item no 001 application number : parish : wolverhampton...
TRANSCRIPT
_______________________________________________________________________________
1
Item No 001 _______________________________________________________________________________
Application Number : S/2004/1222/PR Parish : Grange Park
Case Officer : Michael Warren
Applicant : Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries
Location : -
Land at Saxon Avenue (Zone E) Grange
Park
Description : -
Public House with two flats and associated car
parking (part details pursuant to permission
S/2004/0039/PO)
Recommendation - Refusal
Reason :-
1. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy GS5 of the County Structure Plan
and to Policy EV1 of the South Northants Local Plan, which seek to promote high quality
design of a character and visual appearance appropriate in the context of the defining
characteristics of the local area. In this instance the proposal, by reason of unsympathetic
design and materials, as well as inappropriate scale and character, would appear
incongruous in its relationship with adjoining land and buildings, thereby seriously
harming the character and appearance of the local area and adversely impacting on the
planned development of Grange Park, as a whole.
S/2004/1222/PR
WARD : Grange Park
WARD MEMBER : Councillors Mrs Sally Townsend and Tharik Jainu-Deen
A DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION WAS DEFERRED AT THE MEETING ON
13 JANUARY, PENDING A MEMBERS’ SITE VISIT ON 25 JANUARY 2005.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This undeveloped site (0.32ha) forms part of a development area designated as Zone E,
which is located near the northern edge of Grange Park. It is bounded to the north by the
remainder of Zone E (also currently undeveloped), but where outline permission has been
granted for an office development as well as a residential care home/close-care apartments.
The current application site was the subject of the same outline approval - S/2004/0039/PO,
granted in July 2004.
1.2 Immediately adjoining to the east of the application site is the newly constructed southern
access road to Zone E, with a watercourse and the Grange Valley Greenway beyond that. To
the south is a spur road off the main internal distributor road (Saxon Avenue) which serves
residential development, and to the west is Saxon Avenue with a disused landfill site (Zone
G) beyond that. A public footpath currently runs across part of the site, but is subject of a
confirmed diversion order, to enable development of Zone E.
_______________________________________________________________________________
2
1.3 Beyond the Grange Valley Greenway, to the east, is residential development (Barn Close);
while immediately to the south is further residential development with the new district
centre beyond that.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 Outline planning permission for the Grange Park development was granted in May 1998,
comprising approximately 1,000 dwellings, 30 hectares of land for employment uses within
use classes B1, B2 and B8, a district centre (retail, social and community uses), recreational
facilities, a park and ride facility, open space and country parks, and associated access,
parking and landscape infrastructure (Ref. S/1997/0219/PO).
2.2 An overall planning brief for the development was approved in September 1997 and
includes an illustrative development concept plan and supporting information on design
principles. A master plan with land use allocations was later approved pursuant to a
condition on the outline permission.
2.3 Committee approved an outline planning application for the development of Zone E, in July
2004 (Ref. S/2004/0039/PO). The outline permission granted is for mixed-use development
containing business units (class B1 offices), residential care home/close-care apartments,
public house/restaurant, associated access, parking and landscaping. Means of access was
approved, but all other details reserved for later approval.
2.4 Planning permission for construction of the southern access road to Zone E and diversion of
public footpath KH7 was granted in July 2004 (Ref. S/2004/0815/P).
3. PROPOSAL
3.1 The proposal is for a public house/restaurant building, of a form and in a location similar to
that indicated in the illustrative plans submitted with the outline application. These
illustrations were indicative only, to demonstrate how development might fit onto the Zone
E site: they are, of course, not binding on either the applicant or the Local Planning
Authority. With the exception of means of access to the site, which was approved at outline
stage, the application seeks approval for all other reserved matters in respect of this part of
Zone E. Access would be via an existing roundabout junction on Saxon Way, and the new
southern access road (Perm Ref S/2004/0815/P refers.)
3.2 The building proposed is of a standard design used by the applicants (Wolverhampton &
Dudley Breweries - Pathfinder Pubs) at a number of other locations across the UK. It is a
mainly single-storey building, with a small first floor element (to house a manager’s flat),
and of an essentially ‘domestic’ scale and appearance, with a steeply pitched roofscape.
Materials proposed include a mixture of render with some brickwork detailing and a pantiled
roof.
_______________________________________________________________________________
3
3.3 An outside seating area, landscaping and 51 car parking spaces are also proposed.
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 GRANGE PARK PARISH COUNCIL: Fully support the proposal, including its design and
relationship to the District Centre.
4.2 COUNTY HIGHWAYS: Raise no objection, provided access road is constructed to
adoptable standards.
4.3 COUNTY RIGHTS OF WAY: Note that until the diversion of footpath KH7, which runs
across the site, has taken place, no development can take place. The applicants are fully
aware of this requirement.
4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Makes comments regarding the potential
for noise and odour problems, emanating from the pub, and the proximity of some
residential uses. [These are issues that were considered in granting outline permission for the
development of Zone E, and appropriate conditions to control or mitigate the potential for
any such problems from the public house, were attached to that permission. The EPO agreed
with this approach, at the time.]
4.5 LANDSCAPE CONSULTANTS (Quartet Design): Finds proposals generally acceptable,
but request that a schedule showing the supply sizes of all plant material, and the
substitution of hydrangea and azalea with alternative species, be submitted. [An appropriate
condition could be attached, if any permission were to be granted.]
4.6 POLICE CRIME PREVENTION DESIGN ADVISER: Raises concerns regarding the
potential impact of the pub/restaurant on existing and proposed residential uses in the
neighbourhood, particularly in terms of noise and disturbance from customers leaving the
premises late at night.
4.7 RAMBLERS: No comments received.
4.8 THIRD PARTIES: The application has been advertised by means of Site and Press Notices,
and adjoining occupiers notified by letter. One letter of representation has been received
from “Barratt Northampton”. The main issues raised in their letter are as follows:
- Potential for noise nuisance or other pollution to affect the amenity of residents of
their nearby residential development.
- Design and scale of pub proposal should be considered in the light of their
development already carried out, on the southern side of Saxon Avenue.
- Adequate screen planting should be carried out around the pub car park.
5. POLICY
_______________________________________________________________________________
4
5.1 The relevant planning policies are Northamptonshire Structure Plan – Policies GS5 (design
and sustainable development), T3 (transport requirements and access), T8 (provision for
walking and cycling), T9 (parking standards); and South Northamptonshire Local Plan –
Policies G3 (general development principles), EV1 (design), EV29 (landscape proposals),
RC7 (public rights of way), T3 (pedestrian and cycle routes), and proposals GPE1 and
GPRC2 (provision of industrial/commercial development and health/community facilities at
Grange Park).
5.2 Government guidance in the form of PPG1 (General Policy and Principles) is also relevant.
5.3 Although the Grange Park Planning Brief identifies Zone E for development with
employment/commercial uses, the relevant outline application (Ref. S/2004/0039/PO) was
approved as a ‘departure’, in part, to the development plan. The Grange Park Design &
Development Brief for Employment Areas is also of relevance, in this case.
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 Given the acceptance of the principle of the proposal (by virtue of the outline permission),
the main issues to be considered here are:
- the appropriateness of the scheme in terms of design, massing, appearance and
location, and its relationship to adjoining and nearby development
- landscaping
- car parking
The principle of a public house/restaurant in this location is accepted and welcomed by the
Local Planning Authority and hence this is not at issue.
Building design, massing, appearance and locality - relationship to adjoining development:
6.2 Zone E is located close to the district centre which will offer a range of community,
shopping and other facilities. It is also well located in respect of the large-scale housing
development at Grange Park and adjoining residential areas of Northampton, as well as to
local bus services. The proposed pub/restaurant would be located close to the district centre,
which does not, at present, offer such a facility. The pub would also be within easy walking
distance of much of the northern half of Grange Park.
6.3 Although approval for the siting of the development was not sought at outline stage, the
applicants indicated that they had prospective tenants/operators for the care home/close care
uses as well as the pub/restaurant use, and that the development would, therefore, be likely
to follow the lines set out in the illustrative plans submitted. They also stated that approval
of design and external appearance was not sought at that stage, and that there would be
flexibility on the applicant’s part, in this respect.
6.4 The design and general scale of the building is effectively that of an extended domestic
bungalow, which could well be appropriate in a different, possibly more rural or village
setting, but it is not appropriate at this prominent entrance to a site in an evolving urban
location. The appearance of the proposed development here would be out of character with
surrounding and nearby development in Grange Park. This design and massing, when
combined with the fall of the land from Saxon Avenue, means that much of the building,
_______________________________________________________________________________
5
other than large expanses of roof slope, would be unseen from the road. A more appropriate
design could, for example, reflect other non-residential buildings in Grange Park and/or the
crescent-shaped buildings opposite the site. Further guidance is given in the Grange Park
Design Brief, but following correspondence and meetings with the applicants, they have not
been prepared to make any concessions or changes to their submission.
6.5 The fundamental design and general scale of the building are considered unacceptable and
of insufficient stature, particularly given the prominence of this site within what is
essentially an urban location. As a very relevant example, the three-storey flat development
within the district centre, on the opposite side of Saxon Avenue from the application site,
makes a strong and appropriate design statement with its curved elevational treatment, on
what is also a prominent corner site. Other non-residential buildings in Grange Park could
have provided useful design cues for a more acceptable building, too.
6.6 The schedule of materials submitted, is also considered unacceptable. Given the generally
lower level of this site relative to the surrounding area, the ‘Marley’ tiled roof would appear
very dominant, with large expanses of roof slope being the primary view that would be
presented to much of the surrounding area. Slate, artificial slate or plain tiles would prove
more acceptable. The colour and finish of the brickwork and render proposed, would also be
out of character with nearby buildings, such as the flat development opposite, which is
finished in buff brickwork with a (artificial) slate roof.
6.7 The principle of the proposed pub/restaurant development in this location, and its potential
to meet an undoubted need in the surrounding area, and Grange Park as a whole, is not
disputed. However, the applicant’s steadfastness in not wishing to consider a development
and building of a more appropriate design and scale, for this location, means that I cannot
recommend Members to approve this scheme.
Landscaping proposals:
6.8 These show a mixture of tree and shrub planting of varying height and density, and has
taken on-board earlier comments made by the Council’s landscaping consultants, resulting
in satisfaction with this aspect of the submitted scheme.
Car parking and servicing:
6.9 The proposal includes provision for 51 car spaces, as well as a service/delivery area, all of
which would meet current adopted standards in respect of pub/restaurant uses, and is
considered acceptable.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 For the reasons put forward in this report, I am not satisfied that this scheme is acceptable in
relation to design, massing and external appearance, particularly given the location, and
within the non-residential areas of Grange Park as a whole. This is contrary to Policies GS5
of the Structure Plan and EV1 of the Local Plan. While the hard and soft landscaping details
are considered satisfactory, the proposed external materials are not, which further
contributes to the unacceptability of this proposal in the form submitted.
7.2 Members are recommended to refuse permission for the reasons set out at the beginning of
the report.
