenic. A condition requiring this to be investigated further should be included in any approval”

3. Conservation Officer –

“I remain in support of this application and shall be recommending approval for the associated application”

4. Northamptonshire County Council Highways Authority initially had concerns

with regard highway safety, however following the submission by the applicant of additional information and drawings; including a swept path analysis the following comments were received:

“The coloured drawing indicates that by way of multi-point turns and making use of the shared driveway leading to the village hall, sufficient space exists to permit cars visiting the site of the application and the adjoining existing dwelling to turn around so as to enter and leave the public highway in High Street in a forward direction. You have submitted sufficient evidence to indicate that rights to pass and repass over the private roadway on foot or with vehicles are held and, as it appears that this can be done without nuisance or obstruction to other occupiers, I have no further objections to the application on highway grounds.”

5. 3 Third Party Letters of objection -

(82 High Street, Ecton) “I object to the application no WP/2010/0513/F 1. The access road:- I note that the revised planning application still states that the lane is used for no 78 and the village hall and not used by four other properties, I park

2

my car at the rear of my cottage and require access at all times as I am a shift worker. 2. Drainage: The drains have been known to block and at the time it was stated that the drains are old and narrower. Number 78's drain comes in at a higher level into a deep drain causing "splash", a term used by the original drain company (dynorod) who had to unblock the drain. This surely will cause more problem if 2 houses are being served by that drain. It would not effect (sic) their drains but ours. I would also like to point out that the drains are not on the mains and so are not adopted by Anglia Water Authority, so any problems have to be paid for by the owners. 3. Parking: Parking is becoming an increasing problem in Ecton especially high street. If you have a 5 bedroomed house and a 3 bedroomed house how many cars will you get?, and what if there are friends/relatives visiting. There was an incident when the emergency services could not get passed due to the parking. I know this for fact as they were knocking on the doors trying to get the cars moved. Having looked at the revised plans I still feel that there is not enough parking spaces to accommodate two large houses. 4. I note that the new build will be approximately 166 sq metres, this scale of the new build is not commensurate to our property which would be approx. 40sq metres, so the statement regaring it to be in comparible to neighbouring properties is completely wrong, hench our objection to a massive new build in the garden of no 78. 5. It is also noted that it is stated that the barn is seperate from the main house where it is not well defined as being within the curtilage of the main house. We feel that it is obvious that the barn belongs to the main house and to seperate the two would detract from the essence of them being listed buildings and belonging together. I note the barn doors are now to remain, but the new plans do not state exactly what is to happen to them, and being a listed building I would have thought this should have been sorted out. We moved to Ecton village as it has been mostley unspoilt and is nice and quiet, it is also a conservation area, and no 78 is a listed building including the barn, so I also object that a listed building should be altered so radically, and this is nothing other than another garden grab, that the government has said that should not be allowed. We want to be able to sit in the garden and be able to relax, not sit in the garden listening to jackhammers, builders, have dust and lorries that will block the access road.” (86 High Street Ecton)

3

“Having viewed the above planning application I would like to express my objections to the proposal on the following grounds: Conservation Area The village of Ecton is a conservation area, which was one of attractions for me when I bought my property, as I hoped that all efforts would be undertaken to ensure that the character and look of the village would be preserved. The proposed construction of the New Dwelling to the rear of No 78 and change of use of No 78’s barn/garages into an additional dwelling will completely change the character and look of this small area, whilst significantly affecting the environment of the four cottages that share this space with No 78. I believe that the proposed construction of the New Dwelling will be a massive over development of what is already a well established and well developed location in a conservation area, and would be extremely sad if this proposal was to go ahead. It would also appear to contravene the new Planning Policy Statement 3 of 9th June 2010 which relates to overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and Garden Grabbing. Size of Proposed Dwelling In the planning application documents – “Design & Access Statement” point 3 the applicant states that the proposed New Dwelling will have a total internal space of 166 sq metres. In point 5 of the same document, the scale of the proposed building and space provided is said to be commensurate with a domestic dwelling and that of neighbouring properties. I personally would take issue with that comparison, as the row of 4 cottages that I live in ( which share the environment with the proposed New Dwelling) would not be much greater in total internal space when added together, having only approximately 50 sq metres of internal space each. Obviously the proposed New Dwelling is commensurate with the existing property at No 78 (a 5 bed house), however comparing your proposal to the largest house in the environment, rather than the average does seem to be a tad over ambitious in scope and scale, and must surely indicate that the current plot would be significantly overdeveloped in comparison to other dwellings in the immediate area. The Private Access Road and properties that share a right of way I notice that the new planning proposal via the “Agents email” point D, dated 17th November, does finally acknowledge that the Lane’s shared access from the road to the Village Hall does also include No’s 80, 82, 84 & 86, and would thank them for this acknowledgement. However, I also note that in the same email point C, that the applicants have proposed to include some contractual conditions on builders re site parking, storage, and working hours and that the owners will do their best to ensure that this is complied with. As I previously stated on my objection letter for application WP/2010/0304 the applicants have failed in this approach on a consistent basis whilst renovating No 78, and I cannot believe that they will not continue to fail when trying to implement with the new proposed build, mainly because during the working day they will be absent from the site at their own place of work, so unable to monitor the situation on a regular basis. Again I point out that as a Blue Badge holder this access is extremely important to me and required to be generally available on a need to use basis,

4

to allow me to attend the regular medical appointments I have, and for general normal living requirements. I refer also to the example, previously stated on objection letter re application WP/2010/0304, which emphasised these concerns when during the site visit of the 14th September, 2 council officers actually parked on the private ground in front of the 4 cottages parking spaces blocking all access in or out. Until I arrived and pointed this out, it should be noted that the owners of No 78 Mr & Mrs Cookman had made no efforts to have this access cleared, even though they are aware of the cottage owners concerns with this access being blocked at any time, if they cannot make this access requirement clear at a time when they are actually present and aware, why should we believe that they will be able to ensure it when they are absent whilst at work and building works are commencing? Parking I acknowledge that the applicants have made some additional efforts to elevate the potential parking concerns previously raised via the “Agents email” point F, dated 17th November, by removing the current boundary fencing running parallel with the access Lane, to allow for easier passing of vehicles and parking, however I still believe that the overall potential additional occupancy of the 2 properties plus the overall reduced number of spaces from that existing at present, for 1 dwelling, will only add to the issues of parking and access already being felt in this small area. The plans currently show parking for 2 cars at each property, plus a new garage at No 78, making a total of 5 spaces across the property, roughly equal to the existing parking of No 78 today, and yet potential occupancy of the area has been increased. This could also still add to parking issues in the High Street with both residents and visitors for both properties potentially needing additional highway parking. I would remind you again of the issues of regarding parking from earlier this year when a Fire Engine on an emergency call had extreme difficulty negotiating the parked cars around this area leading to a delay in their response of at least 30 minutes as they negotiated passage. Please note that since this occurrence a couple of properties in the vicinity have become vacant at present, thereby currently lessening the present parking burdens on the High Street, a situation which is unlikely to continue into the future as the properties are let once again, so current availability should not be expected to continue into the future. It should also be noted that the emergency fire hydrant is at the corner of the access road so emergency vehicles do require ease of access to the area, and additional parking on the highway can only add to the difficulties in using this access and fire hydrant.

Sewage and Drainage Reference the “Agents email” points B & E, dated 17th November, with regards to previously raised issues with the proposal to join to the existing local drainage system The Application form, section 11, notes that the intention is to use the existing foul sewage as for No 78 - and that this is "Mains".

5

I would like to point out that this is actually not quite correct. The existing sewage and drainage system that No 78 uses is actually a “Non-adopted” system by Anglian Water Authority, and the responsibility for maintaining it is shared by No’s 78, 80, 82, 84 and 86 High Street, The Village Hall and the Caravans behind No 68 High Street. a. AWA do not take any responsibility for the drains/sewage system for

these properties until it actually joins the main sewers in the High Street - prior to this all issues that arise with this system have to be paid for by all properties connected at point of issue.

b. No 78 joins this system at the last drain on the access road before it goes out to join the High Street main sewer and it would appear that the intention is to add the proposed new properties drainage into the system through the same point. Any blockage caused at this point will be deemed to be an issue of all on the system and potentially leading to a liability for any repair work ever required on all sharing properties, adding an additional property increases the flow through the system, and consequently must potentially increase the chances of future liability for other properties, should works be required, or this drain be blocked again as happened previously - see point C, which was caused partly by a waste material blockage in this end drain.

c. Two years ago problems were encountered with the drainage system leading to an investigation of the drains being carried out by “Dyno-Rod” who had to be called out twice for a blockage within a month, as a result of which the drains were filmed to identify any issues noted. At the time a couple of points were explained to myself by the engineer: i. The drain at which No 78 joins is circa 20ft deep – whilst the

drain access from No 78 actually comes in only around 5ft below ground level - meaning all waste has a considerable drop into the main drain - this I was informed was not a standard entry - and does cause considerable "splash". Whilst the pipe out of this drain has a "lip" on it - and at the last blockage this whole drain was blocked and filled to the brim, please note that this was a waste material blockage. Whilst in Point C the applicant does acknowledge this issue they would appear to not consider making any changes necessary, though do suggest they could use a “swan neck to discharge into the lower drain thus avoiding splash, can I suggest that they adopt this suggestion, as 2 properties using the existing entry point, in future could only add to this issue. With regards to No 80 I can make no comment, as this was not commented on by “Dyno-Rod” at the time of the drains examination.

ii. I acknowledge that providing the proposed new dwelling does only enter the existing drainage and sewage system at the same point at No 78 currently does – then the pipe work of a non-standard size behind this point, should not be compromised, other than should there be another waste material blockage in the end drain, as occurred twice on the last occasion two years ago.

iii. Re the client addressment of flooding issues at my property in Point E, as a result of my property homing the lowest drain access on the current system, the flooding only occurs when the drainage system as a whole blocks up, i.e. through waste

6

material being disposed of through the total system, to say adding another property will not exacerbate this, and that it is only an issue of surface water disposal, shows a lack of understanding of the issue. The flooding has so far only ever happened when the drains themselves were physically blocked with waste material, and not as a result of additional surface water which to my knowledge the current system has always been able to adequately accommodate for the last 8 years I have lived here regardless of the weather conditions, and I re-iterate that the addition of an extra property onto the system could either from building works or additional usage result in yet more flooding on to my property, and an additional liability to myself to clean up the resultant mess.

Listed Building Status I notice that the current listed building application WP/2010/0376 does not have the same drawings submitted as this application reference the alterations to the barn at No 78. Given that this barn is listed and is intended to form part of the living accommodation of the proposed new property, I would have thought that the 2 applications should at least have the same drawings submitted to describe the work planned, which, per the new drawings on this application includes adding some additional openings in the back of the barn, to address concerns re properties being over looked should the existing doors be converted into picture windows. I am also concerned that the plans are in themselves not clear as to the intended treatment to be used to block the current doorways. In the “Agents email” points G, dated 17th November, they talk of removing the glazing, but do not state what will be used instead. Nor do they clearly indicate on the Design and Access statement point 7, say how these doorways will be blocked, to avoid overlooking, only stating “...the existing garage doors will remain... or pending condition replaced by an acceptable cladding to agreed with the listed building officer”. From the perspectives of No’s 80 & 82 this still leaves a potential issue which could result in the proposed New Dwelling still being able to significantly overlook these properties were these doors be opened either by the current or future owners at a later date, should the intention be to glaze this doorway behind the garage doors. Hopefully the applicants will be able to demonstrate, in response to this query, how they intend to address this so it does not become an issue in future, by explaining their actual intentions re the blocking up of this current entrance, thereby providing the necessary draught/insulation protection necessary to reach standards compatible with current building regulations. I believe that the above issues with the proposed planning application should be reviewed to assess their impact on both the application and the potential impact on existing residents of the area. These issues, and also the continued issues of safety in relation to access to Village Hall, which uses the same access lane as No 78 and the cottages No’s 80 – 86, for children and the elderly must be paramount and I strongly object to the application in its present form.”

7

(80 High Street, Ecton) “I wish to record my objections to the proposed application which are consistent with points raised in my original letters of objection dated 13 August and 5 November 2010 which are still relevant despite certain minor changes to application, and should be referred to and noted. I feel that the entire principle of the scheme is flawed. In particular, it is contrary to the Council Policy statement for the built environment, listed buildings Policy G7/G8/G9. These policy statements refer in detail to listed buildings and their context. I would submit that the existing listed building (No 78) forms an essential part of the built environment of the village and will be seriously altered by the proposals. At the moment this building forms a composite whole with its garden and associated outbuildings, all of a modest nature. The resulting development will see the house lose its outbuildings and the resulting garden with be too small for the size of the house. The entire site will be severely congested and will not reflect the character of the existing setting. I cant see that the proposals can do other than detract from the existing character and nature of the listed building and such individual houses in the village are a valuable resource and should be protected. Additionally, policy Gll/G12 are relevant to the proposals. Guarding against new buildings in conservation areas unless these can enhance the village fabric. With the resulting intensification of the site, the negative impact on neighbouring cottages, (which the proposed building is not in scale with) with increased and possible dangerous traffic in a tiny access road this proposal cannot enhance the area. The role of the gardens and small outbuilding as a mediator between the habitable dwellings and surrounding country will be lost, and the value of the conservation eroded. The proposals are also contrary to stated goverment (sic) objectives of avoiding 'garden grabbing’ and over intensification of use. In my view, these proposals form a textbook example of a model to be avoided. It also appears that the Listed Building application and the planning application are not consistent.”