_______________________________________________________________________________
6
Item No 002 _______________________________________________________________________________
Application Number : S/2004/1601/P Parish : Roade
Case Officer : Clare Gray
Applicant : Mr & Mrs W Mann
Location : -
55 Hartwell Road Roade
Description : -
Demolition of existing single storey dwelling
and storage building and erection of a new two
storey house with attached garage
Recommendation - Approval
Conditions :-
1. B1 Statutory time limit
2. B3 Amended details and/or plans
3. K2 Samples of materials - single or few buildings
4. K9 Random rubble stonework required
5. D7 Provision of garage/parking, for single dwelling with turning
6. The existing landscaping and trees along the boundaries of the site, other than those shown
for removal on drawing 653/04A received 17th January 2005 shall be retained at the
present height for so long as the developent hereby permitted remains. Any trees which
die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next
planting season with others of similar size and the same species unless the Local Planning
Authority gives written consent to any variation
7. All external windows shall be of timber construction painted white or off white and
maintained as such to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
8. J11 Inset of window/door to form reveal
9. H6 Exclusion of further extensions and windows - dwellings
10. E22 Width of access and gate to open inwards
11. E9 Visibility splays required
12. C18 Hedgerow planting
13. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling, the Nissen hut shall be demolished and all
materials shall be removed from the site to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
_______________________________________________________________________________
7
14. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling, the existing access shall be permanently
closed and the verge shall be reinstated to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority
Reasons :-
1. RB1
2. RB2
3. RK1
4. RK2
5. RD1
6. RF8
7. RK1
8. RK1
9. To accord with policy H5 of the County Structure Plan Local Plan which seeks to preserve
the character of the open countryside and the nature and degree of built form in such areas.
10. RE11
11. RE3
12. RC10
13. To accord with policy H5 of the County Structure Plan Local Plan which seeks to preserve
the character of the open countryside and the nature and degree of built form in such areas.
14. RA3
S/2004/1601/P
WARD : Courteenhall
WARD MEMBER : Cllr Mrs Sally Townsend and Cllr Tharik Jainu-Deen
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The site is located on the south-eastern edge of the village of Roade within open
countryside, however, it is located on the edge of the defined village boundary. The plot is
itself triangular in its shape and consists of a modest rendered bungalow set into the site at a
lower ground level with an interlocking roof tile. The site is bounded by a number of trees
and to the front of the site is a nissen hut, which is to be demolished. The site is bounded on
all sides by open fields but beyond the site to the north-west is a cul-de-sac of houses.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
_______________________________________________________________________________
8
2.1 There is no relevant planning history to this site.
3. PROPOSAL
3.1 The application seeks consent for the demolition of the two bedroom bungalow to erect a
replacement dwelling with four bedrooms, which will be constructed of stone and slate. The
new dwelling is of a traditional design and form and a detached double garage, with timber
doors, constructed of stone and slate to match the materials of the new dwelling is proposed
to the side of the house. A turning space will be provided within the site and the proposal
will involve the blocking up of the existing access onto the Hartwell Road with a new access
to the other side of the plot.
3.2 The replacement dwelling is shown as being two storey having a floor area of approximately
215 square metres over two floors. An additional single storey double garage has a floor
area of around 31 square metres located to the side of the house. The existing bungalow has
a ground floor area of 76 square metres and the nissen hut has a footprint of 65 square
metres, giving a total floor area of 171 square metres.
3.3 The highest part of the new dwelling would be around 1.7m higher than the existing
bungalow and will have a roof pitch of 40 degrees. The footprint although covering a
similar amount of floor area to the existing buildings will be brought forward within the plot
to allow an enlarged rear garden.
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 ROADE PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received to date
4.2 NCC HIGHWAYS – Proposal should be assessed alongside guidance given in “Minor
Planning Applications that have an Effect upon the Highway”
4.3 ARBORICULTURAL OFFICER – No adverse comments
5. POLICY
5.1 The site is defined as being in open countryside by the South Northamptonshire Local Plan.
The application therefore falls to be considered in light of policies GS5 and H5 of the
County Structure Plan and policies G3 and H6 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan
which seek to guide proposals for replacement dwellings in open countryside.
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The issues in respect of this application are:
- Whether the principle of the replacement dwelling is acceptable in light of the
policies relevant to such development in open countryside.
- If the design of the dwelling is acceptable and would respect the scale and character
of the locality.
- Any adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring dwellings.
- Highway safety
_______________________________________________________________________________
9
- Any significant adverse effect on the trees and existing landscaping.
6.2 Policies H5 of the Structure Plan and H6 of the Local Plan allow the replacement of existing
dwellings in open countryside, provided the new dwelling is sited on approximately the
same footprint as the original dwelling and is of the same general size. In this instance the
proposed footprint and massing of the dwelling is greater than the existing modest dwelling
and floor area of the nissen hut combined. Therefore, given that the proposed house is
substantially larger than the existing building, the proposal does not strictly comply with
Policy H5. However, Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that
all planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance resiting the footprint to
the front of the plot is deemed acceptable, as it will allow a more practical and useable rear
garden. Furthermore, whilst the floor area of the proposed dwelling is greater than the floor
area occupied by the existing bungalow and nissen hut, I am of the view that the footprint of
the proposed and existing building is comparable and it can be argued that a new building of
the scale, design and form proposed offers an opportunity to erect a building more in
keeping with the sites rural location and the local vernacular of the area. Consequently, I
consider there are substantial benefits for the erection of a two storey dwelling and detached
garage on this site as a new dwelling being of a local vernacular design, using materials in
keeping with other traditional properties, is visually a more appropriate form of development
for this plot. A replacement single storey bungalow would not be appropriate for this rural
location and notwithstanding the proposed building being greater in floor area, I consider the
proposal for a traditional rural building justifies a more relaxed interpretation of the policies
relating to replacement dwellings.
6.3 The design shown on the amended plans follows a simple traditional shallow plan form with
a steeply pitched roof. The proposed materials are local stone and a slate roof with timber
painted windows. The dwelling has a front and rear projection, but to the front its size has
been kept to a minimum of 2m whilst the rear projects by 4.5m. The proposed dwelling will
be approximately 1.7m higher than the existing building but the site is lower in ground level
than the road and there is substantial screening to the plot. Furthermore, the slab level of the
proposed dwelling is proposed to be lower than the existing building. As such, I do not
consider that the replacement dwelling will be visually prominent in the streetscene.
However, I consider that as this is a good quality building that is in keeping with the area it
would not have a significant adverse impact on the character of the open countryside. The
existing landscaping can be retained by condition. In my view therefore the application
complies with the design requirements of policies GS5 of the County Structure Plan and G3
of the Local Plan.
6.4 The new dwelling would be around 40m from the nearest residential property and so there
would be no adverse effects on residential amenity as a result of the development.
6.5 As there is an existing dwelling on the site there are no grounds for refusal on traffic
generation. The existing vehicular access to the site will be blocked off and a new access
will be created to the west of the plot, which will be gated. Visibility is slightly reduced to
the west, but overall the distance is not substantially different to the existing access. County
Highways therefore have no objections subject to standard conditions regarding surfacing
etc. and the proposal is acceptable in highway safety terms.
6.6 The existing boundary planting and trees is shown to be retained on the plan and a condition
requiring its retention is proposed to be attached to the permission. The Council’s
Arboriculturalist confirms that there are no trees on the site worthy of a TPO. Some trees
_______________________________________________________________________________
10
will be removed to provide the turning area and their removal is not considered
objectionable. Further planting by way of a hedge is proposed in place of the existing
access.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Reason for approval: On balance the proposal represents an acceptable replacement
dwelling on the site and is of an appropriate design which is in keeping with and will
enhance the character of the area. There would be no adverse impact on the amenities of
neighbouring dwellings, highway safety or existing landscaping.
_______________________________________________________________________________
11
Item No 003 _______________________________________________________________________________
Application Number : S/2004/1605/PO Parish : Paulerspury
Case Officer : Paul Seckington
Applicant : Mr & Mrs A J Corden
Location : -
Land at 3 Park Lane Paulerspury
Description : -
Demolition of dwelling and garage. Erection of
two detached dwellings with garaging and
formation of additional access (Outline)
Recommendation - Approval
Conditions :-
1. A1 Statutory time limit
2. B3 Amended details and/or plans
3. A4 Reserved matters - alternative
4. A10 Threshold levels
5. C1 Landscaping (outline applications)
6. C9 Maintenance of planting (full and outline applications)
7. The garages, parking space and turning area shown on the approved plan(s) shall be
constructed/laid out, drained and surfaced to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority before the dwellings are occupied and shall not thereafter be used for
any purpose other than the garaging/parking and turning of private motor vehicles.
8. The width of the shared driveway shall be at least 4.5m for a distance of 10m from the near
edge of the highway carriageway and shall be finished in a bound material for this distance
and not exceed a gradient of 1 in 15.
9. E33 Set-back of entrance gates
10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting or amending that order)
no building, structure, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be erected within the
last 24m of the rear gardens (as measured from the eastern boundary of the site) of the
dwellings hereby permitted without the prior permission in writing of the Local Planning
Authority.
11. The boundaries of the last 24m of the rear gardens (as measured from the eastern boundary
of the site) for both properties shall consist of chain-link/wire fencing with native
hedgerow, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
_______________________________________________________________________________
12
Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
12. Demolition of the existing house and garage shall not be commenced until:
(a) contracts have been entered into with the contractor or contractors responsible for
erecting the shell of the building work comprising the development, and;
(b) a start date form the commencement of development work has been fixed being not
later than the earlier of two weeks after demolition shall have commenced, and;
(c) planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract
provides.
13. F31 Prohibited working hours during construction
Reasons :-
1. RA1
2. RB2
3. RA3
4. To ensure that the buildings are in keeping with the scale, bulk, character and appearance
of adjacent properties within the street scene.
5. RC1
6. RC5
7. RD1
8. RE15
9. RE17
10. To protect the character and appearance of this edge of village location
11. To protect the character and appearance of this edge of village location
12. To ensure that demolition does not result in an unsightly site which would detract from the
character and appearance of the area.
13. RG3
S/2004/1605/PO
WARD : Tove
WARD MEMBER : Councillor Mrs Sandra Barnes
This item was deferred by Members on the 16th December 2004 for further discussions with
the applicants in respect of the layout and footprint of the dwellings in order to reduce the
prominence of the garages.
_______________________________________________________________________________
13
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site is located within Park Lane and is currently occupied by a detached
two-storey dwelling set back from the road by some 7m and slightly elevated above road
level. The site also contains a large detached double garage with workshop to the side of the
house. The property is set forward of the adjacent No. 7 to the south (a detached bungalow)
by some 8m. The site has a frontage of about 24 metres and its area is 0.17 hectares.
1.2 The majority of the site lies within the village confines and is surrounded by residential
properties. Park Lane is characterised mainly by detached properties set in a relatively
spacious form. The properties on the eastern side of the lane, to the south of this site,
comprise a row of similar sized detached modern properties, located on plots of equal widths
and equal spacing between them, set back from the road edge by some distance, the majority
with heavily screened front boundaries. The properties on the western side of the road and
around the green are generally more traditional buildings set closer to the street. Opposite
the site is the Grade II listed property of The Thatches.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 Earlier this year a planning application was submitted seeking outline consent for the
demolition of the existing house and garage and the erection of two detached dwellings in
their place, with all matters reserved for later approval (S/2004/0850/PO). An illustrative
layout was submitted with the application indicating two large detached dwellings with
unorthodox layouts and with detached garages to the front of each dwelling. The application
was refused on the basis that officers were not prepared to give an outline consent for two
detached dwellings with all matters reserved for approval as, due to the restricted plot width,
the erection of two large detached dwellings with garaging would constitute an undesirable
cramped form of development, out of context with its surroundings, to the detriment of the
character and appearance of this part of the village.