ASSESSMENT: Principle of Development With regard policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan; the site is positioned within the village boundary of Ecton and therefore satisfies part 1 of the Local Plan policy, part 2 in relation to the developments impact on the character and setting of the village will be discussed below.

As some of the representations mentioned above; the Coalition Government has recently revised PPS3 which has introduced a change pertinent to applications of this type. Garden land has been removed from the definition of brownfield land.

In principle, removing the brownfield status of gardens does not prevent their development, the key issues remain whether they lie within a settlement in a

8

sustainable location and that development is appropriate in design terms. The changes do not, therefore, rule out development of gardens but are intended to enable councils to protect gardens from inappropriate development by rejecting planning applications for development that is objected to by the local community and spoils the character of neighbourhoods’. These issues will be considered below.

Loss to neighbours amenities As there are no windows proposed in the rear/west elevation there are not considered to be loss of privacy issues towards no. 9 The Laurels and its rear facing window. Whilst it is considered that the rear window may have an increased amount of overshadowing in the mornings the impact will not be significantly higher than the existing overshadowing that occurs from existing coniferous trees, this slight increase is therefore not considered detrimental to the rear room of no. 9 The Laurels. Due to the orientation of the window there is not expected to be any overbearing impacts. The proposed two storey element will directly face the side and most important private outside space to no. 78 High Street but given that the separation distance is a minimum of 10.8m away and a 1.8m high boundary wall is proposed the loss of privacy is not considered to be detrimental. Traditionally the Council have insisted upon a rear spacing of 21m for back-to-back 2 storey houses this therefore equates to a separation of house from garden of 10.5m, the 10.8m separation is therefore appropriate to retain the privacy of no. 78 High Streets garden. It would be unlikely that the facing first floor windows would result in any loss of privacy issues towards the habitable room windows of no. 78 due to the discussed separation distance and also the obtuse angling of the windows from one another. The same is the case for the bordering neighbour immediately to the north; no. 76 High Street with the property positioned tight against the plot frontage resulting in an acceptable separation distance of 22m together with an obtuse angling from window to window and also boundary treatment screening much of the view and an existing apple tree, which is to be retained, also providing a degree of screening. The same is considered vice-versa with no detrimental impact towards the development property. Similarly with respect to the rear elevations of the Listed cottages to the south-east and in particular 80 and 82 that are angled so that there rear elevation will face the proposed property. The separation distance with regard the first floor windows to the front is in excess of 25m together with an obtuse angling and as the windows are set below the height of the existing garage a view towards the rear elevations of no. 80 and 82 would be unlikely. The proposed side window is also likely to have a restricted view towards 80 and 82. The proposed development is therefore opined to be in accordance with the relevant sections of Policy 13 of the NNCSS that concern themselves with neighbourly impacts. Impact on the Appearance and Setting of Area In light of the development site being positioned within Ecton Conservation Area and also being in close proximity to a number of Listed Buildings including no. 76, 78, 80, 82, 84 and 86 High Street it is important to consider the buildings impact on the areas character and appearance and the settings of the listed building carefully. It is considered that the lowering of the roof, with respect to the previous submission, together with the increased stone proposed would result in the proposed property

9

being less dominate in the area and would unlikely be seen from the front aspect (High Street) and therefore would not appear as cramming. In addition the development property would be less conspicuous when viewed from the rear and the Lane when seen in the same scene as the Listed 78 High Street with the Listed property retaining its dominance and integrity within the historic rear setting. The impact on the Listed Buildings in the area and the Conservation Area is discussed in further detail in the attached Listed Building report; which finds the development acceptable; therefore an objection to the visual merits of the development is not considered sustainable. Highway Issues The highways arrangements whilst contrived; as there were no objections forthcoming from the highway authority and the very low speeds of the lane that the highway impacts does not represent a justifiable reason for refusal. The highway authority was comforted by the submission of a swept path analysis which indicated the turning requirements for a vehicle and also the removal of the existing fencing. It is therefore considered that the development does not result in any adverse highway safety and convenience concerns over and above the existing situation. The proposal would allow for at least 2 vehicles to be parked off the access road. Although there may be local concerns with respect to highway safety and convenience due to the concerns not being met by the Highways Authority any refusal reason on the basis of highway issues would be ill-advised and would have a good chance of occurring costs should the application be subject to an appeal. Amenity Space The garden provision associated with the development property is 14m x 10.5m this space is considered consistent with a 3 bed property and modern standards in ensuring a good quality of life for its occupants. The remaining amenity space associated with no. 78 has undoubtedly diminished and whilst it is to the side due to a high wall to the highway frontage the garden is considered private in nature and given its size of 20m x 12m is considered ample. Other Considerations The biodiversity is unaffected and the development does not result in an increased potential for crime and the principles of non-discrimination have been followed through-out. Response to Representations The issues raised by the third party objectors in relation to noise disturbance during construction and sewerage related issues are not of material planning consideration with the latter being considered under Building Regulations. The objections with respect to overbearing, loss of light, loss of privacy and the impact on the local highway network are considered above and are not supported. An objector has mentioned a number of Policies (G7, 8, 9, 11 and12 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan) these policies have been lost and replaced by Policy G13 of the North Northants Core Spatial Strategy and also national policy: PPS5 with regard the historic environment. It has also been mooted that the submission of the Listed Building application and the full application not being received at the same time could be grounds for refusal. Whilst it is preferable that the two applications should be submitted together it is not imperative nor is there a legal obligation to do so, in any event the two respective

10

applications are being determined together in this agenda. It is also noted that the level of neighbourly objection has decreased from the withdrawn application from 6 to 3. Conclusion Having taken into account the above it is considered that the application does not harm the amenities of neighbouring dwellings or detrimental to highway safety and convenience and does not detrimentally impact on the character and appearance of the area and is therefore recommended for approval in accordance with the above planning documents, subject to appropriate conditioning. The attached listed building application will hold the bulk of the conditions to save unnecessary replication. 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 site lies on the Northampton sand strata that may contain elevated levels

of naturally occurring arsenic. Prior to the commencement of development this shall be investigated and a report presented to and 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. In the interests of possible contaminants. 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: Policy 13: General Sustainable development Principles of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy G4 - Development within the Limited Development and Restricted Infill Villages of the 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: 415777 1B, 2B and 3b 22 November 2010 3. The applicant is advised to refer to Listed Building Consent (WP/2010/0376/LB) with respect to the conditions.

11


WP/2010/0376/LB

PROPOSAL:

New dwelling next to no. 78 High Street. (Application for Listed Building Consent) - amended plans received 22 November 2010.

LOCATION:

78 High Street Ecton Northampton NN6 0QB

APPLICANT:

Mr & Mrs Edward Cookman

NOTE: This application was included in the agenda for the Committee meeting of 20.10.10 but was withdrawn prior to determination. Amendments have been made to the design of the barn fronting the access lane and to the new garage. These changes are acceptable. Concurrent planning application reference WP/2010/0513/F on this report refers. Whilst the Civic Society originally objected to the proposals, it has indicated that it is now in favour. The Parish Council objects to the present amended scheme on the basis of overdevelopment and negative effect on adjacent listed buildings. Officers do not feel that this is the case and the reasoning is set out in the original report which is attached hereto. Conditions 4 and 5 and the Reasons/Informative on the original report have been altered, viz: 4. Full details of the following items shall be submitted for the written consent of

the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development: (i) stone, brick and slate - sample materials and panels required; (ii) rooflights – the configuration shown on the submitted plans is not

hereby consented. A suitable alternative layout and design shall be submitted for consideration;

(iii) boundary wall and front fence; (iv) hard surfacing - permeable specification required; (v) eaves and verges; (vi) rainwater goods; (vii) garage roof – the configuration shown on the submitted plans is not

hereby consented. A suitable alternative design shall be submitted for consideration;

12

± 1:1,250

Scale:

ICT Services






Licence No 100018694. (2010)

LegendWP/2010/0376/LB - 78 High Street, Ecton

WP/2010/0376/LB

(viii) garage doors to proposed new living/dining area – details required showing means of creating appropriate thermal insulation, etc. for usage as habitable space.

5. The work shall otherwise be carried out strictly in accordance with the amended plans reference 415777/1B, 2B and 3B, deposited with the Council on 22.11.2010.

Reasons: 1. In order to comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and

Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 2. To protect the character of the listed building and the character and

appearance of the conservation area. 3. To protect the character of the listed building and the character and

appearance of the conservation area. 4. To protect the character of the listed building and the character and

appearance of the conservation area. 5. To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the agreed amendments. INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 415777/1B; 2B; 3B. 22.11.2010

13

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

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM Planning Committee 20/10/2010 Report of the Head of Built Environment APPLICATION REF: WP/2010/0376/LB PROPOSAL: New dwelling next to no. 78 High Street. (Application for Listed

Building Consent) LOCATION: 78 High Street, Ecton, Northampton. APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Edward Cookman. PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: Listed Building Consent is sought for a large extension to an existing listed barn in the curtilage of the primary Grade II listed 78 High Street, Ecton, and for the partial re-building of boundary walling. The “extension” in fact comprises a new dwelling-house, the associated application for planning permission for which is included in this report under reference WP/2010/0304/F. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None. NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: PPS5. SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATION/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Wellingborough Civic Society – the society feels that this is over-development

near the listed building. 2. County Archaeologist – no objections. ASSESSMENT: Although Ecton is essentially a linear village, it does contain a proportion of development in depth. Accordingly, on a structural level it can be said that the present proposed scheme is consistent with the grain and historic layout of the conservation area, thereby contributing positively to its character and appearance. In terms of the specific relationship with the listed no. 78 and its curtilage structures, it is considered that the proposal successfully echoes a traditional vernacular “barn-like” built form which is ubiquitous in Midlands villages. The new dwelling unit will complement the listed building and will not negatively impact upon its setting. Its appealing design references are reinforced by careful materials specification including natural stone and roof covering. Specifically, the existing barn fronting the

14

access land is currently effectively obsolete and would benefit from extension and improvement in the manner proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Grant Listed Building consent. 1. The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the

expiration of three years from the date of this consent. 2. The new stonework shall be laid in level courses to match the existing with a

mortar mix normally comprising either hydraulic lime or lime putty (to BS 890) and well-graded and washed sharp sand to a ratio of 1:3 by volume, and with the mortar brushed back to the back arrises of the stonework whilst still green. This mix and finish shall be used for any repointing work. (See attached 'Supplementary Advice Note 1: Lime Mortars and Re-pointing' for further detailed advice).

3. Full details of all new windows and doors together with details of their surrounds shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any work is commenced.

4. Full details of the following items shall be submitted for the written consent of the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development: (i) stone, brick and slate - sample materials and panels required; (ii) rooflights - must be designed to align strictly with the plane of the roof; (iii) boundary wall and front fence; (iv) hard surfacing - permeable specification required; (v) eaves and verges; (vi) rainwater goods.

5. The work shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the amended plans reference 415777/1A, 2A and 3A, deposited with the Council on 28.09.2010.

6. This consent does not extend to the new garage beside the primary listed building. An amended plan, showing full details of an alternative roof design moved through 90 degrees and reduced to a pitch of 35 degrees, shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority prior to the commencement of work.

Reasons: 1. In order to comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and

Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 2. To protect the character of the listed building. 3. To protect the character of the listed building (and the character and

appearance of the conservation area). 4. In the interests of visual amenity and to protect the character of the listed

building and designated conservation area. 5. To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the agreed amendments. 6. In the interests of visual amenity and to protect the character of the listed

building and designated conservation area. INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 415777/1A; 2A; 3C 28.09.2010

15


WP/2011/0017/F

PROPOSAL:

Side extension

LOCATION:

38 Stanwell Way Wellingborough NN8 3DF

APPLICANT:

Mr O & Mrs N Dimov

This planning application is put forward to the Planning Committee for determination as it is contrary to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described. This proposal entails extending the property to both the side and rear as well as extending the roof to former a substantial upper floor dormer. The side extension will protrude up to the existing property boundary along Milton Avenue. Included in the scheme are an additional bay window and an enclosed porch to the property’s front elevation. The application site is located on a prominent corner plot at the junction of Stanwell Way and Milton Avenue, and its frontage is on to Stanwell Way, whilst its side and rear elevations are highly visible from the public highway when approaching the site along Stanwell Way or Milton Avenue. The property known as no.38 Stanwell Way is an unaltered semi-detached single storey bungalow adjoined to similar bungalow which has been extended with the addition of a single storey rear extension, rear facing dormer and a hip to gable side roof extension. A 0.5m brick wall extends around the site’s front boundary and round its side boundary into Milton Avenue, where it then continues along the remaining Milton Avenue boundary as a 1.8m high close boarded fence. In harmony with the property opposite, known as no.42 Stanwell Way, the application site is characterised by being set back from both highways with garden land to the front which then sweeps around its side elevation to seamlessly merge with the rear garden. The existing vehicular access to the site is taken from Milton Avenue and into the rear garden. Ground levels rise up from the rear of the property towards the north. Together with no.42 Stanwell Way, the application site creates a distinctive, open and spacious character in this particular locality as they form open vistas when approaching this road junction from either highway. This is distinct to the more cramped layout of properties along Milton Avenue to the north and the properties along Stanwell Way where the separation distances between the respective side

16

elevations are smaller in width than the side gardens of nos.38 and 42 Stanwell Way. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: PRE/2008/0053 – Pre-application advice with respect to the erection of a two storey

detached dwelling in the rear garden of no.38 Stanwell Way – Considered inappropriate development that would be unlikely to be supported by officer recommendation.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: Regional Spatial Strategy 8 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy: 1 (Strengthening the network of Settlements) 13 (General sustainable development principles) and 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3; Housing Planning Policy Statement 9; Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Supplementary Planning Documents: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime and Parking. SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Northamptonshire County Council Highways Authority – has returned the

application with a pro forma sticker which counsels that advice be sought from its published highway standards. The County Highway Authority has, however, supplied a covering letter in which it states:-

“To comply with the requirements of the Highway Authority, the proposed building extension must be repositioned to ensure that a minimum clearance of 0.5m is provided between the face of any building or similar structure and the highway boundary. It must be ensured that any windows or doors are hung so as not to open outwards over the highway.”

2. Borough council of Wellingborough Landscape Officer –

“There is a low wall along the highway boundary this side of the road junction and there are a number of trees only two of which have been shown on the plan. The instructions in the application form in respect of tree information have not been followed correctly. It might be possible to retain the two young trees in the front garden, but they have not been plotted. The same applies to the back garden which sides onto Milton Road. If the property was to be extended as proposed almost up to the boundary it would be overbearing, out of character with the street scene and the retention

17

of some trees with additional landscape treatment to soften the effect would be important.”

3. Wellingborough Homes – no response received. 4. Neighbours – an objection has been received from the occupier of 36

Stanwell Way. The author cites the following reasons for opposing the application:

• Your letter dated 18 January 2011, and the online application details

both state “Side extension”. It is only after looking at the PDF’s of the hand drawn plans and application request that it becomes clear that the proposal is for a side extension and rear loft conversion across the whole width of both the original property and the new side extension. I had not fully viewed the plans due to work commitments but had asked my father to look at them in my absence. We were both under the impression that the proposal was minimal due to the “Side extension” description. It is only on later inspection that the full extent of the proposal and its impact become clear.

• The visual impact of the proposal from looking down Stanwell Way and

Milton Avenue: These alterations to the side and front aspects of the property will alter the property image from virtually all angles of sight and also the relationship it has with my own property. I feel this is not in keeping with the local design of properties and would also dwarf my own property.

• Following viewing the full plans it becomes clear that it is actually a

conversion into a house from a bungalow, as the loft conversion to the rear does not retain any original roof line and is not a dormer conversion as stated in the plans.

• It would appear according to the plans that a corner of the side

extension is virtually on the boundary between the property and the highway. As the side extension also has windows on this elevation, there is some concern to the suitability of such close proximity to the pathway running down the side of Milton Avenue and the safety of any pedestrians should the windows in this side elevation open over the pavement.

• I am extremely concerned over the four large windows to the rear of the

property and the sight line they have over my property. • How the large side extension and conversion to rear loft area will have

a visual impact from my property and will affect the light coming onto my property in the evening (as properties are west facing).

• I am concerned that the creation of such a large property will effect the

traffic and parking around the area. In the plans there appears to be no consideration of additional parking as would be required through developing this property from two to five bedrooms.

18

• The potential use of such a large extension making a two bedroom bungalow into a five bedroom house. Previous mention of running a childcare business from the property has been made.

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are: • Compliance with policy • Highway safety and parking • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity • Effect on neighbours amenities • Effect on visual amenity and character of the street scene Compliance with policy PPS 1, PPS 3, Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) and the SPD on Sustainable Design require new development to be of a high standard of design, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings, and not result in an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties or wider area; by reason of noise, loss of light or overlooking. The principle of residential development here accords with national policy. A recent change to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3: Housing has removed domestic gardens from the definition of previously-developed (‘brownfield’) land, and hence from the weight given to re-use of such sites. However, this does not amount to an embargo on their development. Proposals still fall to be considered in the light of all relevant objectives and policies, including the continuing encouragement in PPS 3 to make efficient use of land. Due to the scale, massing and layout of the proposed extension then it is opined that it would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of its surroundings and is thus contrary to Policy 13 and PPS 1. Other material aspects of this application and its relationship to other Local Development Framework policies are discussed in more depth in the following material matters sections of this report. Highway safety and parking Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that new development should provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards. Policy 13 (n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety. Concern has been expressed by the County Council regarding issues of the proposed building extension being situated so close to the highway boundary. Principally, the County Council considers the extension should be repositioned a minimum of 0.5m away from the highway boundary - whilst not specifically stated in their response, it is inferred that the reason for this is that the positioning of the building so close to the highway boundary would impair the visibility of highway users when turning into and out of the road junction. The author is minded to conclude that this would have some impact upon the current highway safety situation. More notably, the County Council request that the extension be repositioned to accommodate their request that all windows and doors (although no door to the side elevation is proposed) are hung so as not to open outwards over the highway.

19

The issue of inadequate parking and additional traffic has been raised by a local resident and this anxiety is acknowledged. The objector cites that by extending the property from two bedrooms into a five bed roomed house, then this will generate more traffic and pressure for additional parking spaces. However, it should be noted that the County Council Highway Authority has not objected to the proposed development on these grounds and points out the need for the scheme to comply with its standards. There is no evidence within the application to support the supposition that the extension will generate additional traffic or a need for more car parking space. The application site currently has provision for two off road parking spaces (inclusive of the garage) with an existing access, presumably to Highway Authority standards as they have not highlighted that it is not or required any further measures to improve the access or level car parking spaces. It is, therefore, considered that the proposed development has adequate space for off road car parking provision for both the existing and proposed development; however, due to the proximity of the proposal to the highway boundary then, for this reason, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy 13 (n) as the development could cause a danger to highway safety. Crime and disorder Policy 13 (b) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that development should seek to design out antisocial behaviour, crime and reduce the fear of crime by applying the principles of the Secured by Design scheme. The above policy is predated by adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning Out Crime’ which gives detail to the intent of spatial strategy policy. There are no pertinent crime and disorder issues relevant to the determination of the application. Biodiversity Policy 13 (o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, inter alia, states that development should conserve and enhance biodiversity. This Council’s Landscape Officer has identified that there are a number of trees on the site’s Milton Avenue side which are of some amenity value as they would serve to visually ‘soften’ the proposed extension’s impact on the character of the street scene. However, it is pointed out that not all trees have been plotted on the submitted plans and those that have are not correctly plotted. Whilst the trees are not of sufficient amenity value to warrant protection by a tree preservation order, they do provide a pleasant feature in the street scene which indirectly contributes to the locality’s open character. The proposed scheme would undoubtedly lead to their loss and this would be regrettable, but as a sole material consideration, their loss is not thought to be of sufficient magnitude to conclude that the local biodiversity would be significantly harmed to imply Policy 13 (o) is being contravened and this being a valid reason for refusal. However, the impact of the scheme on the character, appearance and setting is discussed later in this report. Effect on neighbours’ amenities Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that new development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area by reason of loss of light or overlooking.

20

An objection has been received from the adjoining property’s occupier who perceives that their living conditions would be detrimentally affected by the scheme. The living conditions which are perceived by the objector to be harmed by the proposed extension include a loss of privacy and light reception. In order to assess whether an extension will harm In order to ascertain whether any adverse impact is present with respect to the neighbouring property, known as no.36 Stanwell Way, SPG II is used; with a line drawn from the middle of the nearest ground floor rear habitable room window of the neighbouring dwelling and if this line dissects the extension for any of its length the loss of light is considered to be unacceptable. The line is drawn at 45 degrees for a two (or as in this case the creation of an upper floor) storey extension. The 45 degree line does intersect with the proposed extension. Whilst the rears of the properties face due north east, then little or no direct sunlight is likely to penetrate through the ground floor window and into the habitable room of no.36 Stanwell Well. It is accepted that the proposed extension will have a minor impact upon the light inundation levels of the effected property towards the later part of most days. The proposal introduces an upper floor to the rear of the property which not only spans the full width of the existing property, but further extends a further 4.5m in width to the north-western side. As part of the scheme, four windows are to be inserted along the full width of this upper floor rear elevation. Whilst the 45 degree line test referred to above, used as an aid in the decision making process in determining whether amenity is affected, is not intersected by the extension the site specific material considerations come into play. The affected property currently enjoys a large degree of privacy in its rear garden due to the fact that the two bungalows on either side do not presently have rear facing dormers in their roof spaces. As the aforementioned properties currently only have a single floor, then with permitted two metre high intervening boundary wall/fence then views into no.36 Stanwell Way’s rear garden are vastly curtailed. It is the opinion of the author that the introduction of four windows into a first floor extension at the rear of the application property would significantly impair the sense of privacy at the affected property. Furthermore, the proposal is also considered to be excessively overbearing and be visually harmful to the living conditions of the neighbour. Accordingly, the scheme is believed to be contrary to Policy 13 (l) as its size, massing and fenestration would result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties by reason of loss of light and overlooking, and should be refused on these grounds. Effect on visual amenity and character of the street scene The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (h) (o) says that new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings. This principle is also reflected in PPS 1 where in considering the design of buildings their layout and design should improve the character and quality of the area in which it is sited, and this concept is also reflected in the guidance contained in PPS 3 and that of the SPD: Sustainable Design. Meanwhile, the SPG II: Residential Extensions offers sound guidance on the design of dormers, side and two storey extensions. The street scene has been described above and it is considered that the proposed development would not respect or enhance its character or appearance. The intended extension would result in the deletion of an area of open garden land that is important to the visual quality of the locality because it is a significant contributory

21

factor to the open and pleasant appearance of the area at the junction of Stanwell Way and Milton Avenue. The introduction of an 11.3m wide and 5.4m high upper floor extension that would present an shear vertical face highly visible from Milton Avenue would be a highly intrusive and incongruous feature that would seriously harm the character and appearance of the immediate vicinity. The rear part of the extension is opined to be grossly out of keeping in terms of scale and form with the existing building as it would dominate its host building and radically alter the appearance of a single storey pitched roofed compact dwellinghouse into that of a substantive two storey house with a flat roof appearance. As the two storey side part of the extension will protrude beyond the established building line along this side of Milton Avenue it would be highly injurious to the pattern of development and the prevailing street scene. Furthermore, the character of the southern end of Milton Avenue is one of an open and spacious approach to the road junction. The two storey side extension would protrude right up to the highway / curtilage boundary and form a ‘pinch point’ in the vista down Milton Avenue, thus distorting and eroding the open and spacious character of the area. The appearance of a UPVC (presumably white in colour) cladded, two storey oddly designed gable end extension into the street scene would be highly intrusive and out of keeping with the locality and be injurious, from a public interest perspective, to the visual amenities of the wider public as it would be highly visible when approaching from the west along Stanwell Way. The proposed development is, therefore, considered to be contrary to Policy 13 (h) and (o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and SPG II because of it’s layout, massing, scale and external finishing would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, and should be refused on these grounds. Response to representations Criticism was expressed by an objector that the description of the development on the application form did not describe the scheme with any accuracy and was misleading. However, full drawings were submitted to demonstrate the proposal details and these were available in the public domain. This report has considered the scheme in its entirety and has not misinterpreted as solely a ‘side extension’. None material considerations • Hypothesised future intentions of the applicant to operate a childcare business

from the property Conclusion: The proposal would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area, presents a danger to highway safety, and would be injurious to the living conditions of its neighbours, the application is, therefore, recommended for refusal. RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would by reasons of its siting, layout, design and massing result in it being an incongruous extension to the existing building and not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. In the circumstances, the proposal contravenes Policy 13 (h and l) (General Sustainable Development Principles) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and inconsistent with the

22

provisions in Planning Policy Statements 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development); and 3 (Housing).

2. The proposal would by reasons of its siting and layout result in it being

prejudicial to highway safety, as it would protrude up to the highway boundary on a prominent road junction. In the circumstances, the proposal contravenes Policy 13 (n) (General Sustainable Development Principles) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

Policy 13 Development should meet the needs of residents and businesses without compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the same quality of life that the present generation aspires to. Development should: h) Be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings and be in accordance with the Environmental Character of the area; l) Not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking; Protect assets n) Not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety;

INFORMATIVE:

The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Numbers: Date Received: 31.10.01, 31.10.02 & 31.10.03 17th January 2011

23


WP/2011/0078/C

PROPOSAL:

Extensions and refurbishment to existing single storey infant school to provide a single integrated primary school. Demolition of existing junior school to create playing field and ancillary works to provide additional car parking.

LOCATION:

Hardwick Infant & Junior Schools Olympic Way Wellingborough NN8 3QA

APPLICANT:

MrAlex Martin Bovis Land Lease Consulting

This County Council application is brought before the Planning Committee as a consultee. PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described. Infant and Junior schools that are located on a sloping site. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Recorded planning history dating back to 1963. NATIONAL GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: Regional Spatial Strategy 8 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS): 1 (Strengthening the network of settlements) 13 (General sustainable development principles) 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: L2 (New community facilities) Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 9; Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport Supplementary Planning Documents: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime and Parking ASSESSMENT: The building works could have an effect on the surrounding neighbours, but the principle of investment into new school buildings is welcome. RECOMMENDATION: Raise no objection.

24

± 1:1,250

Scale:

ICT Services






Licence No 100018694. (2010)

LegendWP/2011/0078/C - Hardwick Infant & Junior Schools, Olympic Way, Wellingborough

WP/2011/0078/C

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM Planning Committee 16/03/2011 Report of the Head of Built Environment APPLICATION REF:

WP/2011/0043/F

PROPOSAL:

Vehicular access (lowering the pavement).