3. PROPOSAL
3.1 This application also seeks outline consent for two detached dwellings on this site but access
and siting have been submitted for approval. Also floor plans and a street scene have been
provided. The buildings would be sited along the same building line as the adjacent No. 7,
would have frontage widths of 8.5m and plan depths of 6m. Each property is proposed with
a rear projecting wing.
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 PARISH COUNCIL: Support the application
4.2 THIRD PARTIES: One response received to date from the occupier of No. 1 Park Lane.
Summary of comments:
- additional traffic from the development will exacerbate the problems on Park Lane
- Park Lane is single track without pavements used continuously by horse riders, dog
walkers, elderly and children
- Such close development to my hedge could cause it to be seriously damaged
_______________________________________________________________________________
14
- If the frontage landscaping is to be retained then it seems doubtful that there will be
sufficient space for on site parking of vehicles
- Any development on this site should be built in sympathetic materials.
4.3 WARD MEMBER (Mrs Sandra Barnes): I do not have a problem with this proposal and
think that they would sit very well in the street.
5. POLICY
5.1 This application should be considered under Structure Plan Policies GS5, H3 and H6 and
South Northamptonshire Local Plan Policies G3, H5, EV1 and EV2, which relate to
residential development in villages, density, design and general considerations.
5.2 Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing is also relevant.
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The main issues in the consideration of this application are considered to be:
- The acceptability of the principle of the development
- The impact on the character and appearance of the area
- The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
- The impact on highway safety
6.2 The Government's policies for meeting housing needs are based on the principles of
focusing new development on existing towns and villages, making the best use of existing
housing and making the best use of land which has already been developed. These
requirements are reflected in the Council’s policies on new residential development which,
in line with Government guidance, also requires that proposals should respect the character
and appearance of the local area, not harm the amenities of surrounding land uses and not
result in an adverse impact upon highway safety.
6.3 Policy H3 of the Structure Plan states that housing development will be limited to within the
established confines of villages and when assessing proposals regard will be had to the
impact of the development on the form, character and setting of the village.
6.4 Policy H5 of the Local Plan states that proposals for residential development will normally
be permitted within the village confines of Paulerspury for the infilling of a small gap in an
otherwise built up frontage; or a small group of dwellings; or a conversion of an existing
building. On all development proposals Policy G3 of the Local Plan states that planning
permission will normally be granted where (amongst other criteria) the proposal would not
unacceptably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties; would be compatible in terms
of type, scale, siting, design and materials with the existing character of the locality; and
would provide a satisfactory means of access.
Principle of Development
6.5 As the site lies primarily within the village confines, proposes the erection of two houses in
line with other properties in a built up frontage, then the principle of residential development
is generally acceptable subject to the application according with general development
_______________________________________________________________________________
15
control criteria.
6.6 Policy H6 of the Structure Plan states that to ensure that optimum use is made of land,
housing development will take place at a net minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare.
This application proposes just 12 dwellings to the hectare, but is double that of the existing,
and is low due to the considerable depth of the plot. Given the layout of the plot, the
relationship with neighbouring properties and the character and appearance of the area, a
development that complied with policy H6 (6 dwellings) would be markedly out of keeping
with the area, resulting in a cramped form of development and would have an adverse
impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
6.7 The last 45m of the length of the plot actually lies outside the defined line of the village
confines. The majority of this land currently forms part of the existing garden for No. 3 but
the area of land beyond the rear boundary of the gardens of the adjacent properties is used as
a vegetable garden by the applicant with the rest laid to lawn. The boundaries of this latter
part of the plot consist of chain link/wire fencing to the sides with hedging and mature
hedgerow along the rear. The properties to the south have also encompassed similar areas
into their plots, but on the whole are kept open. Given the hedgerow along the side
boundaries and the mature hedgerow along the rear boundary, and the existence of
residential gardens along the northern and western boundaries of the site, subject to
appropriate boundary treatments being retained at this end of the plot and omission of
permitted development rights at this end of the site, then the inclusion of this land within the
curtilage of the proposed dwellings would effectively “square off” the boundaries of
residential curtilages in this part of the village and would not encroach into the open
countryside. As such I do not consider the proposed development would adversely affect the
setting of the village.
Siting
6.8 Given its siting above the road, set forward of adjacent properties, its unprepossessing
design and external finish together with the prominent siting and size of the detached garage,
the existing property is a rather incongruous feature in the street scene. As such its
demolition and the redevelopment of the site in keeping with the character and appearance
of the local area would enhance this part of the village.
6.9 The application proposes two modest detached dwellings with ample space between each
other and the adjacent bungalow. Such spacing reflects, to a certain degree, the spacing
between the properties to the south of the site, and the spaces around the more traditional
properties. Further, the two dwellings would be sited along the same building line as No. 7
Park Lane, which I consider to be acceptable in street scene terms. As such, differing from
the earlier illustrative layouts on the first application, which showed a more cramped form of
development, this latest application indicates that there may be scope for the site to
accommodate two dwellings satisfactorily. Further, as siting is submitted for approval then
outline consent can be granted on the basis of the submitted footprints and layouts.
6.10 The site is located adjacent to, and seen in context with, the more historical buildings in Park
Lane. The more suburban development to the south is hidden behind the extensive screening
to the front of these properties. As such, in my opinion, the proposed dwellings should
reflect the scale, design and detailing of the traditional properties, to protect the character
and appearance of this part of Paulerspury. The submitted plans indicate that the dwellings
would have plan depths of 6m, frontage widths of 8.5m and modest rear projecting wings to
provide a slightly increased level of accommodation – which is in accordance with the
_______________________________________________________________________________
16
Council’s guidance notes on Residential Design in the Countryside. The illustrative street
scene submitted indicates that the two houses would be in scale and in keeping with adjacent
properties. The detailed design of the dwellings and proposed finishes for the building are
matters for discussion at the reserved matters stage.
6.11 There are no habitable room windows on the side elevation of the adjacent bungalow, and
together with the siting of the proposed house in relation to the layout of the bungalow, I
consider that the proposed development would not adversely affect the amenities of No. 7.
The northern dwelling would be located 1m from the boundary of the garden to No. 1 Park
Lane, but given the size of their garden and distance between the buildings, I do not consider
that a refusal on the grounds of overbearing or loss of light could be justified, especially as
the plan depth of the dwelling would only be 6m and that the rear wings are proposed on the
‘inner’ sides of the rear elevations of the two detached houses, which minimises the impact
upon neighbouring properties and reduces the bulk of the houses when viewed from the
street.
Access
6.12 Ample off-street parking is provided for both properties, with turning areas and served by
separate accesses. This is acceptable in highway safety terms, subject to the standard
highway conditions (gradient of drive, pedestrian visibility plays etc). I do not consider that
the demolition of the existing house and replacement with two modest dwellings would
result in a degree of additional traffic generation that would cause danger to highway safety.
Unlike the existing situation the proposals would allow for each dwelling to have turning
space on site.
Further Update
6.13 When they considered the application in December, Members were concerned about the
integral form and projection forward of the garages and did not consider that such an
arrangement would reflect the traditional design of neighbouring properties around the
green, which they considered essential in this case as the site relates more to these properties
than the modern development further down the lane.
6.14 In response to Members concerns the applicant has omitted the previously proposed slightly
projecting integral garages and instead proposes detached garaging at the rear, between the
two dwellings. To enable access to the garages, the gap between the two dwellings has
increased by a metre, as a result of ‘House B’ being repositioned 1m closer to the boundary
with No. 7, still maintaining a gap of over 3m to the neighbouring property. A further result
of the changes has been the alteration to the access from two separate accesses to one central
shared access.
6.15 The garages are now proposed detached and set at the rear, enabling the houses to be more
traditional in their design and appearance, which I consider will be in keeping with the
traditional dwellings around the green to the extent to which Members desire. The newly
published design statement for Paulerspury and Pury End, identifies the area around the top
green (attractive older style traditional buildings of stone, thatch and slate) as a critical
landmark to the character of the village. As such, I consider that this outline proposal, in its
amended form, will help to preserve and enhance this traditional character and I therefore
recommend that planning permission be granted.
7. CONCLUSION
_______________________________________________________________________________
17
7.1 Reason for approval: The proposed development accords with development plan policies
relating to residential development in villages. The site could accommodate two modest
dwellings without detriment to the amenities of neighbouring residents, without adversely
affecting the character and appearance of the area and without adversely affecting highway
safety.
_______________________________________________________________________________
18
Item No 004 _______________________________________________________________________________
Application Number : S/2004/1624/P Parish : Towcester
Case Officer : Clare Gray
Applicant : Waitrose Limited
Location : -
Waitrose Store Water Lane Towcester
Description : -
Variation of condition 24 of permission
S/1995/0713/PO to allow deliveries between
06.00-21.00 weekdays and Saturdays, and 08.00-
18.00 on Sundays or Bank Holidays for a
temporary period of three months.
Recommendation - Approval
Conditions :-
1. The period of extended hours hereby permitted, shall be discontinued on or before 31st
December 2005.
2. There shall be no more than 2 deliveries, of one vehicle each, between the hours of 0600 -
0700 weekdays and Saturdays and 0800 - 0900 Sundays or bank holidays
Reasons :-
1. RG6
2. RG6
S/2004/1624/P
WARD : TOWCESTER MILL
WARD MEMBER : Cllr J Oliver and Cllr M Clarke
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site is Waitrose supermarket, which is located within a predominately
residential area to the south of Towcester town centre. The site benefits from two separate
accesses and is bounded to the north and east by residential properties and to the south by
recreation ground and to the west by the former Radstone site, which is now demolished.
The application site relates specifically to the service area of the store, which is located to
the east of the site and is accessed directly from the Richmond Road, which is characterised
by residential development.
1.2 The site is located outside but adjacent to Towcester Conservation Area.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
_______________________________________________________________________________
19
2.1 In July 1997, outline planning permission, reference S/1995/0713/PO, was granted for the
sites redevelopment to provide a retail food store (use class A1) with access and car parking
subject to various conditions. Condition 24 of this consent restricted the hours of service
deliveries and stated,
“No service deliveries to or from the building shall take place outside the hours of 0700 –
2100 on weekdays and Saturdays, and 0900 – 1800 on Sundays or bank holidays”
2.2 The store was completed in 1998 and was occupied by Safeway. Various planning
applications were subsequently submitted to vary the layout of the store and for an
extension.
2.3 In 2004, Waitrose plc took over the ownership of the store and now operates from this site.
Following the change in ownership, an application to increase the boundary wall of the
service yard and to provide gates to a height of 3.1m in addition to the siting of two
permanent and one temporary storage containers was granted consent in October 2004 (ref:
S/2004/1131/P). The raised boundary walls has been constructed.
3. PROPOSAL
3.1 This application seeks to vary condition 24 of planning permission S/1995/0713/PO to alter
the times of delivery to the store to allow deliveries between 0600 – 2100 on weekdays and
Saturdays and 0800 – 1800 on Sundays or bank holidays for a temporary period of 3
months. This would provide an additional hour on weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays or bank
holidays above what the current restriction allows.
3.2 The agent’s covering letter with the application states that the store is currently encountering
difficulties in being ready for opening under the current restrictions and is unable to provide
the full range of fresh produce (eg cooked meats, fresh meat, milk, yoghurt and butters)
required by its customer at this time. The agent puts forward that a variation between the
proposed hours would allow the store to be able to restock its shelves and ensure that a
satisfactory level of stock is maintained during all hours of operation. Currently delivery
volumes to the store range from 2/3 deliveries Mondays to Thursdays, weekends and bank
holidays and 4/5 deliveries on Fridays. The store is currently open from 0830 Mondays to
Saturdays and 1000 on Sundays. The regional distribution centre for Waitrose produce is
located at Brinklow, which is located to the east of Birmingham approximately two miles
south of the M6.
3.3 In light of the store’s location adjacent to residential properties, the agent proposes to
incorporate a number of management control measures to be implemented between 0600
and 0700 weekdays and Saturdays and 0800 and 0900 on Sundays or bank holidays. These
will include no more than 2 deliveries comprising one vehicle each, delivery vehicles to
switch off refrigeration motors when operating within the service yard, doors to be kept
closed during operations, switch off reverse beepers and no loading of empty caged trolley
units.
3.4 The agent has put forward a temporary period of three months in order to allow the Council
time to monitor whether the proposed increase in hours will lead to an unacceptable
disturbance and impact on amenity.
4. CONSULTATIONS
_______________________________________________________________________________
20
4.1 TOWN COUNCIL – No objections, but ask that temporary permission be granted to
monitor the environmental impact on neighbour’s properties.
4.2 THIRD PARTIES – 6 letters of objection relating to increase in noise and disturbance
caused by increase in delivery vehicles, the manoeuvring of vehicles within the yard and the
noise of trolleys and chiller units; an unnecessary increase in HGV movement along
Richmond Road; lack of visibility caused by delivery vehicles when entering and exiting the
site and lack of justification given that Safeway operated within the delivery restrictions
without seeking to extend them.
4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – Observations. A precautionary approach should be
adopted in this instance and suggests the applicant be required to demonstrate how quietly
any delivery operations can be undertaken. Furthermore, only a temporary approval should
be considered which would allow an opportunity to more readily assess the extent of any
subsequent impact on dwellings from these activities.
4.4 NCC HIGHWAYS – Assess proposal in line with guidance given in “Minor Planning
Applications that have an effect on the highway”
5. POLICY
5.1 The relevant planning policy is G3 (general development principles) of the South
Northamptonshire Local Plan which states that development must not unacceptably harm the
amenities of any neighbouring properties and should not cause problems of noise.
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The main issue in the determination of this application is considered to be the effect of the
proposed variation on the amenity of the nearby properties with regard to the additional
deliveries, the noise from HGV movements along Richmond Road and noise from within
the service yard area.
6.2 Outline planning permission was granted for the store in 1997 and as part of the application,
the hours of delivery and the impact on neighbouring properties was assessed. Following an
acoustic assessment, the delivery times was restricted by condition in order to protect the
amenities of occupiers of nearby residents. Some of the neighbouring properties back onto
the service yard area and certainly since the store was constructed, more residential
properties have been built in proximity to the Richmond Road entrance and therefore more
buildings overlook the storage yard area. Consequently an argument can be made that the
sensitivity of the site and surrounding area has increased since planning permission was first
granted.
6.3 Given the sensitivity of the site, it is questionable whether the additional deliveries an hour
earlier than the restriction allows, can be made without having an adverse impact on the
amenity of neighbouring properties. Delivery vehicles and the time of delivery to a food
store can be problematic in terms of noise by reason of the manoeuvring of vehicles within
the site, the use of reverse beepers, the unloading of vehicles and the movement of HGV
vehicles on a predominately residential road. As such, it is a concern that the additional
deliveries can be made without adversely affecting the amenity of residents above the
current hours of delivery, particularly given the time of day in which this proposal affects I
consider this a time of day when residents can expect a level of peace and quiet.
6.4 Richmond Road is residential in character and I am of the opinion additional deliveries
_______________________________________________________________________________
21
along a residential road, alongside the potential noise from the actual delivery and the
manoeuvring, loading and unloading of vehicles could be problematic. However, I am also
of the opinion there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal will give rise to
problems of noise and will be unreasonably harmful to the amenity of the neighbouring
residents. The boundary walls of the service yard appear to have been increased to 3.1m in
height as approved under permission S/2004/1131/P and arguably this will provide some
noise attenuation. Therefore I agree with advice given by the Council’s Environmental
Health department that a precautionary approach should be taken in agreement with the
temporary period put forward by the agent. This approach will take into account the
proposed management controls put forward by the agent and that it will allow the Council
time in which to control and monitor the situation. In respect of the temporary period
proposed by the agent, the agent has put forward a period of 3 months to assess the impact
on neighbouring properties. However, there is concern that this isn’t an adequate period to
gain a fair and accurate assessment of the impact this could have, in particular with regard to
summer months and more intensive periods of activity such as prior to Christmas.
Furthermore, there is also a concern that the proposed three months could allow the
applicant to comply with the mitigation measures fairly easily without potential disruption to
neighbouring properties and once the trial was over, these measures could be abandoned.
Therefore, it is recommended that the temporary period of extended hours be allowed to run
to 31st December 2005 which would allow a fair and reasonable assessment of the impact
this proposal could have on neighbouring properties.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Reason for approval: There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the variation to the
delivery times will be unreasonable and unduly harm the amenities of neighbouring
residents. Therefore, I am of the opinion that temporary planning permission should be
granted until 31st December 2005 in which to control and monitor the proposal.
_______________________________________________________________________________
22
Item No 005 _______________________________________________________________________________
Application Number : S/2004/1659/P Parish : Towcester
Case Officer : Emily Maples
Applicant : Mr Mrs Jones
Location : -
11 Holly Hill Towcester
Description : -
First floor side extension and two storey rear
extension
Recommendation - Approval
Conditions :-
1. B1 Statutory time limit
2. The existing garage shown on the approved drawing BM11HO10SH1 (issue 7) shall not be
used for any other purpose than the garaging of a private motor vehicle
3. H8 Obscured and fixed glazing
4. K13 External elevations to match existing
Reasons :-
1. RB1
2. RD1
3. RH5
4. RK2
S/2004/1659/P
WARD : Towcester Brook
WARD MEMBER : Councillor Andrew Grant and Councillor Ian Miller
THIS ITEM IS REPORTED TO COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILLOR
ANDREW GRANT – THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE MEETING ON 13
JANUARY TO ALLOW A MEMBERS SITE VISIT TO TAKE PLACE.
1. INTRODUCTION
_______________________________________________________________________________
23
1.1 The application property is a 1980s detached dwelling constructed of red brick and a
concrete tile roof. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac on a corner plot and is
surrounded by detached dwellings of a similar style and materials, but of house types which
are of varying design and frontage width. The property has an attached single garage set
forward of the front elevation of the dwelling. The submitted plans do not clearly illustrate
the boundary of the application site but it appears that the side flank wall of the garage is the
boundary.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 A planning application was submitted for a two-storey side extension on the 26th March
2004. This application was invalid as the proposed extension was to encroach onto the
neighbouring property and the application had been registered with a completed certificate
A. The initial submitted drawings did not have a set back at first floor level and also
contained a number of inaccuracies and discrepancies. The drawings were amended and re-
submitted on the 25th May setting the proposed extension within the boundary of the
application site, setting the front wall back from the existing dwelling and addressing some
of the inaccuracies and discrepancies. At this point the application was registered valid and
the 8-week period restarted from the 25th May 2004. The drawings submitted on the 25
th
May still contained a number of inaccuracies and discrepancies. The Case Officer contacted
the agent on a number of occasions to obtain accurate plans and after 4 sets of amended
plans discrepancies still remained and the proposal was refused for the following reason: -
“The submitted drawings (issue 4) is inaccurate and misleading to the extent that it is not
possible to properly assess the impact of the proposed extension on the appearance of the
street scene or upon the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property, and as such it
has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would be in accordance with
policies G3 and H17 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan and the Council’s adopted
supplementary planning guidance on house extensions.”
2.2 Detailed planning approval was granted for the existing dwelling in 1982 (SN/1981/0821/P).
3. PROPOSAL
3.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a first floor side extension and two-storey
rear extension, with the sidewall slightly set in from the flank elevation of the existing
garage. The proposed extension is to be set back by 800mm from the front wall of the
existing dwelling. The proposed two-storey extension will extend beyond the existing rear
elevation of the dwelling by 2 metres. The ridge height of the proposed extension is 7.3
metres from ground level; 300mm lower than the ridge height of the existing dwelling. The
external facing and roofing materials of the extension are to match the existing dwelling.
4. CONSULTATIONS
_______________________________________________________________________________
24
4.1 PARISH COUNCIL
Towcester Town Council – object to the proposal on the following grounds
- Over intensification of the site
- Insufficient parking in this area
4.2 THIRD PARTIES
9 Holly Hill - Summary of relevant planning objections and observations:
- concern about potential car parking issues because of an increase in the number of
bedrooms in the house and a slight reduction to the existing garage due to the
erection of an internal beam to support the proposed first floor element
- the proposed extension will extend towards the boundary of no. 11 and be less than a
metre from the side elevation on no. 9 which is not in accordance with
supplementary planning guidance. The proposed extension will be overbearing on
the occupants of no. 9 who are concerned about the affect this will have on their
residential amenity.
- the scale of the proposed extension would adversely affect the street scene of the cul-
de-sac and would create an infill situation and potential terracing effect.
- The projection of the proposed extension to the rear of the existing dwelling will
reduce the distance between the rear elevation of no.11 and the side elevation of no.
5 to less than 12 metres.
- Concerned that the location of the boiler is not illustrated on the drawings. This
element could not be fitted on the side elevation wall of the new extension and meet
current standards.
5 Holly Hill - Summary of relevant planning objections and observations:
- The proposed extension would be an invasion of the privacy of occupiers of no. 5.
The extension will bring the houses closer together
5. POLICY
5.1 This application should be considered having regard for policy GS5 of the County Structure
Plan and policies G3 and H17 of the Local Plan relating to residential extensions and general
considerations. The Council’s adopted supplementary planning guidance on residential
extensions is also relevant.
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The main issues in consideration of this application are considered to be:
- The impact of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the existing
dwelling and the surrounding street scene
- Whether the proposed extension is considered to over develop the site
_______________________________________________________________________________
25
- The effect of the proposed extension on the residential amenity of neighbouring
occupiers
6.2 In terms of Local Plan Policy H17, the principle of the proposed two-storey extension is
acceptable, and its proposed design and appearance is sympathetic to the original dwelling.
Supplementary planning guidance advises that two storey extensions will normally be
resisted where they would result in a potential ‘terracing effect’ of detached dwellings and
should remain subservient to the original dwelling. The proposed two-storey extension is to
be set in from the flank elevation of the garage by 150mm which is the assumed common
boundary. The neighbouring property (No. 9) has approximately a 1 metre gap between the
house and the flank boundary and this alignment will not change. The proposed extension is
shown to be set back from the front wall of the existing dwelling by 800mm. The roof pitch
of the extension will match the main roof and therefore a drop in the roof height of the
proposed extension of approximately 300mm will be created. Therefore I consider that the
proposed extension will not create a potential ‘terracing effect’ and will be subservient to the
existing dwelling. It is therefore in accordance with Local Plan Policy H17 and
supplementary planning guidance.