LOCATION:

Daisy Cottage, 51 High Street, Bozeat, Wellingborough. NN29 7NF

APPLICANT:

Mr Edward Cooney.

This application comes before the Planning Committee for determination due to an objection by the Parish Council citing highway and visual amenity concerns. PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The development property is located within the village of Bozeat and forms a development of 4 terraced properties constructed approximately 150 years ago; the dwellings share one pedestrian access. The proposal is as above and would involve the dropping of a stone kerb and would result in the loss of a low level stone built wall with some form of driveway. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: No Planning History. NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: North Northants CSS: 13 SPG: II, IV & V and Design SPD National: PPS 1, 3 SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Bozeat Parish Council –

“There was a mixed response from the Parish Council with some Councillors taking the view that we should not comment. However a number of concerns were raised by several other Councillors. These were:

1. This terrace of cottages is one of the most charming features of the centre of our village and this would be an inappropriate urbanisation of the setting of these cottages and impair the visual amenity of pedestrians. 2. This proposal would effectively reserve a parking space for this cottage at the expense of a roadside parking space currently available to all road users. There would not appear to be any new parking created by this proposal. 3. There would be no turning space and so cars would reverse out between parked cars into the High Street.

25

± 1:1,250

Scale:

ICT Services






Licence No 100018694. (2010)

LegendWP/2011/0043/F - Daisy Cottage, 51 High Street, Bozeat

WP/2011/0043/F

4. If this were to be granted then it is likely to trigger similar proposals along the terrace in order to protect the parking for each cottage. This would result in the loss of public parking in this part of the High Street. 5. A tree would be removed to create the space.

If this is granted we strongly recommend that the surface used should be porous because of problems with flooding in this part of the village.”

2. Conservation Officer -

“Even though this is not a CA, I think there is a strong case to resist this proposal under PPS1 paras 17-19 and CSS13.

This is an attractive terrace of vernacular cottages and the introduction of vehicular hardstandings (i.e. once you give it to one, you have to give it to all the terrace if applied for) would detrimentally affect the character of the area contrary to the above policies.”

3. Third Party Objectors -

Owners and Occupier of 49 High Street “We would like to object to this application for the following reasons:

1. Loss of character. 51 High street is one of a characterful terrace of 4 tithe cottages, originally built for the workers of one of Bozeat's shoe factories, they are herringbone stone and over 150 years old. Set back from the road, they have open gardens to each side of the central communal path which is integral to the appearance of the terrace. Converting the front garden of one of the cottages to a driveway would damage the overall impression of the terrace.

2. Disturbance to occupants. The front gardens are only just large enough to accept a car which would mean that each time a car was driven onto or off of the driveway it would cause a disturbance in particular to those living in 49 and 53 High Street. This disturbance would be in the form of engine revving, headlights and fumes.

3. Hampering right of way. There is a communal right of way for the residents of the cottages past the front of 51 High Street to get around to the rear of the property. This is also used for wheelie bins. A car parked on the proposed driveway could affect this.

4. Loss of parking. Parking can be difficult at times along the High Street and we understand why Mr Edward Cooney would like to secure a permanent position to park, however, creating a driveway in front of his property will effectively reduce parking space available as parking in front of a dropped kerb is prohibited.

Our tenant has expressed concern at this proposal. She also feels that turning the garden into a driveway would spoil the appearance of the terrace. We extensively renovated this cottage in 2006 whilst maintaining the original character of the property both inside and out. Many of our tenants have told us that the "sweet and cosy" terrace of houses was a significant factor in choosing to live here. We ourselves originally moved in to 51 High Street

26

when we first came to live in Bozeat, and the terrace and its character drew us here.”

and

“As tennant of 49 High Street, I feel I must object to the plans to allow off road parking to number 51. My objections are on the following grounds:

1. Health Hazard: As the style of the properties means a porch is not visually acceptable, the front door of the properties leads directly into the sole living room, I do not believe it is acceptable to have less than 3 feet between an exhaust pipe and my letter box and as such creation of a parking space would be detrimental to health.

2. Ruination of character properties: The creation of a car park on the front of a row of period cottages would ruin the astetics of what is a characterful terrace of 4 tithe cottages, originally built for the workers of one of Bozeat's shoe factories, they are herringbone stone and over 150 years old. Set back from the road, they have open gardens to each side of the central communal path which is integral to the appearance of the terrace. Converting the front garden of one of the cottages to a driveway would damage the overall impression of the terrace.

3. Wildlife and access: Allowing parking on the garden of 51 would mean the demolishing of an established hedge (and a haven for wildlife), the brick pathway thats is access to all properties.

4. Access: Given that the council 3 wheelie bins per house are kept to the right side of the property, one has to wonder if access will be maintained when a vehicle is parked on a patch of ground that isn't big enough for it.

4. Need: Where as I can appreciate the want for parking, as a road safety professional and DSA approved driving instructor I know that as it stands there is room for all residents vehicles to be parked outside the row of four cottages, providing people actually park properly and unselfishly. If the area were to be declared residents only this would solve all our issues. There is no physical need for the entire row of cottages to be ruined by off road parking.

5. Residents Parking: As parking across a lowered pavement is illegal and residents of 51 have two cars - where do they propose to park the other vehicle? I would suggest it is unfair to ruin the cottages, use up an area of curb/parking spaceby lowering it and THEN to use up a further space for additional vehicles.

6. Quality of life: The quality of life that is embedded in the properties -the cottages provide a haven a peace and tranquility, this would be destroyed along with the quality of life by noise pollution, air pollution and visual pollution should this proposal been approved.”

ASSESSMENT: Impact on neighbour’s amenities The 4 terraced properties that form the development at ground floor frontage consist of a habitable room, which appears to be to the dwelling’s main habitable room (living room) comprising of one relatively large window and one partially glazed door.

27

It is understood that generally and certainly in terms of no. 51 (attached neighbour), that this door opens directly into the living accommodation. It is therefore important to pay special consideration to any impacts to the front ground floor living accommodation especially given the uncommonly close relationship the terraced properties share, which is typified by their shared pedestrian access. Currently any passing traffic and vehicular parking is to the front of the dwellings and other than vehicles accessing and exiting the property opposite; no. 26 High Street, there are no vehicles that would face directly towards the row of properties. The low existing wall and trees would largely prevent any direct illumination of the front ground elevation and would be lessened due to the distances (20m) of vehicles using no. 26’s access and in any event is a circumstance that has existed for a significant period of time. It is considered that the proposed development, in periods of reduced light, whilst infrequent would result in excessive sudden and detrimental light pollution towards the front habitable rooms of all of the properties; including the host property, with the impacted property varying depending on the direction of access or exit and will spray the front elevation with direct beam from head/rear lights illuminating the front rooms. The distance from the vehicular lights and that of the affected windows would be a maximum of 3m and even less depending on the type of car. It is accepted that there exists a hedge to the boundary with no. 51 but this is vegetative only and would allow light proliferation and is therefore not considered to be of sufficient mitigation and it is not considered reasonable to expect neighbours to erect fencing to increase the screening. The proposal would therefore introduce harm by way of uninterrupted light pollution towards the neighbouring occupiers of the front rooms particularly in the evenings when such living accommodation is most commonly used, detrimental to the enjoyment of the room. Whilst there may be some increase in noise and smell associated with the proximity of the vehicles utilising the proposed access it is difficult to judge without the benefit of a proper assessment, whether any impacts would be detrimental. In the case of noise given the relatively quiet nature of modern vehicles it would not be expected that it would be any louder than the noise generated by the current users of the frontage parking or passing traffic. Nevertheless for the reason given above with respect to light pollution the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Planning Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Property and the Streetscene The row of cottages are located in a relatively historic part of the village, which was recently considered for special Conservation Area designation with no. 26 and the converted Chapel opposite giving benefit to the historic street scene. The cottages themselves date back approximately 150 years and despite some modern frontage additions (satellite dishes and wiring roof lights and single glazed windows) the frontage remains pleasing and attractive and largely unaltered. This attractiveness is demonstrated by the fairly unique herringbone facia brickwork, the red brick and fenestration detailing, the frontage appearance also benefits from its openness and soft landscaping set behind low level front boundary walling and is an example of an age where the motor vehicle was not King. The part of the wall that will be demolished is an historic section which compliments the historic visual integrity of the cottages. It is considered that the demolition of the wall, together with its resultant hard-paving and introduction of vehicles to the front scene would detrimentally harm the intrinsic special character and appearance of the small row of cottages contradictory to Planning Policy 13 (h, i and o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

28

Highway Implications The argument for the development would be to enable the occupiers of the premise to park a vehicle off-street and therefore take a car off the road to reduce parking congestion on street. In reality the proposal would result in the creation of one space but at the loss of one on-street space, therefore the proposal is not actually contributing to the alleviation of any parking congestion or to the benefit of highway safety and convenience. With the attachment of certain conditions the Highways Authority would be comfortable with the granting of the permission. Other Considerations The biodiversity is unaffected and the development does not result in an increased potential for crime and the principles of non-discrimination have been followed through-out. Other than the loss of the visual amenity the front space brings the giving over of the space to parking is not considered to be detrimental to the dwellings use of the space for outside enjoyment given its open and un-private nature. Response to Neighbours Representations The comments received with respect to the adverse impacts on the visual character of the cottages and the area are considered above and are found to be sound forming a reason for refusal. The impact to health in light of the proximity to an exhaust pipe in terms of noise and emissions are not considered to be a justifiable reason for refusal although the loss to amenity (light pollution) is considered reasonable. There are not considered to be any notable loss to biodiversity. Any disruption to right of way access involving the pedestrian access is not considered to be of a material planning consideration. Conclusion After careful consideration and with the lack of highway benefits attributed the proposal is considered to be harmful to the amenities of neighbours due to the significant potential for light pollution to neighbours principal habitable rooms and the deleterious impact on the appearance and character of the cottages and the surroundings. RECOMMENDATION: Refuse. 1. Due to the resulting proximity and orientation, in relation to neighbours front

habitable room windows, of any vehicle using the proposed access the proposed development is considered to be detrimentally harmful to the enjoyment of the property in terms of light pollution and is therefore not in accordance with Policy 13 (l) (General Sustainable Development Principles) and the advice contained in PPS3.

2. The proposal would, by reason of its location, be detrimental to the setting of the row of cottages and also to the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy 13 (h, i and o): General Sustianable Development Principles of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and conflicting with the advice in PPS3.

29

Policy 13 Development should meet the needs of residents and businesses without compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the same quality of life that the present generation aspires to. Development should: Raise standards h) Be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respects and enhances the character of its surroundings and is in accordance with the Environmental Character of the area; i) Create a strong sense of place by strengthening the distinctive historic and cultural qualities and townscape of the towns and villages through its design, landscaping and use of public art; Protect assets l) Not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking; o) Conserve and enhance the landscape character, historic landscape designated built environmental assets and their settings, and biodiversity of the environment making reference to the Environmental Character Assessment and Green Infrastructure Strategy.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: No Drawing Numbers 02 February 2011

30


WP/2011/0008/O

PROPOSAL:

Construct terrace of four houses and associated works (outline application with all matters reserved for future consideration).

LOCATION:

Land adjacent to The Boot, 35 High Street, Wollaston, Wellingborough. NN29 7QE

APPLICANT:

E B Services.

This application comes before the Planning Committee for determination due to an objection by Wollaston Parish Council accompanied by a Site Viewing request and the level of third party objections PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site is located within the parish of Wollaston and is currently utilised as a pub garden in association with The Boot Inn that fronts High Street, access to the site would be proposed from Rotten Row. The application is in Outline with all matters reserved although the description has indicated an intention to provide 4 houses and was submitted with an indicative plan showing 4 no. 2 bed terraced properties and an illustrative layout with 4 remote parking spaces and access shown as being opposite the access to a row of garages. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: WP/1992/0220 Site for erection of single detached dwelling with garage

(Outline) – refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy RES8 and GEN4(A) of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and Policies RH5, RG1(1), RG4 and RG20 of the Wellingborough Rural Area and Urban Fringe Local Plan.

2. It is considered that visibility to and from any access point along the road frontage will be severely restricted and therefore the development would create a source of danger to other road users.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: North Northants Core Spatial Strategy: 13 and 14 Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: G4: Villages; G6: Open Countryside SPG: II, IV and V and Design SPD National: PPS 1, 3 and 5

31

± 1:1,250

Scale:

ICT Services






Licence No 100018694. (2010)

LegendWP/2011/0008/O - Land adjacent to The Boot, 35 High Street, WollastonDescription

Applicants Property

Application Site

WP/2011/0008/O

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Conservation Officer -

“I know this is Outline, but as they say in the D&A that the need for the development is tied to the viability of the adjacent Grade II listed Boot Inn, then I think we need to be looking at either a Condition or preferably a Unilateral S106 Agreement to identify a specific sum for specific refurbishment work, etc to the building. We did this (by Condition) successfully with the Tudor Gate, Finedon. As far as the build is concerned, it is OK.”

2. Joint Planning Unit -

“Layout: The local context is of built form fronting directly onto the street, either hard up against the road, or set back behind a small front garden and wall. This scheme seeks to set the buildings well back behind a high wall which does not reflect the local grain. We appreciate that applicants are seeking to retain the stone wall, but wonder if it could be reduced in height and retained as a front garden boundary wall, with pedestrian accesses within it to each front door (much like 98 High Street, Wollaston). This would better reflect the local character, give more street presence to the built form, and allow longer gardens.