6.3 No. 11 Holly Hill has an existing garage to the side elevation of the dwelling of which the
north east flank elevation wall is the boundary of the site between no. 11 and no. 9 Holly
Hill. The proposed first floor extension is to be located above the existing garage with a set
back from the front wall of the main house by 800mm. The proposed extension is to be set
in from the side flank wall of the existing garage by 150mm to avoid encroachment of the
proposed extension on to the neighbouring property and would therefore not decrease the
existing gap between no. 9 and no. 11. Adopted supplementary planning guidance on
residential extensions states that ‘where possible a minimum distance of 1 metre should be
maintained between common boundaries, unless there are sound and convincing reasons to
do otherwise. A request to reduce the width of the proposed extension by 1 metre in order to
maintain a gap of 1 metre between the common boundary of the site would be unreasonable,
as the extension would then measure less than 2 metres in width which would be unusable
for a new bedroom to the first floor. In addition a first floor extension above an existing
attached single garage to a similar house type on Briary Close in Towcester was approved in
April 2004 (S/2004/0291/P). The flank wall of the original garage at no. 2 Briary Close also
sat on the common boundary of the site and no 1 metre gap has been maintain in this
situation and the approved first floor extension has been developed up to the common
boundary of the site.
6.4 The proposed extension is to project beyond the rear elevation of the existing building by 2
metres. The neighbouring property (no. 9) has patio doors to the rear elevation serving a
habitable room which is located approximately 2 metres from the common boundary. A 450
splay line drawn in a horizontal plane from the edge of this window will not cross any
element of the extended building. The proposed two-storey element to the rear would
slightly reduce late afternoon sunlight and daylight into the north west corner of the garden
of no. 9 Holly Hill during the summer months. It is considered that due to the increase in
ground level from the application property to the south and east it is considered that this
would not be the case in the winter months. The garden of no.9 Holly Hill is of a moderate
size with paving to the entire rear elevation of the property and it is therefore considered that
the proposed two-storey rear extension will not have an overbearing and adverse impact on
the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers at no. 9 due to loss of sunlight and
daylight to both the habitable rooms of the property and the garden.
6.5 The rear elevation of the proposed extension will be situated over 11 metres from the side
_______________________________________________________________________________
26
elevation of no. 5 Holly Hill. The proposed first floor window to the rear elevation will
serve an en suite and will therefore be obscure glazed. The private amenity space of the
neighbouring property to the rear will not be overlooked from the proposed extension and
therefore there will be no loss of privacy of the occupiers of no 5. The gap maintained
between the rear elevation of the proposed extension and the side elevation of no. 5 is over
11 metres and is considered sufficient as the clear glazed window to the ground floor of the
rear elevation is a secondary window to the extended kitchen. No. 21 Holly Hill is situated
to the north of the application site and does not directly face the building and the proposed
extension. The proposed extension will be approximately 25 metres from the front elevation
of no. 21 and it is therefore considered that the proposed extension will not have an
overbearing impact on this property or an impact on the outlook from this property to the
detriment of the occupiers of no. 21.
6.6 The proposed extension will add a fourth bedroom to the property and as a result there have
been some concerns from the neighbouring occupiers that the present parking provision
would not be sufficient. The present parking provision will not be reduced by the proposal
as one garage space measuring 2.3 metres wide and 4.8 metres long and one off-street
parking space to the front of the garage will remain available. The provision of 2 car parking
spaces for a four bedroom property meets the standards set out in the adopted
Supplementary Planning Guidance on Parking.
6.7 To summarise, I consider that the proposal is in accordance with the policies of the
Development Plan and supplementary planning guidance.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Reasons for approval: The proposal is in accordance with Local Plan Policy H17 and
supplementary planning guidance. The proposed extension respects the character and
appearance of the existing building and would not detract from the appearance of the street
scene. The proposal would not harm the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers in
terms of loss of privacy, light or outlook and would not be overbearing in relation to
adjacent dwellings. In addition, a precedent has been set for the development of single and
first floor extensions up to the common boundary between two residential properties.
_______________________________________________________________________________
27
Item No 006 _______________________________________________________________________________
Application Number : S/2004/1661/P Parish : Newbottle
Case Officer : Polly Chacon
Applicant : Lady Juliet Townsend
Location : -
The Cottage Main Street Charlton
(within Newbottle Parish)
Description : -
Erection of a summerhouse
Recommendation - Approval
Conditions :-
1. B1 Statutory time limit
2. B4 Complete compliance with plans, etc.
Reasons :-
1. RB1
2. In order to ensure that the building and final finish of materials is acceptable in this
location.
S/2004/1661/P
WARD : STEANE
WARD MEMBER : CLLR MRS REBECCA BREESE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Cottage is a Grade II listed dwelling located on Main Street. The gardens of the Cottage
lead to considerable leisure gardens and lakes to the east of the village.
1.2 The Cottage is located within the village confines and the conservation area, while the
majority of the gardens are located outside the conservation area and within the open
countryside and special landscape area.
1.3 The proposed site of the replacement summerhouse is 210 metres to the south east of the
Cottage, and is set within the shallow valley, immediately adjacent to the lakes and
watercourse.
1.4 The Head of Corporate Support confirms that the applicant’s spouse, Councillor John
Townsend, has complied with the Local Code of Conduct and the Local Protocol on
Planning Matters.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
_______________________________________________________________________________
28
2.1 None relevant.
3. PROPOSAL
3.1 The erection of a timber summerhouse adjacent to the lakes, to replace and existing
summerhouse. The existing building is of timber construction and is in a poor state of repair.
3.2 The summerhouse is proposed to be of timber construction with a slate effect roof.
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 NEWBOTTLE PARISH No response received.
4.2 A site notice was displayed and no third party responses have been forthcoming.
5. POLICY
5.1 The policies relevant to the consideration of this application are policies GS5, AR1, and
AR2 of the County Structure Plan and policies G3, and EV7 of the South Northamptonshire
Local Plan, which relate to high quality design, open countryside and landscape character.
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The issues relating to this application are the principle of a replacement building, design and
the impact on the character of the special landscape area. The application site is distant from
the listed building and would have no impact on its setting.
6.2 The existing summerhouse is now impractical to use due to its condition, and replacement
building on the same footprint within this leisure garden would be acceptable in principle.
6.3 The design of the proposal is for an octagonal timber building of 2.0 metres diameter under
a slate effect fibreglass roof. The building would be viewed as part of the leisure gardens
and would be in keeping with its setting.
6.4 It would not have an impact on the special landscape area and would only be viewed from
long distances by visitors to Charlton Lodge, from where is would be viewed in the context
of the lakes and valley. There is no public footpath in the immediate vicinity.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Reasons for approval. The proposed summerhouse would be an acceptable replacement
building and would not be out of keeping in this leisure garden setting, nor would adverse
impact be caused to the special landscape area.
_______________________________________________________________________________
29
Item No 007 _______________________________________________________________________________
Application Number : S/2004/1667/P Parish : Syresham
Case Officer : Suzanne Taylor
Applicant : D Clark
Location : -
New Orchard House 35 Wappenham
Road Syresham (retrospective)
Description : -
Alteration of one ground floor window position.
Addition of two ground floor windows.
Recommendation - Approval
Conditions :-
1. H8 Obscured and fixed glazing
2. H6 Exclusion of further extensions and windows - dwellings
3. Within three months of the date of this permission details of both hard and soft landscape
works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and
these works shall be carried out, as approved.
4. C4 Soft landscaping details
5. C9 Maintenance of planting (full and outline applications)
6. D7 Provision of garage/parking, for single dwelling with turning
7. All new windows and doors shall be painted white or off white to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and thereafter shall be permanently so retained
unless the Local Planning Authority gives written permission for any variation.
8. J11 Inset of window/door to form reveal
9. F8 Close boarded fence required
Reasons :-
1. RH5
2. RH5
3. RC1
4. RC2
5. RC5
_______________________________________________________________________________
30
6. RD1
7. RJ5
8. RJ5
9. RH5
S/2004/1667/P
WARD : ASTWELL
WARD MEMBER : Cllr Robin Digby
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site straddles the village confines boundary and lies at the north-eastern end
of Syresham off Wappenham Road. The site used to contain a Nissen hut and an inspection
pit that together formed a garage/workshop for the repair and servicing of cars (formerly C
& C Motors). A dwelling and detached garage are currently under construction on the site
and have almost been completed.
1.2 The land is bounded to the east and west by dwellings and to the north by a single storey
outbuilding belonging to the neighbouring property at Leyland House. The site is close to
the entrance to the village when entering along the Wappenham Road, and is fairly
prominent as you travel down the hill into the residential area. The site is accessed directly
off the highway and, although located on a bend, has good visibility in both directions.
1.3 This is a retrospective application which seeks to amend planning permission S/2003/0845/P
for a dwellinghouse and garage. The dwelling has almost been completed under the 2003
planning permission but two additional windows have been added to the west elevation and
one window has been resited from the north to the west elevation.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 The only relevant history is the planning permission which was granted for a five
bedroomed detached house and detached double garage. This is currently being built on the
site (S/2003/0845/P refers).
3. PROPOSAL
3.1 This postfacto application seeks to vary the 2003 planning permission. The variation relates
the repositioning of a ground floor window from the rear (north) elevation to the side (west)
elevation and the insertion of two ground floor windows to the west facing side elevation.
The remaining details of the scheme remain identical to the original approval (reference
S/2003/0845/P).
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 SYRESHAM PARISH COUNCIL. Object to the proposal because it does not accord with
the original planning permission. Request a Members Site Visit and support objections from
the neighbouring occupier.
4.2 THIRD PARTIES. Two letters received to date from a single neighbour objecting on the
_______________________________________________________________________________
31
following grounds: The new windows face their property and would result in a loss of
privacy, the new windows do not comply with the previously approved plans.
5. POLICY
5.1 This application falls to be considered in the light of policies GS4 (development strategy),
GS5 (design) and H3 (housing in villages) of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan
and G2 (development limited in villages and severely restrained in open countryside), G3
(general development strategy), H5 (housing in villages) and EV1 (design) of the South
Northamptonshire Local Plan.
5.2 This Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential Extensions is also
applicable to this application.
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The main issues arising from this application are:
− The precedent set by the previous planning permission
− Loss of privacy
6.2 THE PRECEDENT SET BY THE PREVIOUS PLANNING PERMISSION. Planning
permission has already been granted for the dwelling on this site (S/2003/0845/P refers).
The only difference between the approved dwelling and the proposed dwelling is the resiting
of one window and the insertion of two new windows all at the ground floor level. The
principle of the dwelling has been established and therefore the only issue is the new
windows.
6.3 LOSS OF PRIVACY. The repositioned window has moved from the north elevation to the
west elevation. This new opening is situated more than 20 metres from the boundary with
the neighbour to the west at 33 Wappenham Road and does not allow any direct overlooking
of adjacent, private amenity space. I am convinced that this window would not result in any
loss of privacy for neighbours.