We accept that remote parking is probably the only solution here, but this is not surveilled - we suggest that the end house should have windows and door on the side (much like 6 Rotten Row) to look over the parking area.

We welcome the low key entrance in the wall and the avoidance of large visibility splays, an approach that would be supported by Manual for streets guidance (para 7.8.3) which states that "The absence of wide visibility splays at private driveways will encourage drivers to emerge more cautiously" .

Appearance: The houses are not locally distinct and there is no contextual analysis to support the design. We would suggest that they look at the best local examples to develop the houses. The porches look out of character - locally they tend either not to have a porch at all and sometimes to have recessed front doors, or to have very simple flat canopy porches. The windows have timber lintels and small paned casements. They should consider the use of natural stone. We welcome the chimneys however, and the use of the tunnelback entrance. A higher quality end elevation is required where it overllos (sic) the pub courtyard which should include fenestration. A more contemporary approach could also be appropriate here, if well designed, and so we would encourage pre-app discussions at the reserved matters stage to discuss this.

Sustainable Construction: For a development of this nature Policy 14 b of CSS requires that the scheme demonstrate:

32

* The development incorporates sustainable construction techniques and energy efficiency

* Provision for waste reduction/recycling * Provision for water efficiency and water recycling

However if in principle you are minded to approve the application the following condition would assist in these matters being dealt with prior to REM application.

General Sustainability Measures: Prior the commencement of development a Sustainability Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authorities. The statement shall demonstrate how the development would be efficient in the use of energy, water and materials. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.

or

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of sustainability measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall demonstrate how the development would be efficient in the use of energy, water and materials. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that measures to make the development sustainable and efficient in the use of energy, water and materials are included in the development and to comply with policy 14 of the NNCSS and Supplementary Planning Document Sustainable Construction and Design.”

3. Housing Strategy -

“As the planning application is for 4 dwellings this places it under the threshold that requires an affordable housing contribution, therefore housing strategy are not requesting for a contribution to be made in regards to affordable housing.”

4. Northamptonshire County Council (Flood and Water Management) –

“Thank you for notification of the above planning application. You may wish to check the location and orientation of the planned soakaway to ensure that it will be as effective as possible, as I cannot see it marked on the plans. With respect to SUDS, schedule 3 of the Floods and Water Management Act 2010 has not yet come into effect and is unlikely to do so until April 2012. As such we are unable to provide a full consultation service at this point.

It is important to consider a SUDS scheme before any construction on the site begins. It is also essential to supervise construction of a SUDS scheme as it is costly and difficult to rectify any mistakes made. For further guidance please consult the SUDS manual (Ciria, 2007). If the developer intends for the SUDS scheme to be adopted by NCC in the future, it must meet the requirements of our guidelines. These have not yet been published, however they are likely to reflect those of Cambridge City Council.”

33

5. Northamptonshire County Council (Archaeological Advisor) -

“The application site is located on the west side of Wollaston High Street, just north of the junction with Rotten Row. It lies almost equidistant between the two medieval focal points of settlement in Wollaston, the motte and bailey to the north and Hall Manor to the south. The site itself is just outside the historic settlement area, but possible earthworks which may reflect occupation are recorded to the north and west. Romano-British and Saxon activity is recorded to the south of the site, and Neolithic flint artefacts have been found to the east of the High Street. The potential exists for remains of archaeological interest to survive on the site.

PPS5, HE8.1 stresses the importance of pre application discussions in order to assess the significance of potential heritage assets. However as no pre application discussions have taken place regarding this development the guidance suggests that the local planning authority should assist the applicant in identifying such assets at the earliest opportunity. In light of the proximity of known significant archaeological remains, evaluation in the form of trial trenching needs to be undertaken in advance of determination.

The information from the evaluation would have the potential to identify if any areas of national significance were present within the development area that would form a constraint on development. Current policy and guidelines indicate that this information should be provided as part of the planning application in order to allow the LPA to make a balanced and informed decision as to the archaeological potential of the area.

I therefore recommend that further information in the form of an archaeological field evaluation is provided by the applicant before the determination of this application. This will enable us to ascertain the existence and the state of preservation of any buried remains, in order to assess the importance of the site and the impact of the development as per PPS 5 Planning for the Historic Environment.”

6. Northamptonshire County Council (Highways) -

“Vehicle to vehicle visibility of 2m x the extremities of the site and pedestrian to vehicle of 2m x 2m above a height of 0.6m must be provided and maintained on both sides of the point of access into the site. Any land in advance of the visibility splays is to be suitably hard-paved.

Adequate facilities must be provided to enable all vehicles using the site to turn around so as to enter and leave in a forward direction but, because of the limited width of Rotten Row and restricted position and size of the turning facility, it is not evident that this manoeuvre can be effected safely and effectively. Suitable evidence, in the form of swept path analysis or similar techniques, must be submitted to demonstrate that adequate turning facilities can be provided.

The vehicular crossing must be formed, so far as practicable, in accordance with the specification of NCC using up-stand kerbs or granite setts to provide a drainage channel on the highway boundary.

34

Adequate provision must be made to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water onto the highway. To prevent loose materials being carried onto the highway at least the first 5m of the driveway from the highway boundary should be hard-paved.

Refuse collection aspects of the proposal should be discussed with the appropriate officer of the Borough Council of Wellingborough.”

7. Environment Agency –

“The Environment Agency has assessed these proposals as having a relatively low environmental risk. We therefore have no further comments on the current applications, as submitted.”

8. Third Party Objections -

20 Rotten Row

“I am writing in objection to this planning permission being granted on health and safety grounds. This are of the village of Wollaston will not be able to cope with an increase in a density of the traffic, and parking. I will now discuss these issues in more detail.

Many pedestrians use Rotten Row for walking their dogs, taking their children to school, jogging etc and regularly vehicles drive at excessive speeds up and down Rotten Row, and at times this is very dangerous. This risk will increase if more vehicles are using this very narrow road which does not have pavements for pedestrians to use.

My property has off road parking and I find it very difficult to slowly edge my car off the drive, and onto Rotten Row, in between vehicles going up and down the road. This will become more difficult if more cars and other vehicles will be entering or exiting a new area of property in the vicinity.

Visitors to the individuals, who will live in the proposed application, will have nowhere to park as Rotten Row already has to cope with individuals who cannot park in The Boot Pub car park and High Street.

Rotten Row is the width of an average lorry, and is impossible for two vehicles to pass each other without one having to pull onto verges, driveways or on parking areas that belong to householders.

Another issue that is a problem with the proposed application is an issue with the drainage system. At the present time, the drainage system in Rotten Row often has blockages, and as a result Anglian water have to be asked to unblock drains on a regular. A proposed increase in the population, in this area, would intensify this problem”

22 Rotten Row

“I would like to make the strongest objection possible against the proposed development of 4 terraced houses affronting Rotten Row, Wollaston. My Cottage is adjacent to the proposed development and I would like to cite the following reasons for my objection:

35

Parking: • There remains an existing problem with parking in the area around and

along Rotten Row, with cars parked along the verge at the top, in front of the pub, along past the shop, in the garage’s area and next to my front garden. Parking on this scale narrows down the road, meaning it is permanently a single track lane. My cottage sits directly on the lane and parking in front of my house although not illegal, invades privacy and causes an access nuisance to my residence.

• Proposed Development: From the plans that have been submitted for

the development, it’s noted that four spaces have been allocated for the houses. With four, two bedroom terrace houses featuring in this proposal, it’s not unlikely that 8 cars would need accommodating; exacerbating an already frustrating problem for the local residents.

Traffic Volume, Access and Pedestrians: • Rotten Row is already used as a ‘shortcut’ from the A509 one way

village entry into the heart of the village. Given the current parking conditions in the lane the proposed development would only serve to amplify this.

• Due again to the restricted nature of the lane and parking along the

house line, emergency vehicle access is also restricted, with complaints having been made previously on the additional risks this poses for residents requiring medical attention of fire assistance.

• Rotten Row does not have any pedestrian walkways. It is frequently

used by residents, dog walkers and mothers with toddlers. Increased traffic and cars pulling out from driveways, garages [given the access location on the plans there would be an effective cross-roads to the lane] – all this only serves to heighten the danger of accidents along the entire length of the lane.

Horseshoe Cottage front garden overlooked: • The Front garden of Horseshoe Cottage is currently not overlooked. The

garden is small and were the proposed development to go ahead privacy would only be retained by erecting a more robust fence between the garden and road. This would alter the character of the garden and have a detrimental effect on light.

Housing Character: • The composition of housing around the proposed site is made up of very

old, historic cottages. Horseshoe Cottage dates to ~1790 and the pub itself is older and thatched, with the suggested site being the garden of this pub. Having reviewed the architects plans, these new starter home properties will not fit-in, in character, design, or plot size; let alone complement the historical properties that exist in the area. The area is currently well proportioned but this proposed development will give the impression of neighbourhood being completely out-of-character, with the new builds serving as a visual blemish.

Housing Density:

36

• If the proposal were to go ahead, I have concerns that the Pub itself may be converted to further housing which brings concerns over the density of housing in the area in the future. This development in the centre of the village could pave the way to continued development down the adjacent side of Rotten Row, with associated concerns.

Subsidence: • Horseshoe Cottage has suffered from substantial subsidence in the last

two decades, this has led to considerable reworking of the brickwork and in the early 1990’s the house was completely underpinned in a spell of lengthy and costly work. The structural engineers cited the trees opposite the lane as being the reason for this as the lane’s houses are build on a clay substrata prone to heave. I therefore question the suitability of this land for further residential development.

I’d appreciate if these objections and concerns would be considered in decision making process, and dearly hope these form part of a solid case why this proposal is inappropriate for this area.” 15 High Street

“Planning for this site was rejected by your goodselves some years ago. The reasons as I see them remain but are much worse. Rotten Row gets very congested as people in the vicinity have no where else to park. The proposed access is on a very narrow part of Rotten Row bearing in mind it is one of the main routes into the village. I would also like to point out that the land proposed for this project carries on from the Boot car park with room for only 3 cars at most. When the delivery lorry comes it blocks the road completely. Some of this land would be better used to increase parking facilities at the pub. At the moment patrons are blocking my driveway at both ends of my drive even using my drive at times. There is a real problem here and its getting worse all the time. I notice from the plans there is just one parking space per house which is only going to make matters even worse. Therefore I would ask you to carefully consider my objections very carefully for the people who live in this area who like myself have problems with the increasing amount of traffic.”

ASSESSMENT: Principle of Development Saved Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan reads as follows:

POLICY G4

IN THE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AND RESTRICTED INFILL VILLAGES DEVELOPMENT WILL BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION, SUBJECT TO MORE SPECIFIC POLICIES REGARDING INDIVIDUAL SITES AREAS OR USES, IF IT:

1. IS WITHIN THE VILLAGE POLICY LINES, AS DEFINED ON THE

PROPOSALS MAP; 2. WILL NOT, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR CUMULATIVELY WITH

OTHER PROPOSALS, HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE

37

SIZE, FORM, CHARACTER AND SETTING OF THE VILLAGE AND ITS ENVIRONS.

Wollaston is designated a Limited Development Village in the local plan. The development site is not within the village policy line and therefore falls down on point 1 and therefore contrary to the policy regardless of any design merits the development may have. As such the proposal site is located within the Open Countryside and is therefore also considered under saved Policy G6 (see below extract) of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan:

POLICY G6 DEVELOPMENT IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE WILL NOT BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION UNLESS: 1. IT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED OTHER THAN IN THE OPEN

COUNTRYSIDE; 2. IT INVOLVES NO MORE THAN A LIMITED NUMBER OF

BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES AND THESE ARE SMALL SCALE; 3. IT INCLUDES LANDSCAPE SCREENING, AS APPROPRIATE,

AND ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ARE DESIGNED, SITED AND OF MATERIALS TO MINIMISE ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE INTRINSIC CHARACTER OF THE COUNTRYSIDE;

4. IT WILL NEITHER INDIVIDUALLY NOR CUMULATIVELY WITH

EXISTING OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, RESULT IN A LOCAL PROLIFERATION OF NEW BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES.

Considering the development in relation to the above policy it is considered to be in conflict with points 1, 2 and 4 above. There are very specific circumstances where a housing development may be permissible; such circumstances have recently been seen in Bozeat and Little Harrowden where exception sites have been identified to provide a specific local housing requirement. The proposal is not presented as an exception site and the supporting text submitted with the application does not justify a relaxation of the above prevailing policy, in fact no mention is made that the development does contradict local planning policy. Furthermore, the Coalition Government has recently revised PPS3 which has introduced a change pertinent to applications of this type. Garden land has been removed from the definition of brownfield land. In principle, removing the brownfield status of gardens does not prevent their development, the key issues remain whether they lie within a settlement in a sustainable location and that development is appropriate in design terms. The changes do not, therefore, rule out development of gardens but are intended to enable councils to protect gardens from inappropriate development by rejecting planning applications for development that is objected to by the local community and spoils the character of neighborhoods’. These issues will be considered below. Whilst the site may not be in the form of residential garden it shares the same characteristics and appearance as a garden and the design statement submitted acknowledges that it is currently “recreational amenity land” and therefore is

38

considered to be greenfield in the spirit of PPS3 amendments. The land is certainly not considered redundant as described in the Design and Access Statement; the only justification offered to disregard the policy is that the sale of the site would allow for the pub establishment to survive the turbulent economic times, this alone is not considered to out-weigh the policy stance. In fact it is argued that a garden to any pub is an asset and an attraction to patrons and any loss may compromise its continuance as a community function rather than preserve it. Loss to neighbours amenities As the proposal is in outline only it is not possible to give an exacting indication as to the impact on neighbours, however the submitted illustrative plans would suggest that with careful positioning of windows and the building’s proximity and orientation to surrounding dwellings that development could reasonably be accommodated on site without harm to neighbours. Impact on the Appearance and Setting of Area Whilst there may be some concern with respect to the architectural merit, design and external appearance of the submitted drawings these are indicative only and are therefore not considered as part of this application. The massing and scale of the development in the context of the site area and its surroundings however is pertinent for consideration and fundamental to the principle of development. This is of special importance given the proximity of the development to the Grade II listed Public House. The important view and largely unaltered historic view save for a low brick wall, some hardstanding and utility poles is from the junction of Rotten Row and High Street with the setting of the listed building being complimented by the historic stone outbuilding and low stone wall to the rear and set against a vegetative back drop of a row of mostly deciduous trees. This view is more than a glimpse and is set in a prominent position in the village receiving a large amount of passers-by creating a pleasing and historic vista set against the context of the listed building and the curtilage listed outbuilding, which is also complimented by the rear openness the pub garden brings. The proposal would introduce a modern built form to the rear detrimental to the historic setting of the Listed Building resulting in the building appearing cramped and surrounded detrimental to the visual setting of the protected public house. The development by virtue of its position, proximity to the Listed Building and its resultant massing would be contrary to policy 13 (h and i) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. Highway Issues The coalition government have recently made amendments to PPG13: Transport where it has removed any maximum provision of parking provision for a development. The principle behind this is that the planning authority should consider the necessary provision of parking in the context of the sites location and situational aspects. The submitted illustrative plan shows that 4 spaces can be accommodated off-street to provide for 4 no. 2 bed houses, traditionally 6-8 spaces have been considered appropriate by the Council for this type of village development. Rotten Row is fairly narrow in nature and whilst passing of vehicles is possible this depends on the width of the vehicle and also the speed at which the vehicles are travelling, it is not possible to park 2 vehicles either side of the road in alignment and retain the convenience of the highway. There is no pedestrian footpath lining rotten

39

row and little opportunity for pedestrians to use the verges, whilst the traffic is not heavy it is not light either and serves as a ‘rat-run’ connecting London Road to High Street and despite the nearby garages there appears to be pressure on on-street parking. The Officer’s site visit was carried out at approximately 10.30am and at that time there were 2 vehicles parked on street; presumably in the evenings the pressure for on-street parking is intensified. It is considered therefore that any development should be careful not to add to the existing pressures on the Rotten Row highway. Whilst the highways authority considers that an access could be appropriately constructed to maintain highway safety this is providing that vehicles are able to access and egress the site in a forward gear. The illustrative drawings have failed to demonstrate that 4 dwellings could be provided on site and allow for forward access and exit. It is also opined that given the nature of the immediate road network that any development which accesses onto Rotten Row should provide sufficient off-street parking so that the highway safety and convenience problems are not further exacerbated. The indicative drawings show that 4 spaces only can be provided for a development of 4 dwellings this provision at this location and in a village with poor transport links is not considered acceptable and would result in harm to the safety and convenience of the Highway; Rotten Row. The Highways Authority has been silent on the issue of parking provision. Amenity Space The garden provision associated with the development properties are illustrated as enjoying approximately 11m of garden length and widths of at least 4.5m, this is considered appropriate provision for a small family home, especially as the permitted development rights could be controlled in any subsequent application. Other Considerations The biodiversity is unaffected and the principles of non-discrimination have been followed through-out. Whilst there may be concerns with respect to effectively planning out crime with regard surveillance of the car park, the car park would be reasonably private and could be gated and receive partial surveillance; this would be considered in any reserved matters application. Response to Representations The issues pertaining to drainage and subsidence are not considered to be of material planning consideration. The concerns regarding the lack of parking provision on site in the context of the existing congested and narrowness of Rotten Row and the detrimental impact on the historic environment are considered to be well founded and are discussed above and form reasons for refusal. The concern with regard the overlooking and possible loss of light towards surrounding dwellings is also discussed above although in this instance is not supported in a refusal reason. Given the location of the site and its proximity to previously discovered remains Northamptonshire County Council (Archaeological Advisor) above has identified the failure of the applicant to engage in pre-application advice and perform and submit an appropriate archaeological evaluation, the presence of such assets may have a bearing on the principle of development therefore failure to provide the necessary report results in an additional reason for refusal.

40

Conclusion In light of the foregoing the development in principle is unsound lying out side of the village policy line; the development has also been found to be detrimental to the setting of the Listed Public House and to the safety and convenience of the local highway network. Any merits of the development in terms of lack of impact on neighbours and the argument offered with regards the raising of funds to improve the pubs cash flow is not considered to out-weigh the policy or other Listed Building setting objections. Refusal is recommended. RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

1. The proposed development is outside of the village policy line of Wollaston and therefore in the abscene of any special circumstances is in conflict with Saved Policy: G4.1 (Villages) and does not conform to Saved Policy G6 (The Open Countryside) of the Borough Council of Wellingborough Local Plan.

2. The deficient off-street parking provision proposed (4 spaces) and the failiure to demonstrate that it would be possible to accomodate space for vehicles to access and egress the site in a forward gear is considered detrimental to the safety and convenience of the highways and therefore contrary to Policy 13 (d and n) (General Sustainable Development Principles) and the advice contained in PPG13: Transport.

3. The proposed development as a result of its proximity, orientation and massing would be detrimental to the setting of the Listed Public House and also to the character and appearance of the area contray to Policy 13 (h, i and o): General Sustainable Development Principles of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and conflicting with the advice in PPS3 and PPS5.

4. Due to the location of the site and its proximity to known archaeological remains there exists a significant potential for heritage assets, the applicant/agent has failed to provide an appropriate evaluation to determine the existence or not of archaelogical remains. The application is considered contradictory with National Policy PPS5.

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

41

GRENDON; HARDWICK; IRCHESTER; ISHAM; LITTLE HARROWDEN; LITTLE IRCHESTER; MEARS ASHBY; ORLINGBURY; SYWELL EXCLUDING THE OLD VILLAGE; AND WILBY Limited development and restricted infill villages are mutually distinguished in other policies below, notably H2 and H3 (housing) POLICY G6 DEVELOPMENT IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE WILL NOT BE GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION UNLESS: 1. IT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED OTHER THAN IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE; 2. IT INVOLVES NO MORE THAN A LIMITED NUMBER OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES AND THESE ARE SMALL SCALE; 3. IT INCLUDES LANDSCAPE SCREENING, AS APPROPRIATE, AND ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ARE DESIGNED, SITED AND OF MATERIALS TO MINIMISE ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE INTRINSIC CHARACTER OF THE COUNTRYSIDE; 4. IT WILL NEITHER INDIVIDUALLY NOR CUMULATIVELY WITH EXISTING OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, RESULT IN A LOCAL PROLIFERATION OF NEW BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES; 5. WHEN IT INVOLVES A USE WHICH IS PRINCIPALLY TO SERVE THE TOWN, IT IS LOCATED IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO EXISTING OR PROPOSED URBAN DEVELOPMENT; AND 6. IT WILL NOT RESULT IN THE URBAN GROWTH OF NORTHAMPTON TO ITS EAST OR WELLINGBOROUGH TO ITS WEST. Policy 13 Development should meet the needs of residents and businesses without compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the same quality of life that the present generation aspires to. Development should: Meet needs d) Have a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards; Raise standards h) Be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respects and enhances the character of its surroundings and is in accordance with the Environmental Character of the area; i) Create a strong sense of place by strengthening the distinctive historic and cultural qualities and townscape of the towns and villages through its design, landscaping and use of public art; Protect assets n) Not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety; o) Conserve and enhance the landscape character, historic landscape designated built environmental assets and their settings, and biodiversity of the environment making reference to the Environmental Character Assessment and Green Infrastructure Strategy.

42

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the date shown: Drawing Number: Date Received: 316-00 & 316-P-01 (P1) 27 January 2011

43


WP/2011/0055/F

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 3no. three bedroom dwelling houses (revised application following the refusal of WP/2010/0501/F)

LOCATION:

3 School RoadI rchester Wellingborough NN29 7AW

APPLICANT:

Mr Gerald Coppin

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination due to an objection being received from the Parish. PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As described. The proposed terrace is two and a half storeys high with dormer windows in the front and rear roof planes. The intended car parking for the plots is by way of integral garaging and one off-road space infront of the garage door for each dwelling. The application site is a bungalow located close to the centre of the village. Adjacent to the south is a detached property which is a Post Office with residential accommodation, on the northern side of the site is a pair of semi-detached dwellings and on the opposite side of School Road is a car park and a group of bungalows. There are no car parking restrictions in this part of School Road, but the empirical evidence at the time of Officer Inspection was that there was heavy demand for on-street car parking at this particular location. The application site is separated from the road by a wide grass verge which slopes up from the road and contains a footpath. The incline results in the application site being at a noticeably higher ground level than the road and footpath, and in addition the landform on that side of the highway rises up gently from the north to the south towards the Post Office on the corner. This application differs in the following ways from the scheme that was refused by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 12 January 2011:

• the height of the proposed terrace is 240mm lower than the previous scheme • deletion of the dormers on the front elevation • average rear garden lengths of 10m, 11.2m and 10.8m • driveway lengths, at the mid-point of the vehicular accesses, of 4.9m, 5.2m

and 6.1m RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: BW/1978/0233 Single storey dwelling with garage/carport - conditionally approved BW/1978/0568 Erection of bungalow and garage - conditionally approved

44

± 1:1,250

Scale:

ICT Services






Licence No 100018694. (2010)

LegendWP/2011/0055/F - 3 School Road, Irchester

WP/2010/0501/F Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 3 no. three bedroom town houses refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 13 (a) of the North Northamptonshire Core

Spatial Strategy because the illustrated amenity spaces are inadequate to allow for comfortable residential occupation.

2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core

Spatial Strategy and Policy G4 (2) of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. The development would have a detrimental impact on the character of the street scene because of its incongruous design and mass and it would also overdevelop the available plot.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY, NATIONAL GUIDANCE AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS/GUIDANCE: Regional spatial Strategy 8 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy: 1 (Strengthening the network of Settlements) 13 (General sustainable development principles) and 14 (Energy efficiency and sustainable construction) 15 (Sustainable housing provision) Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan: G4 (Development within the limited development and restricted infill villages) Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3; Housing Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Statement 9; Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Planning Policy Statement 5; Planning for the Historic Environment Supplementary Planning Documents: Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Development and Implementation Principles, Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime and Parking. SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: 1. Irchester Parish Council – objects to the application for the following reasons:

• problematic access • overdevelopment of the site • not in character with the rest of the dwellings

2. Northamptonshire County Council Highways Authority – has returned the

application with a pro forma sticker which counsels that advice be sought from its published highway standards. The County Highway Authority has, however, supplied a covering letter which recommends the following -

• the existing vehicular access to be modified as require and the new

vehicular crossing to be constructed in accord with Northamptonshire County Council standards

• first 5m of the driveways in the rear of the public highway to be hard surfaced to prevent loose material being carried onto the public highway

• the front faces of the garages must be set back no less than 5.5m from the highway

3. Northamptonshire County Council Sustainable Drainage – no comment

received.

45

4. Northamptonshire County Council Archaeological Advisor – provides a brief historical context of the site and opines that there is the potential for archaeological remains to survive on the site, albeit truncated by modern development. The Advisor identifies that the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on any archaeological deposits that could be present, but, under the circumstances it does not represent an overriding constraint. A condition for an archaeological programme of works in accordance with the provisions of PPS 5 is suggested.

5. Borough Council of Wellingborough Environmental Protection Service – no

comment received. 6. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Sustainable Design – offers the

following design advice: • nothing to indicate that the local environment has influenced the design

and a scheme of this nature which should look for examples of good design to emulate

• integral garages result in a lack of an active frontage and they are not of local character

• suggestion of a design that would delete the porches and incorporate details such as chimneys and bay windows

• the density of and form of the proposal is out of character by being out of scale and rhythm with the low density surrounding post war development. Suggestion that a pair of semi-detached dwellings would be more appropriate.

7. Borough Council of Wellingborough Design and Conservation Officer –

agrees with the comments of the Joint Planning Unit. The rational would support a refusal based on the provisions of Planning Policy Statement 1 and core spatial strategy policy 13. The Design and Conservation Officer goes on to state that the scheme is overmassed as a result of the development being 225mm higher than neighbouring building to fit in the extra half storey. The datum should be the gutter/eaves line. Suggests the imposition of conditions regarding doors, garage doors and windows if the development is approved.

8. Northamptonshire Police Crime prevention Design Advisor -

‘Due to the central location of the site crime prevention should be a fundamental element of the design. There is evidence of criminal damage in the form of graffiti in the area and incidence of anti-social behaviour. Northamptonshire Police is unable to provide specific comment to the proposed application due to a lack of information regarding crime prevention at this time. In the interest of the security and quality life of future occupants of the development I would strongly suggest that the following informatives/conditions are included, which if implemented will reduce the likelihood of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour occurring. This is in accordance with policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire core spatial strategy. * The Living room being at the back of the house means that there is no active surveillance from the owner on to the car parking area.