6.4 The two additional window openings to the west elevation are positioned more than 10 and
6 metres from the garden boundary with 33 Wappenham Road. The southernmost window
is approximately 36 metres from the nearest visible window at 33 Wappenham Road and it
is set at an acute angle to this adjoining property. The northernmost window is also at an
acute angle to the adjacent dwelling and is approximately 40 metres from the closest visible
window at 33 Wappenham Road. The separation distances between the windows is well in
excess of that recommended by our Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential
Extensions (22 metres). This, combined with the angle between the windows and the
positioning of the new detached garage between the two properties, means that there would
be no harmful overlooking possible between the two dwelling houses which would result in
a loss of privacy.
6.5 The two proposed ground floor windows to the west elevation do look directly towards the
garden of 33 Wappenham Road at distances of more than 10 and 6 metres. At present the
boundary is marked by a low, timber, post and rail fence and views into the garden are
obscured by planting/vegetation and an outbuilding in the garden of the adjacent property
_______________________________________________________________________________
32
and by the new garage to serve 35 Wappenham Road. I accept that there would be some
overlooking of the rear garden of 33 Wappenham Road afforded by the new windows but I
consider that this could be satisfactorily resolved through the imposition of a condition to
require the erection of a 1.8 metre high boundary enclosure between the gardens of the two
plots.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Recommend approval subject to conditions.
7.2 Reason for Approval: The principle of this dwelling has already been approved as part of an
extant planning permission (S/2003/0845/P refers) and therefore only the amendments are
under consideration in respect of the current application. The new window openings are all
at ground floor level and would not result in a material loss of privacy for neighbours in
terms of window to window relationships. The new windows to the west elevation would
allow some overlooking of the neighbouring garden but this can be prevented by the
erection of an imperforate fence between the gardens which could be required by a
condition. Therefore, pursuant to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,
the proposed development complies with the applicable development plan policies and
adopted supplementary planning guidance and there are no other material considerations that
would constitute sustainable grounds for refusal.
_______________________________________________________________________________
33
Item No 008 _______________________________________________________________________________
Application Number : S/2004/1698/P Parish : Brackley
Case Officer : Suzanne Taylor
Applicant : Fiona Caldwell
Location : -
Orchard Cottage Church Road Brackley
Description : -
Two storey detached dwelling with detached
garage
Recommendation - Approval
Conditions :-
1. B1 Statutory time limit
2. A11 Finished site levels
3. D7 Provision of garage/parking, for single dwelling with turning
4. E10 Visibility splays to be cleared - estate development
5. E13 Pedestrian visibility splays
6. No development shall take place until the existing access gates to the site are permanently
removed to create an un-gated entrance to the proposed dwelling at the point of the
junction of the driveway with the public highway. No other gate(s) or means of enclosure
shall be placed between the dwelling and the highway without the prior written approval of
the Local Planning Authority
7. No surface water from the development shall be discharged onto the adjoining highway,
and a scheme to prevent this occurrence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and constructed prior to the commencement of the
development.
8. No development shall take place until the access drive, parking and manoeuvring areas are
provided for the property known as Orchard Cottage as shown on the approved plan which
shall be constructed, laid out, drained and surfaced to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority before the dwelling is occupied and shall not thereafter be used
for any purpose than the parking and manoeuvring of private vehicles.
9. H3 Exclusion of extensions and windows - single dwelling
10. H8 Obscured and fixed glazing
11. J11 Inset of window/door to form reveal
12. K3 Samples and details of materials - single or few buildings
_______________________________________________________________________________
34
13. K9 Random rubble stonework required
14. K11 Reference panel of stonework/brickwork required
Reasons :-
1. RB1
2. To safeguard the appearance of the Conservation Area and to ensure that the new dwelling
is in harmony will its neighbours
3. RD1
4. RE3
5. RE5
6. RE15
7. RE15
8. To ensure that adequate off-street parking and access is retained for Orchard Cottage to
cater for the needs of residents and visitors to the property in accordance with policy
G3(B) of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan.
9. To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers
10. RH5
11. RK1
12. RK1
13. RK2
14. RK3
S/2004/1698/P
WARD : BRACKLEY EAST
WARD MEMBER : Cllr Stuart Dancer and Cllr Blake Stimpson
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The site is formed by part of the former, mature rear garden of Orchard Cottage, Church
Road, Brackley, which lies within the Brackley Conservation Area and the town confines.
There are a number of trees within the site that would be retained. At the front of the site
there are a group of protected trees which would be unaffected by the proposal. The site is
surrounded by other residential properties and gardens.
1.2 The land rises steeply from Church Road with the site sitting higher than Orchard Cottage,
_______________________________________________________________________________
35
approximately level with Lime Cottage and 17 Church Road and lower than other residential
properties further west on Church Road and Pebble Lane. The site is not clearly discernible
from the access due to tree planting and surrounding dwellings but there would be partially
obscured views into the site across the rear garden of 17 Church Road.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 A full planning application for a two storey detached dwelling with a separate garage was
submitted and then withdrawn under reference S/2004/1343/P. The application was
withdrawn because of serious concerns about the scale and size of the proposed dwelling
and its relationship with adjacent dwellings. The application presently before Members is a
revised version of this submission.
2.2 Outline planning permission was granted in 2003 for a detached dwelling on garden land
associated with Orchard Cottage (S/2003/1030/PO refers). The siting and access were
approved at this outline stage with all other matters reserved for future approval. Another
outline application for a detached dwelling was submitted at the same time with an
alternative proposed siting (S/2003/1031/PO refers). This application was refused.
3. PROPOSAL
3.1 This application seeks full planning permission for a detached, two storey house with a
detached garage building. The proposal incorporates a shared access drive with Orchard
Cottage, which was approved as part of the outline permission in 2003 (reference
S/2003/1030/PO). The ridge and eaves of the proposed dwelling have been reduced since
the withdrawn application was submitted to produce a more comfortable relationship with
adjacent properties. The floor plan of the property has also been reduced in depth when
compared with the original so that it is closer in scale to neighbouring dwellings.
3.2 The two storey dwelling has relatively low eaves (4.0 metres high) and features dormer
windows at the first floor. The dwelling has a two storey projecting front wing, a lean-to
porch and a single storey lean-to at the rear. The house would be constructed in stone with a
natural slate roof. The detached garage would be smaller in size to the detached garage at
Lime Cottage and would provide parking for two cars at the ground floor level and ancillary
living accommodation at the first floor illuminated by two rooflights to the front elevation.
The garage would be constructed in materials to match the dwellinghouse.
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 BRACKLEY TOWN COUNCIL. Object to the application on the following grounds:
Infilling, overdevelopment of the site and poor access.
4.2 CONSERVATION OFFICER. No significant objections to the proposals. Considers that
the proposed style, design and suggested materials are in keeping with the traditional
appearance of surrounding properties. Recommends that samples of facing materials are
approved prior to construction.
4.3 ABORICULTURAL OFFICER. No objections.
4.4 BRACKLEY AMENITY SOCIETY. No comments received to date.
4.5 THIRD PARTIES. No comments received to date.
5. POLICY
_______________________________________________________________________________
36
5.1 This application should be considered in the light of GS4 (development strategy), GS5
(design) and AR6 (cultural heritage) of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and G2
(development to be concentrated within the built up limits of settlements), G3 (general
development strategy), H3 (housing in Brackley), H12 (backland development), EV1
(design), EV9 (development in conservation areas), EV10 (preservation of conservation
areas) and EV19 (protected trees) of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan.
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 Because outline planning permission has already been granted in 2003 the principle of the
development cannot now be challenged. The main issues arising from this application are:
− Implications of the outline planning permission.
− The impact of the proposal upon the conservation area and amenities of the locality.
− The affect upon the residential amenities of neighbours.
− Access.
6.2 IMPLICATIONS OF THE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION. Planning permission,
including means of access, has already been granted in outline for a detached dwelling on
roughly the same footprint as that proposed (S/2003/1030/PO refers). Therefore the only
matters for consideration are the impact of the proposal upon the conservation area and
locality amenity and the affect on residential amenities of neighbours.
6.3 Despite this, the Town Council have objected to the proposal because it represents infilling
and is an overdevelopment of the site. These are fundamental issues which have already
been addressed by the outline planning permission, but for clarity I believe it is necessary to
make the following points. There is no presumption against ‘infilling’ set out in the
development plan and this is actually referred to as an acceptable form of residential
development ‘in principle’ within the prevailing housing policies. The plot is not
significantly smaller than many neighbouring properties and adequate amenity space is
provided for both the proposed dwelling and the donor property, Orchard Cottage. I
therefore consider these comments are misconceived and that this scheme does not represent
an overdevelopment of the site.
6.4 THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL UPON THE CONSERVATION AREA AND
AMENITIES OF THE LOCALITY. The site lies within the Brackley Conservation Area
and is surrounded by a mix of vernacular and modern residential development in a variety of
materials. The predominant character immediately adjacent to the site is of stone built
dwellings with steeply pitched, slate and plain tile roofs with low eaves and dormer
windows. Existing buildings follow the topography of the area which slopes down from
west to east and south to north. The area benefits from many mature trees and, in particular,
a group of protected trees (covered by a Tree Preservation Order) screen most of the site
from Church Road.
6.5 The proposed dwelling house has been designed to sit between the traditional stone cottages
fronting Church Road and newer dwellings off Church Road and Pebble Lane. Taking
account of the site topography, the ridge height of the property would be approximately 1.92
metres higher than its closest neighbour, 17 Church Road, and the eaves would be 0.75
metres higher than this cottage. The ridge height and eaves are similar to newer adjoining
properties such as Orchard Cottage and Lime Cottage and therefore would be consistent
_______________________________________________________________________________
37
with the steep roof pitches evident in this locality. It is noted on the plans that the house
would be faced in stone and natural slate which would be in keeping with the predominant
materials found in this area. The first floor windows to the house would mainly be dormers
due to the low eaves line. This would also accord with surrounding houses such as Orchard
Cottage.
6.6 The detached garage building would be smaller in height and ground floor area than garages
associated with neighbouring properties (i.e. Lime Cottage and 16 Church Road) despite the
fact that it would provide parking for two cars and a study/workroom at first floor. The
garage would feature a steep roof pitch and low eaves to match the dwellinghouse and have
two rooflights to the front elevation to provide light to the first floor. The building would be
faced in the same materials as the house.
6.7 The mature beech trees to the front of the site and younger trees to the garden area (a mix of
fruit trees, a conifer, sycamore and birch) are all to be retained, thus preserving the
appearance of the conservation area and helping to screen and soften the impact of the new
buildings.
6.8 I am satisfied that the proposed dwelling and garage are sufficiently sympathetic to the
surrounding dwellings and to the locality in terms of scale, siting, materials and design to
ensure that the character of the conservation area would be preserved. The site is also not
prominent from the road and I consider that the proposal would not be harmful to the street
scene or to the visual amenities of the area.
6.9 THE AFFECT UPON THE RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES OF NEIGHBOURS. The new
dwelling would be surrounded by residential properties and therefore I have given careful
consideration to its relationships with neighbouring houses in terms of residential amenities.