46

* The Garage door could give easy access to the dwelling and as such the garage door should either be tested to LPS1175 or should be fitted with a sold secure garage defender * The garage door should be protected with anti-graffiti paint * All Entry/Exit doors to the houses should meet Pas 23/24 2007 or equivalent standard, which is the minimum requirement for door security (as per Secured by Design guides). * Windows should meet BS 7950 standard, which is the minimum requirement for window security all ground floor glazing should be laminated to 6.4mm. * The rear gardens that share a rear access alleyway should be fitted with lockable gates. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on this application it goes a long way to show that community safety will be taken in to account and that the planning department recognise that anti-social behaviour and crime is not only a police issue but a partnership responsibility. ‘

9. Neighbours – objections have been received from the occupiers of 5 and 12

School Road 2 Wollaston Road and the writers cites the following reasons for opposing the application:

• understanding that there is a need for to accommodate with the growth in

population • development is not appropriate for the historic village of Irchester and it

would look out of character and overdeveloped • loss of light • loss of privacy • highway danger due to the access being close to the junction which has

difficulties with existing levels of traffic including children from the nearby schools. Road near the junction is already used for parking by people who want to access the village facilities. Double yellow lines for 35m at the junction

• precedent for similar applications which will result in Irchester not being a village with so many three storey houses

• there is nothing wrong with the existing bungalow • detrimental effect on view

ASSESSMENT: The material planning considerations are: • Compliance with policy • Crime and disorder • Biodiversity • Effect on neighbours amenities • Archaeology • Amenity space • Highway safety and parking • Effect on visual amenity and character of the street scene Compliance with policy Policy 1 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS) states that in the rural areas development will take place on sites within village boundaries, subject

47

to criteria to be set out in development plan documents. Policy 15 (f) of the NNCSS goes on that in order to deliver sustainable residential communities higher densities will be sought particularly in the locations most accessible on foot, cycle and public transport, although increases in density should not detract from the traditional streetscape and built form where this is worthy of safeguarding. Saved Policy G4 of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan defines Irchester as a restricted infill village. This policy states that development will be granted planning permission if it is within the policy line and if it would not have an adverse effect on the size, form, character and setting of the village and its environs. Upon the face of it, the general principle of residential redevelopment on the site could be acceptable; however, the more specific aspects of Policy G4 and other NNCSS policies are examined below. Crime and disorder Policy 13 (b) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that development should seek to design out antisocial behaviour, crime and reduce the fear of crime by applying the principles of the Secured by Design scheme. The above policy is predated by adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning Out Crime’ which gives detail to the intent of spatial strategy policy. The comments of the Police are noted and the North Northants JPU opines that an integral garaging arrangement will result in a less active frontage, which is not recommended by the Planning Out Crime SPG. It is considered the inclusion of integral garages in the scheme would not materially affect the amount of activity on the site frontage or in the street beyond. However, the Police have identified that not all of the ground floors are intended for habitable accommodation and the scheme, as designed, would not achieve its maximum potential overlooking of the site frontage which could increase naturally visibility and have a positive effect on crime prevention. It is thought however, that the site is located close to the centre of the village and its position would ensure it would be in a situation where it would be near to the most active part of the village and to cite lack of an active frontage and insufficient natural visibility as a reason for refusal would not be sound. There are no other pertinent crime and disorder issues relevant to the determination of the application. Biodiversity Policy 13 (o) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, inter alia, states that development should conserve and enhance biodiversity. No material biodiversity issues have been identified within the scope of the application. Effect on neighbours’ amenities Policy 13 (l) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that new development should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area by reason of loss of light or overlooking. It is acknowledged that the proposed development will have an effect of the standard of amenity that is currently enjoyed by the nearby residential occupiers, but it is

48

considered that the deleterious effects will not be so serious to warrant recommending the application for refusal for the following reasons:

• the rearward facing windows of the proposed dwellings would not result in an overly harmful loss of privacy for the adjoining residents

• the residual amount of light that would be available to the occupiers of adjacent dwellings would be acceptable

• the massing effect of the terrace would be lessened by the spacing between the proposed building and the side boundary and similarly by the intervening gap between the existing adjacent dwelling and its side boundary with the application site.

Archaeology The comments of the Northamptonshire County Council Archaeological Advisor could be carried forward by way of a condition in accordance with the provisions of PPS 5. Amenity space Policy 13 (a) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy states that development should meet needs by including access to amenity space enabling them to be adapted to future needs and to take into account the needs of all users. Meanwhile, policy 15 (f) states that in order to deliver sustainable residential communities, higher densities will be sought. Clearly, there could be the potential for conflict between the two core spatial strategies mentioned above. The lengths of the rear gardens that would be available to the occupiers of the proposed units are detailed above. It is considered that overall the size of the rear amenity spaces are now acceptable. Highway safety and parking Policy 13 (d) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy says that new development should provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards. Policy 13 (n) reinforces the requirement for development not to cause a danger to highway safety by stating that development should not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety. The Government has recently announced that maximum car parking standards for development should not apply and it has amended the content of PPG 13; Transport to reflect this new stance on off-road car parking provision. The submitted plans illustrate two off-road car parking spaces for each dwelling; one in an integral garage and one infront of the garage door and this car parking provision, upon the face of it could be acceptable. However it is perhaps the case that the integral garages would, over time, not be used for the intended purpose of garaging of cars due to the dwellings having three bedrooms and only a limited amount of ground floor living accommodation. It is contended that the imposition of a condition that could purport to prevent the use of the garages for domestic storage purposes without actually changing the space into habitable accommodation in the future would be unenforceable. In these circumstances, it could reasonably be assumed that any unmet demand for off street parking would be met by residents and visitors using the access driveways over the highway grass verge and also onto the roadway itself which could have consequences for both visual amenity and highway safety.

49

The Highway Authority has stated that the garage doors should be a minimum of 5.5m from the back edge of the highway; the reason for this advice is to ensure that a car can stand clear of the highway whilst the garage door is opened. The measured minimum distances of the garage doors to the mid points of the front boundary of the plots, from the submitted plan, are 4.9m, 5.2m and 6.1m. The adopted 5.5m set-back standard of the Highway Authority regarding this issue is appreciated, but the site specific circumstances are also a material factor in this case. The footpath in the highway grass verge is approximately 5m at its closest point to the application site and it is thought it would be most unlikely for a vehicle parked infront of one of the proposed dwellings to overhang by this distance so as to interfere with the users of the footway. It is considered that from a highway safety aspect the possible overhang of cars parked on the application site jutting out a short distance over the grass verge which is unlikely to be used by pedestrians is considered not a sufficiently robust enough reason by itself for recommending the application for refusal on highway safety grounds. The Highway Authority has not, however, made comment on the possibility of cars associated with the proposed development parking on the accessways across the grass verge which could interfere with pedestrians on the footway or on the adjacent highway on which there is evidence of demand for on-street car parking spaces. The comments of the Parish Council and local residents regarding highway safety are noted, but the evidence from the Highway Authority is considered not to be strong enough to base a recommendation of refusal on highway safety grounds. Effect on visual amenity and character of the street scene The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 (h) says that new development should be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings. Meanwhile, as mentioned above Policy 15 (f) states that higher densities will be sought particularly in the locations most accessible on foot, cycle and public transport, although increases in density should not detract from the traditional streetscape and built form where this is worthy of safeguarding. With regards to Policy G4 of the local plan it states that development will be granted planning permission if it will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the size, form, character or setting of the village. The requirement for designs that contribute positively to their surroundings and which are also appropriate to their context is mentioned in paragraph 34 of PPS 1 and this concept is also reflected in the guidance contained in PPS 3. The character of the locality has been described above and any development on the application site would be a prominent feature in the street scene due to the land form. This application has now had the benefit of receiving design comments from the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit and the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer concurs with its views and further criticises the scheme because it is higher than the pair of adjacent semi-detached dwellings. The existing dwelling has little visual impact on the street scene due to its singe storey configuration which contributes to the open appearance of this part of School Road. The amendments to the scheme are acknowledged, and it is accepted that an attempt has been made to assuage the detracting issues that resulted in the previous application being reused. The fact remains however that this proposal also involves a two and a half storey block of three dwellings with the roof having been designed to facilitate additional living accommodation in the roof spaces. As a result,

50

the modified terrace would still exhibit a disproportionately large roof structure which would be out of character with the nearby more modestly proportioned dwellings in School Road. The incongruous appearance would be exacerbated by the bland front elevations that would be presented to the street frontage as a result of the garage doors associated with the integral garaging arrangement. The proposed development would have little visual relationship in terms of the intended design, scale or appearance to the nearby housing development. It is considered therefore that the proposal would not respect or enhance the area and would be detrimental to the appearance of street scene. The development does not meet the 5.5m set-back standard to allow for vehicles to stand clear of the highway when the garage door is opened. The lack of an adequate set-back distance will result in cars protruding over the front boundary of the site which will cause them to appear as a visually discordant feature in the street scene. Furthermore, should any overspill vehicles from the development park on the access across the grass verge; this too would be harmful to the quality of the visual amenity of the street scene. The spacing deficiencies at the front of the dwellings add weight to the belief that the proposed scheme would overdevelop the site. There is evidence of integral garages in the Mansfield Way development, but it considered that the circumstances of that site and its design are significantly different from this application and therefore little weight should be given to it as a matter of precedence. The thrust of Policy 15 (f) with regards to higher densities is also noted, but it is considered that again sufficient weight should not be accorded to this policy to result in a recommendation of granting planning permission because the scheme would cause demonstrable harm to the appearance of the area. The proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, Policy G4 (2) of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. This is because the development would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area by way of its incongruous design and mass which would present an incongruous feature in the street scene and it would also overdevelop the available plot. NONE MATERIAL CONSIDERATION Loss of view CONCLUSION The application is not acceptable for the reasons set out above and is therefore recommended for refusal. RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following reason.

1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 13 (h) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Policy G4 (2) of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan. The development would have a detrimental impact on the character of the street scene because of its incongruous design and mass and it would also overdevelop the available plot.

51

The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers

received on the dates shown: Drawing Numbers: RM10/039.1A and RM10/039.2A Date Received: 9 February 2011

52


WP/2011/0082/OB

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a Class A1 retail foodstore: a single storey class A1/A3 retail unit: with associated access, servicing, car parking and landscaping.

LOCATION:

Factory Church Street Irthlingborough

APPLICANT:

Albourne General Partner Ltd and Albourse Nominee Ltd

This application falls within the administrative boundary of East Northants Council and Wellingborough Council is a consultee. PROPOSAL AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE: As above. The current application site comprises the former Express Factory site located to the east of Church Street, Irthlingborough, together with an area of car parking to the west of Church Street. The application site has an area of 0.89 ha. The area formally occupied by the Express Factory was demolished following a fire in 2007. In summary, the proposed development comprises:

• Erection of a Class A1 retail food store with a gross floor space of 3537 sq m, with a net sales area of 1858 sq m.

• Erection of a single storey independent Class A1 / A3 unit with a gross floor space of 207 sq m, located adjacent to the former bank on Station Road.

• 136 car parking spaces within the site principally within an undercroft car park to the east of Church Street.

• Associated servicing, access and landscaping arrangements. • Landscape improvements to Church Street.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: A similar application (reference: WP/2010/0167/OB, East Northants planning reference: EN/10/00275/FUL), on this site, was lodged with East Northants Council earlier last year and which Wellingborough Council was consulted upon. The application was put before the 9th June 2010 Planning Committee with officer’s recommendation that no objection be raised. The Committee resolved that no objection be raised. However, East Northants Council refused the application and the applicant has subsequently submitted this revised application. NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: The pertinent planning policies which are deemed appropriate for East Northants Council to consider are as follows: Planning Policy Guidance

53

PPS1 – General Policy and Principles PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS5 – Planning and the Historic Environment PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG13 – Transport PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control PPG24 – Planning and Noise PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 1 – Regional Core Objectives Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design Policy 3 – Distribution of New Development Policy 11 – Development in the Southern Sub-area Policy 18 – Regional Priorities for the Economy Policy 19 – Regional Priorities for Regeneration Policy 22 – Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development Policy 26 – Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage Policy 27 – Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment Policy 29 – Priorities for Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity Policy 32 – A Regional Approach to Water Resources and Water Quality Policy 35 – A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk Policy 38 – Regional Priorities for Waste Management Policy 39 – Regional Priorities for Energy Reduction and Efficiency Policy 43 – Regional Transport Objectives Policy 45 – Regional Approach to Traffic Growth Reduction Policy 46 – A Regional Approach to Behavioural Change North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 6 – Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions Policy 8 – Delivering Economic Prosperity Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Development Policy 12 – Distribution of Retail Development Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 – Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Northamptonshire County Structure Plan None relevant East Northamptonshire District Local Plan GEN3 – Planning Obligations Three Towns Plan: Preferred Options SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: Planning Policy Service – no comments. As a similar scheme on this site has already being considered by Committee and the scheme lies outside this Council’s administrative boundary then, it was considered that no further internal consultations were necessary.

54

ASSESSMENT: Policy 14b of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy summaries the majority of national policies which relate to sustainability, which have been addressed within the submitted Environmental Sustainability Statement (ESS). The proposed development includes energy efficiency measures and on site energy generation which can be exceed the required 10% decentralised low carbon energy demand target of Policy 14b above. The inclusion of water efficient appliances and water recycling equipment will reduce the potable water consumption within the retail units. The potential for waste reduction and recycling within construction phase has been identified within the submitted ESS, and will be a consideration factor within the selection of the contractor criteria. The goods service yard has been designed to accommodate the waste requirements of the end user. Customer recycling facilities are available within the vicinity of the development. Potential pollutions such as noise, vibration, water and odour have been indentified and strategies have been proposed to address these issues. Due to the fire and subsequent demolition of the previous shoe factory, there is no possibility to reuse existing structures of facades within the development. The environmental impact of materials will be a consideration factor within their selection. The location of the development within the town centre and the proposed secure and covered bike racks will allow and encourage travel via alternative means other than private car. The reuse of a large brownfield site in a town centre location represents best environmental practice. It is therefore considered; in as far as the author is able to conclude without the benefit of a full consultation exercise; that the development complies with the policies of the Development Plan. It is also opined that the current proposal addresses and resolves all issues previously raised by East Northants Council that resulted in the original refusal of planning permission. There would appear to be no material considerations which would indicate that this current proposal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the development plan and it is, therefore, the case that no objections be raised to this planing application. RECOMMENDATION: That no objection be raised.

55

16th March 2011

PLANNING COMMITTEE The following applications dealt with under the terms of the Chief Executive’s delegated powers. Application No. Decision

Applicant’s Name

Location of Proposal Description of Proposal

WP/2010/0465/LB APPROVED

Mr Robert Angus

Flat 5 Laws Lane, Finedon. Replace 4 front windows with double glazed wooden units (Application for Listed Building Consent).

WP/2010/0524/FM APPROVED

Mr Steve Williams NHS Northamptonshire

Isebrook Hospital, Irthlingborough Road, Wellingborough. Creation of 5 no. additional parking areas and hardstanding area for temporary linen store. Including associated external lighting.

WP/2010/0534/F AC

Mr and Mrs J Morse

33 Hayden Avenue, Finedon. Two storey rear extension to existing house and internal alterations.

WP/2010/0535/LB AC

Mr Jason Kazakos

The Old Star Hall, 7 Laws Lane, Finedon. Replacement of single glazing with double glazed units. To install wood burning stove - which includes flue through roof tiles. To fit window shutters. (Application for Listed Building Consent)

WP/2010/0537/FCOU AC

Wellingborough Homes

Garages adjacent 15 Windsor Road, Wellingborough. Removal of grass area to create 3 additional parking spaces and associated external works.

56

Application No. Decision

Applicant’s Name


WP/2010/0538/F AC

Wellingborough Homes

Garages between 28 and 78 Hill Street, Wellingborough. Removal of two existing garage blocks to create new parking spaces and construction of new garage block.

WP/2010/0544/F AC

Mr Mark Edwards

16 Pytchley Road, Orlingbury.Proposed rear extension to property creating a new garden room and kitchen extension, with shallow pitched roof.

WP/2010/0546/F AC

Mrs J McKay

15 Hatfield Close, Wellingborough. Proposed side/front extension.

WP/2010/0551/F REFUSED

Mrs Valiteen Patel

58 North Street, Wellingborough. Level access shower room and lobby extension.

WP/2010/0552/AV REFUSED

Mr Hugh Marks Northamptonshire County Council

Finedon Library Town Hall, 1 Berry Green Road, Finedon.3 x fascia signs, 2 other signs (non illuminated).

WP/2010/0554/AV AC

Mr Justin De Vally

12 High Street, Wellingborough. Illuminated sign displayed above the windows and door at the front of the property entrance.

WP/2010/0555/AV AC

Mr Andy Teague C/o Enterprise Inns

The Worlds End, Northampton Road, Ecton. Replacement signage (illuminated and non-illuminated) - re-submission following refusal of WP/2010/0384/AV.

57


Applicant’s Name


WP/2010/0556/LB APPROVED

Mr Andy Teague C/o Enterprise Inns

The Worlds End, Northampton Road, Ecton. Remove existing high level lettering and replace with new raised letters to upper and lower gables on each elevation (Application for Listed Building Consent) - Re-submission following refusal of WP/2010/0385/LB.

WP/2010/0557/AV AC

Mr Hugh Marks Northamptonshire County Council

Wollaston Library, 21 Newton Road, Wollaston. 1 x fascia, 2 x window vinyl's and 1 x wall mounted signs (non-illuminated).

WP/2010/0558/F AC

Mr M Coady and Ms G James

Land Opposite 1 and 3 East Street, Irchester. Wellingborough Construct a pair of semi-detached houses.

WP/2010/0561/F AC

Mrs Karen Fowler

30 Hookhams Path, Wollaston. Single dwelling on garden land adjacent 30 Hookhams Path with access from Park Street.

WP/2010/0562/F APPROVED

Mr and Mrs Heard

6 Earls Barton Road, Great Doddington. Alterations to the rear elevation of the dwelling involving the replacement of the glazed bay with sliding doors.

WP/2010/0567/F AC

Mr Harry Wright

132 Wellingborough Road, Earls Barton. Rear extension and move front door to side of drive. Also demolish existing garage and car port.

58


Applicant’s Name


WP/2011/0002/RMM AC

Mr Mark Smith Life Space Developments Limited

Ex Works 97 Eastfield Road, Wollaston. Reserved matters for construction of 11 dwellings, 2 no. flats over garage units, 6 no. 2 storey units and 3 no. 2.5 storey units.

WP/2011/0003/AV AC

Nationwide Autocentres Limited trading as Halfords Autocentre

27 and 27A Turnells Mill Lane, Wellingborough. 1 illuminated fascia sign; 6 non-illuminated fascia signs and 1 freestanding forecourt sign.


Mr T R Titmuss

Ramona's Hair Studio, 157a Westfield Road, Wellingborough. Conversion of shop unit to residential. To also allow internal access to existing dwelling and alterations to external appearance.

WP/2011/0007/LB AC

Mrs E Thornton

5 Church Way, Grendon. Part removal of wall, new floor to kitchen, open up and install new window within existing reveals (Application for Listed Building Consent).

WP/2011/0011/F AC

Mr Akash Roda Poppadoms Restaurant

19 Cambridge Street, Wellingborough. Extension to first floor kitchen of restaurant.

WP/2011/0013/F AC

Mr Graham Beech

21 Isham Road, Orlingbury. Vehicular access (dropped kerb) to comply with Section 184 License Northants County Council Highways Regulations.

WP/2011/0018/F AC

Mr P N Englander

1-3 Farm Road, Wellingborough. New shop front to existing unit 8c and splitting existing large end shop unit into 2 units.

59


Applicant’s Name


WP/2011/0020/AV AC

Dunelm Mill Soft Furnishings Plc

Dunelm Mill, 20 London Road, Wellingborough. 1 no. internally illuminated flexface sign.


Mr Civil

Sywell Grange, 110 Holcot Lane, Sywell. Change of use of existing barn to holiday accommodation (2 units proposed).

WP/2011/0025/F AC

Mr Chris Lloyd

73 London Road, Bozeat. Single storey rear extension.

WP/2011/0026/F AC

Mr and Mrs I Richards

2 The Promenade, Wellingborough. Erection of replacement dwelling and garage following grant of consent for replacement dwelling and garage under appeal ref. APP/H2835/A/08/2076073 (amended scheme following withdrawal of planning application WP/2010/0519).


Mr John Rigley

38 Main Street, Little Harrowden. Change of use of shop area to residential (as part of the existing dwelling).

WP/2011/0030/LN APPROVED

Mobile Broadband Networks Limited

3 Albany House, Medical Centre, Queen Street, Wellingborough. Installation of 3 x pole-mounted antennas and 1 x pole-mounted transmission dish attached to the rooftop plant room.

WP/2011/0036/F AC

Clive Squires

114 Westfield Road, Wellingborough. Rebuilding and enlarging an existing extension to the rear of the property.

60


Applicant’s Name


WP/2011/0052/NMA APPROVED

Mr Kevin Parfitt Bleustar Land and Development Limited

Land adjacent 50 King Street, Earls Barton. Non material amendment to WP/2010/0374/F - amendment to alignment of frontage to the dwelling with position of planting and picket fence.

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, Built Environment, Croyland Abbey, Tithe Barn Road, Wellingborough.

61

Application No.

PLANNING COMMITTEE - BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS ISSUED

APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH

APPLICATION DECISIONS BOROUGH OF WELLINGBOROUGH Date: 01/03/2011

Name & Address Description

FP/2010/0876/ D Mr Mark Bell 25 Church Street Isham Kettering

Reinstatement of first floor, new entrance porch side extension, double garage, internal alterations. APPROVED C

FP/2010/2171/ Nationwide Autocentres Trading as Halfords Autocentre 7/9 Richmond Olton Wharf Olton

Alterations and fitting out works to existing building to form garage with car servicing/MOT facility. APPROVED

FP/2011/0029/ Mr Gary Minter 82 Mannock Road Wellingborough Northants

Single storey, flat roof, rear extension to kitchen.

APPROVED

FP/2011/0032/ Mr Rob Doran 2 Chaucer Road Wellingborough Northants

Single storey, flat roof, side extension to form sitting room.

APPROVED

PS/2011/0034/ Northampton Borough Council

Works.

APPROVED C

62

Application No.





BN/2011/0043/ Wellingborough Homes

Underpinning works.

ACCEPTED

PS/2011/0045/ Kettering Borough Council Municipal Offices Bowling Green Road Kettering

Remove internal column from multi-bay portal farm building.

APPROVED

DI/2011/0048/ Miss Glinkowska 13 Swinburne Road Wellingborough

Bathroom to shower room conversion plus ramp.

ACCEPTED

DI/2011/0049/ Mr Leonard Monk 12 Excelsior Longfellow Road Wellingborough

New toilet room conversion.

ACCEPTED

FP/2011/0052/ Mrs J Thompson 130 Main Road Wilby Wellingborough

Change of use: Outbuilding to habitable dwelling.

APPROVED C

63

Application No.





PS/2011/0054/ Daventry Council Lodge Road Daventry

Repairs to fire damaged roof.

APPROVED

DI/2011/0055/ Mr Patel 6 Cooper Drive Wellingborough Northants

Conversion of bathroom into a shower room.

ACCEPTED

DI/2011/0056/ Mr Robert Brown 39 Bowness Wellingborough Northants

Conversion of bathroom into a shower room.

ACCEPTED

BN/2011/0057/ David Bell 37 Haddon Close Wellingborough Northants

Garage conversion to a habitable room.

ACCEPTED

DI/2011/0058/ Mr Lovell 48 Kingsway Wellingborough Northants

Bathroom adaptation (wet room)

ACCEPTED

64

Application No.





DI/2011/0059/ M Patel 9 Alken Close Wellingborough

Level access shower (DFG).

ACCEPTED

BN/2011/0060/ Mr Eric Houghton 1 The Ridge Great Doddington Wellingborough

Replacement and modification of foul drainage, new wall ties to be installed as survey report. ACCEPTED

FP/2011/0064/ Ms L Downey 61 Fullwell Road Bozeat Wellingborough

G.F. Cloakroom.

APPROVED

FP/2011/0065/ Mr and Mrs J Morse 33 Hayden Avenue Finedon Wellingborough

Two storey rear extension.

APPROVED C

DI/2011/0067/ Mr and Mrs Everist Flat 3 39 Paling Close Wellingborough

Level access shower (DFG).

ACCEPTED

65

Application No.





FP/2011/0068/ Mr J Trotman 99a Finedon Road Irthlingborough

Detached dwelling.

APPROVED C

PS/2011/0069/ Bedford Borough Council Borough Hall Cauldwell Street Bedford

Proposed loft extension and alterations.

APPROVED C

FP/2011/0070/ Finedon Conservative Club C/o John Bailey 47 High Street Finedon Wellingborough

Toilets.

REJECTED

DI/2011/0085/ Mr Barry Guy and Mrs Sandra Guy 36 Warren Close Irchester Northants

Level access shower (disabled use).

ACCEPTED

BN/2011/0088/ Chris McCormack 3 Beck Court Wellingborough Northants

Take out internal wall and extend current kitchen into part of garage.

ACCEPTED

66

Application No.





DI/2011/0094/ Wellingborough Homes 12 Sheep Street Wellingborough Northamptonshire

Disabled bathroom adaptions.

ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED

67

Application No.







ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED

DI/2011/0105/ J Sanson 10 Windmill Close Wollaston

L/A shower adaptation.

ACCEPTED

68

Application No.





BN/2011/0106/ Ewan Higginbotham 5 Mile Street Bozeat

To put a ceiling in the hallway above main door and put floor boarding above to increase size of landing - Build a cupboard on landing with banister adjoining it.

ACCEPTED

WI/2011/0107/ Mr and Mrs D Brown 43 Princess Way Wellingborough

Replacement windows and doors.

ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED

69

Application No.







ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED

70

Application No.







ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED

71

Application No.







ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED



ACCEPTED

72

Application No.







ACCEPTED

73

Received Appeals Appeal Site

Ref. No. Date Received

Status

Duke of York PH 159 Northampton Road Wellingborough

WP/2010/0143/FM

24/09/2010 Hearing set for 10 a.m. 27/01/2011 at Swanspool House - Decision pending

39 Brickhill Road Wellingborough

WP/2010/0314/F 24/11/2010 Appeal Site Visit made 01/02/2010 - Decision pending

15 Hickmire Wollaston

WP/2010/0228/F 21/01/2011 Awaiting Statement of Case - Decision pending

16 Holme Close Wellingborough

WP/2010/0361/F 11/02/2011 Awaiting Site Visit - Decision pending

58 London Road Wollaston

WP/2010/0530/F 14/02/2011 Awaiting Site Visit - Decision pending

74