6.10 The proposed dwelling would be situated approximately 2.0 metres from the side elevation
of 17 Church Road. The existing cottage would present a blank, two storey gable to the new
house. The proposed dwelling would feature a kitchen window at ground floor level which
would face this blank elevation and two other ground floor windows (one serving the porch
and a secondary window serving the lounge) would look north-east toward the garden of
No.17. No first floor windows would face towards No.17. Bearing in mind the stone wall
and vegetation between the two properties I am convinced that there would be no harmful
loss of privacy for occupants of 17 Church Road and the size and siting of the proposed
house would not lead to any material loss of light or outlook for the existing neighbour.
6.11 The rear garden of No. 14 and the garage of No.16 Church Road lie to the north-west of the
application site. The end of No.14’s garden is approximately 12 metres from first floor
windows at the rear of the proposed house and existing sycamore trees would obscure views
into this private amenity area. The garage of 16 Church Road has a first floor window set at
an angle to the first floor of the proposed dwelling at a distance of approximately 12 metres.
This window serves a garage/workshop and not a ‘primary living area’ and is heavily
obscured by existing planting. I consider that there would be no loss of privacy, light or
outlook for the occupants of No’s 14 or 16 Church Road.
6.12 The proposed house would be located approximately 25 metres from Beech House and 18
metres from Lime Cottage. There is an intervening double garage near the common
boundary with Lime Cottage which would restrict any views from the proposed ground floor
lounge windows. There would be one first floor window to the south-west elevation of the
new dwelling which would serve an en-suite bathroom (and thus be obscure glazed). I am
satisfied that there would be no detrimental loss of privacy for neighbouring residents due to
_______________________________________________________________________________
38
the acute angle between windows and the separation distances between the dwellings.
Furthermore, a condition to ensure that the en-suite window remain obscure glazed would
prevent any overlooking of the garden of Lime Cottage.
6.13 The dwelling would be sited on land which used to be a garden for Orchard Cottage. The
nearest first floor window in the south-east elevation of the new dwelling would be 22
metres from the rear elevation of Orchard Cottage and would therefore comply with the
separation distance standard for facing windows set out in this Council’s Supplementary
Planning Guidance on Residential Extensions (i.e. 22 metres). I believe that this proposal
would not result in any loss of amenity for the occupants of Orchard Cottage.
6.14 The proposed garage would not result in any loss of outlook or privacy for adjoining
dwellings due to its siting, scale and the positioning of rooflights in relation to adjacent
properties.
6.15 ACCESS. The access was approved as part of the outline permission granted in 2003.
Although the Town Council have objected to the access because they consider it to be poor,
the County Highways Authority had no objections to this access in respect of the outline
permission subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the creation of adequate vision
splays (which will not affect the protected trees), the removal of the gates, the extension of
the parking and manoeuvring area in a bound material and drainage near the access.
Therefore, I do not believe that this is an issue which would form a sustainable reason for
refusal.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Recommend approval subject to conditions.
7.2 Reason for Approval: Outline planning permission has been granted for a new dwelling on
a largely similar footprint to that proposed for this application and therefore the only issues
are the external appearance of the house, the residential amenities of neighbours and the
detached garage. There is no presumption against ‘infilling’ set out in the development plan
and the proposal does not represent an overdevelopment of the site. The proposed dwelling
and garage would preserve the appearance of the conservation area and be sympathetic to
the character of the locality. The development would not result in any harmful loss of
amenity for neighbours. The access has been approved as part of the outline permission for
a dwelling and therefore there are no objections to this element of the proposal subject to the
imposition of conditions.
_______________________________________________________________________________
39
Item No 009 _______________________________________________________________________________
Application Number : S/2004/1725/P Parish : Brackley
Case Officer : Amanda Haisman
Applicant : Mr & Mrs Wills
Location : -
Land adjacent 69 Goose Green Brackley
Description : -
Detached dwelling with attached garage
Recommendation - Approval
Conditions :-
1. B1 Statutory time limit
2. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authourity and
these works shall be carried out, as approved. The works shall include the retention of the
existing trees and hedge on the site in accordance with the approved plan no CW-SW-100.
3. C9 Maintenance of planting (full and outline applications)
4. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling a 1.8m close boarded fence shall be erected along
the western boundary of the site and shall thereafter be maintained as long as the
development hereby approved remains.
5. D9 Provision of parking space for single dwelling
6. D10 Reservation of garage for parking of private car
7. E17 Provision and standard of construction of access road
8. H3 Exclusion of extensions and windows - single dwelling
9. K2 Samples of materials - single or few buildings
10. J11 Inset of window/door to form reveal
11. Prior to the commencement of the development details of a bin storage and recycling box
area shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, such area to be
provided prior to occupation of the dwelling and retained so long as the development
hereby approved remains
12. No development shall take place until the applicant or their agents or sucessors in tile has
secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a
written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved
by the Local Planning Authority
_______________________________________________________________________________
40
Reasons :-
1. RB1
2. RC1
3. RC5
4. To safeguard the amenities of the existing dwelling
5. RD1
6. RD1
7. RE15
8. Having regard to the density, layout and character of the site and the level of amenity space
available, the Local Planning Authority consider such extensions or alterations may affect
the amenities of neighbouring dwellings and consider it is in the public interest to require
an application to enable the merits of the proposal to be assessed.
9. RK1
10. RK1
11. RF8
12. RF12
S/2004/1725/P
WARD : Brackley South
WARD MEMBER : Cllr Caryl Billingham and Cllr Brian Lewis
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site was formerly part of the garden to 69 Goose Green and fronts onto
Magpie Lane. To the side runs a footpath connecting Magpie Lane with Goose Green which
is bounded by a mature hedge. The application area is set some 1.4 metres lower than the
adjacent properties on Highfield Court with an existing stone/block retaining wall forming
the boundary. There is a similar difference in ground levels between the site and the
existing dwelling at 69 Goose Green.
1.2 The site is in an area of archaeological interest.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 Permission was granted in November 2002 for a detached three bedroomed dwelling
reference S/2002/1307/P.
_______________________________________________________________________________
41
3. PROPOSAL
3.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a detached three
bedroomed dwelling and single attached garage. The dwelling is proposed to be built in
brick with a slate roof and has a turning area within the plot. In addition, a turning head
constructed to an adoptable standard is to be provided to the front of the site to enable
vehicles using Magpie Lane to turn. A 1.8 metre close boarded fence separates the site from
the remainder of 69 Goose Green.
3.2 The application differs from that approved in 2002 by virtue of the garage, an additional
window in the south elevation and the removal of some of the existing planting along the
northern boundary.
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 BRACKLEY TOWN COUNCIL – Objects to the application on grounds of
overdevelopment, poor access onto Bridge Street, loss of amenity to residents in Highfield
Court and poor access for emergency vehicles.
4.2 ARBORICULTURAL OFFICER – Has no objections and confirms the trees to be removed
have little amenity value.
4.3 NCC (HIGHWAYS) – Notes the proposal includes the provision of a turning head as
previously required by the Highway Authority and requests the applicant be informed that
works within the highway will need their agreement. In addition, although the proposed
garage would be accessed directly from the new turning head, bearing in mind the low levels
of passing traffic at the bottom of a cul de sac and the potential benefit to highway safety
provided by the turning head they have no objections to the proposed garage.
4.4 NCC (ARCHAEOLOGY) – Request a condition for a ‘watching brief’ during development.
4.5 THIRD PARTIES – Two letters of objection received on grounds of access, loss of on street
parking and increased traffic.
5. POLICY
5.1 The application falls to be considered in light of policies GS5, H3 and T10 of the
Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and policies G3, H3 and EV1 of the South
Northamptonshire Local Plan. These policies offer guidance as to how the Council will
consider such applications for residential development within the established built up area of
Brackley.
APPRAISAL
6.1 Because planning permission has already been granted in 2002, the principle of development
cannot now be challenged. The main issues for consideration are therefore the differences
between the established permission and this application in respect of:
Q the character and appearance of the locality;
Q highway safety
Q neighbouring residential amenity.
6.2 The changes from the earlier planning permission are set out in paragraph 3.2 above.
_______________________________________________________________________________
42
6.3 The area surrounding the application site is characterised by a mixture of dwelling types.
The design of the proposed dwelling is as previously approved and is fairly traditional, using
brick and slate. Adequate amenity space can be provided. The garage is modest in size and
set well below the level of the adjacent properties in Highfield Court. A proposal for a
detached garage to the rear was removed from the previous application as it would have
impacted on the existing mature planting to the rear. However, the current application sites
the garage to the side of the proposed dwelling and the existing planting that is worthy of
retention is to remain. The removal of the two conifers and plum trees would not have an
adverse visual impact on the area. Additional landscaping works would be required as a
condition of any permission granted.
6.4 The application provides adequate parking and turning within the plot and in common with
the previously approved application, also provides a new turning head to adoptable
standards for the benefit of users of Magpie Lane. This will ensure that vehicles are able to
exit onto Bridge Street in a forward gear and is provided following the recommendation of
the highway authority who intend to incorporate the turning head within the public highway.
The extended public highway will also provide a frontage for no’s 25 and 27 Magpie Lane
allowing them to provide themselves with off street parking is they so wish. The majority of
the other properties on Magpie Lane already benefit from off street parking. The proposal
therefore represents an overall improvement in highway safety and is likely to alleviate the
current difficulties with on street parking, lack of turning and emergency access.
6.5 The proposed garage would be approximately 9.5m from the rear of the dwellings in
Highfield Court which are perpendicular to the site. The Council’s Supplementary Planning
Guidance recommends a distance of 12m between windows and two storey blank walls.
However, as the garage is single storey and set on significantly lower ground levels, it would
not have a significantly overbearing effect on the amenities of these properties. Plan number
Cw-SW-102 showing a cross section of the site demonstrates that around 400mm of the top
of the garage would be visible above the rear fences of these properties that are currently set
behind the boundary retaining wall. There are no windows proposed on this side of the
dwelling. The existing fruit trees to be removed provide limited screening and although the
previous application required retention of all the planting on this boundary, I consider the
replacement of these trees and the two adjacent conifers with more appropriate species
would be beneficial. All the remaining planting on the northern boundary is to remain.
6.6 The property to the rear is converted into three flats and lies around thirty metres from the
rear of the proposed dwelling. This complies with the Council’s guidance of 22m between
facing windows. In addition, most of the mature planting between the two properties would
be retained.
6.7 The additional side ground floor window in the south elevation would provide only oblique
views towards the existing dwelling at 69 Goose Green. As a 1.8m is proposed around 3m
from the window and number 69 is somewhat lower than the proposed dwelling there would
be no significant overlooking as a result of this additional window.
CONCLUSION
7.1 Reason for approval – The proposal complies with the relevant development plan policies,
would not result in a significant loss of amenity to residents and would not result in an
unacceptable impact on highway safety. The application is therefore recommended for
approval.
_______________________________________________________________________________
43
Item No 010 _______________________________________________________________________________
Application Number : S/2004/1728/P Parish : Nether Heyford
Case Officer : Paul Seckington
Applicant : Mr D J Higham
Location : -
Land off Hillside Road r/o 15-17 Furnace
Lane Nether Heyford
Description : -
Erection of one pair of semi-detached houses
with integral garages
Recommendation - Approval
Conditions :-
1. B1 Statutory time limit
2. B3 Amended details and/or plans
3. Details of finished floor levels in relation to existing and proposed site levels (and to the
adjacent buildings) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the approved
levels.
4. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these
works shall be carried out as approved.
5. The existing birch tree to the front of the site should be retained if possible and if so
protected during construction by fencing to BS5837. This fencing shall be erected before
any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of
development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus material
have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed nor any fires lit in any
area fenced in accordance with this condition. If the tree requires removal then a
replacement semi-mature birch tree will be required to be planted, details of which shall be
submitted as part of the landscaping scheme.
6. C9 Maintenance of planting (full and outline applications)
7. K2 Samples of materials - single or few buildings
8. Prior to commencement of development full details of the proposed boundary treatments of
the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
scheme of boundary treatments shall be completed before the occupation of the dwellings
hereby approved and thereafter retained as such.
9. D9 Provision of parking space for single dwelling
10. The width of the driveway shall be at least 3m for a distance of 5m from the near edge of
_______________________________________________________________________________
44
the highway carriageway and shall be finished in a bound material for this distance and not
exceed a gradient of 1 in 15.
11. No gates shall be erected on the driveway.
12. H5 Exclusion of windows - single dwelling
13. F31 Prohibited working hours during construction
Reasons :-
1. RB1
2. RB2
3. To ensure that the dwelling relates satisfactorily to its surroundings
4. RC1
5. In the interests of visual amenity.
6. RC5
7. RK1
8. In the interests of visual amenity and the amenities of neighbouring residents.
9. RD1
10. RE15
11. RE15
12. RH5
13. RG3
S/2004/1728/P
WARD : Heyford
WARD MEMBER : Cllr Graham Smith
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The site is 0.05 hectares in area (21m x 22 m) and originally formed part of the rear gardens
of Nos. 15 & 17 Furnace Lane. As such, the plot actually lies in Hillside Road, which
consists of houses and bungalows originally built as Local Authority housing. To the east of
the plot is a pair of semi-detached houses and on the opposite side of the street are two pairs
of similar semi-detached houses and a pair of semi-detached bungalows.
1.2 The side boundary to No. 15 Furnace Road consists of a 1.8m (approx.) high hedge.
Between the pavement and the site is a grass verge.
_______________________________________________________________________________
45
2. PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 In February 2004 outline planning permission was granted at Committee for a pair of semi-
detached houses on this site (S/2003/1593/PO). All matters were reserved for later
approval.
2.2 At the end of last year a full planning application proposing the erection of a pair of semi-
detached housing on the site was withdrawn following objections by officers to the design of
the dwellings.
PROPOSAL
3.1 This application also seeks full planning permission for the erection of a pair of semi-
detached housing on this site, with a revised design to the earlier withdrawn application. The
proposed properties are plain fronted with subservient wings to each side containing integral
garages with bedroom over, and a driveway to the front. At the rear, each property also has a
single-storey rear wing containing the kitchen. Each dwelling will have 3 bedrooms.
CONSULTATIONS
4.1 NETHER HEYFORD PARISH COUNCIL: Object. The revised plans are too big for the
site and not in keeping with the surrounding area. Now two entrances/exits to the site from a
narrow road with a bus route.
4.2 THIRD PARTIES: One response to date from the occupiers of No. 17 Furnace Lane,
summary of comments: The latest plans show the whole property set back further from the
road so that we now have a substantial part of the proposed property at the bottom of our
garden that would both block the view and cast a substantial shadow across our garden and
have our garden overlooked
4.3 NCC HIGHWAYS: No objections subject to imposition of standard single access conditions
and request the set back of the garage 5m from the public highway.
POLICY
5.1 This application should be considered under Structure Plan Policies GS5, H3 and H6 and
South Northamptonshire Local Plan Policies G3, H5 and EV1 which relate to residential
development in villages, density, design and general development control considerations.
5.2 Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing is also relevant.
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The main issues in the consideration of this application are considered to be:
- The acceptability of the principle of the proposed development
- The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
- The impact on the character and appearance of the area
- The impact on highway safety
6.2 The Government's policies for meeting housing needs are based on the principles of
focusing new development on existing towns and villages, making the best use of existing
housing and making the best use of land which has already been developed. These
_______________________________________________________________________________
46
requirements are reflected in the Council’s policies on new residential development which,
in line with Government guidance, also requires that proposals should respect the character
and appearance of the local area, not harm the amenities of surrounding land uses and not
result in an adverse impact upon highway safety.
6.3 Policy H3 of the Structure Plan states that housing development will be limited to within the
established confines of villages and when assessing proposals regard will be had to the
impact of the development on the form, character and setting of the village.
6.4 Policy H5 of the Local Plan states that proposals for residential development will normally
be permitted within the village confines of Nether Heyford for the infilling of a small gap in
an otherwise built up frontage; or a small group of dwellings; or a conversion of an existing
building. On all development proposals Policy G3 of the Local Plan states that planning
permission will normally be granted where (amongst other criteria) the proposal would not
unacceptably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties; would be compatible in terms
of type, scale, siting, design and materials with the existing character of the locality; and
would provide a satisfactory means of access.
6.5 The principle of developing this site for a pair of semi-detached houses has already been
accepted by the granting of the outline planning permission. The site lies within the village
confines, would front Hillside Road and would effectively be infilling within an otherwise
built up frontage, however, as this is a full planning application consideration needs to be
given the design, scale and appearance of the dwellings and their impact upon the
neighbouring properties and street scene.
6.6 Hillside Road contains a mixture of semi-detached houses and bungalows. The proposed
pair of semi-detached houses would be sited adjacent to and opposite semi-detached houses
and therefore the principle of erecting semi-detached houses is considered acceptable in
street scene terms. Nos. 15 & 17 Furnace Lane have long rear gardens, some 45m in length,
and would be left with 20m of rear garden following sub-division of the plots. As such the
existing houses have been left with more than sufficient rear gardens and would not be
adversely affected by the physical presence of the houses. The distance between the rear
elevation of the properties in Furnace Lane and the potential side elevation of the proposed
semi-detached houses would also ensure that development would not appear cramped. The
guidance contained within the Council’s SPG’s advises that a distance of 12m should be
maintained between the rear elevations of dwellings and a blank side elevation of another
property. In this case the distance will be over 20m. as such, whilst the neighbours at No. 17
Furnace Land have objected to the application, it is in accordance with the Council’s
policies on distances between properties and secondly, occupiers do not have right to a view
across other peoples land.
6.7 I consider that the pair of semi-detached houses can be sited on the plot without adversely
affecting the amenities of the other houses within Furnace Lane or that of No. 2 Hillside
Road. A sufficient distance is proposed between the rear elevation of the proposed semi-
detached houses and the rear garden boundary of No. 19 Furnace Lane (10.8m) to ensure
that the development would not be overbearing upon them or result in an adverse degree of
overlooking.
6.8 Policy H6 of the Structure Plan states that to ensure that optimum use is made of land,
housing development will take place at a net minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare.
This application proposes 40 dwellings to the hectare and can be achieved without detriment
to the character and appearance of the area or the amenities of local residents. As such the
_______________________________________________________________________________
47
proposal is in line with both government guidance and the policies of the development plan.
6.9 With regards to design, the site is located on Hillside Road, which consists of simply
designed dwellings, with flat frontages and ridgelines parallel to the road. In this particular
location the dwellings are set back about 6m from the path and have plan depths of 7m. On
the withdrawn scheme, the building was proposed set forward of the adjacent No. 2 by some
3.5m with two large gables at either end fronting the road. I considered that such a proposal
would have dominated the street scene by reason of its prominent position and its design,
resulting in rather incongruous feature out of character with surrounding development.
6.10 I advised the applicant that development on this site should respect and harmonise with the
adjacent properties, following the simple design, flat frontage and ridgelines that are parallel
to the road. The building does not need to be an exact copy of its neighbours, but should
echo the design principles of them. I advised that the building should have a similar plan
depth to the adjacent properties and be set further back into the site, to respect the building
line of adjacent properties, the pattern and layout of the built form and to minimise the
dominance of the building. However, the building does not need to be on the same building
line of the adjacent No. 2, there is a slight curvature of the road as it exits onto Furnace Lane
and therefore if the building is slightly set forward of No. 2, this would be acceptable.
6.11 The proposal submitted with this application has been designed to be in keeping with its
surroundings and followed the advice given. The building has a flat frontage with the
ridgeline running parallel to the road and two subservient side additions at either end, to
break up the front elevation and to appear as a pair of semi-detached dwellings with two-
storey side extensions. The building has a plan depth of 7m. The front of building will be set
4m from the front boundary, with the side additions set 5m back. It is proposed to finish the
building in an appropriate red brick with brick detailing around the windows and doors.
Whilst this building will be wider than the other semi-detached houses in the area, the plot is
wider and the scale of the property is minimised by the subservient nature of the side
additions, with the main part of the dwellings a similar width to the surrounding properties.
In addition, the sides of the properties will be 1.5m from the side boundaries of the plot. As
such I do not consider it be a cramped form of development and respects the scale of
adjacent properties.
6.12 In accordance with the requirements of the highway authority, the plans have been amended
to ensure a sufficient distance of 5m between the garage and the public highway, by shifting
the house 0.5m back into the plot. The plans indicate the provision of two parking spaces per
dwelling, one in the garage and one in front. As such, the proposals are acceptable to the
Highway Authority.
CONCLUSION
7.1 Reason for approval: The proposed development accords with development plan policies
relating to residential development in villages. The proposed pair of semi-detached houses
will not cause detriment to the amenities of neighbouring residents, will be in keeping with
the character and appearance of the area and is acceptable in highway safety terms.
_______________________________________________________________________________
48
Item No 011 _______________________________________________________________________________
Application Number : S/2004/1739/P Parish : Bugbrooke
Case Officer : Paul Seckington
Applicant : Mr Harrison
Location : -
The Woodyard Heyford Road Bugbrooke
Description : -
Storage and re-building of motor vehicles in
connection with banger racing and storage and
sawing of wood.
Recommendation - Approval
Conditions :-
1. The uses hereby permitted shall cease and all motor vehicles other than those present in
connection with the storage and sawing of wood for fuel and the storage of small scale
agricultural machinery shall be removed from the land on or before the expiration of the
period of two years from the date of this decision.
2. No more than 9 cars in total shall be stored on the land for the purposes of storage, repair
or rebuilding at any time and no other vehicles shall be stored on the land other than in
connection with the use of the land for storage and sawing of wood for fuel or the storage
of small scale agricultural equipment.
3. No cars or engines shall be stored, repaired, rebuilt or tested on the land other than within
the area hatched red on the plan attached to the enforcement notice.
4. No part of any car stored on the land shall exceed 2m above ground level
5. No engines shall be run on the land other than when fitted with a silencer in full working
order appropriate to the type of engine and vehicle.
6. No engines shall be tested on the land other than on Saturdays between the hours of 10.00
and 16.00.
7. Repair and rebuilding of motor vehicles other than in connection with the use of the land
for the storage and sawing of wood for fuel shall not take place other than between the
hours if 08.00 and 22.00 on any day.
8. The uses hereby permitted shall not be undertaken other than by Mr F Harrison and his son
Mr Jason Harrison
Reasons :-
1. To protect the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of nearby properties
from noise and disturbance, and to prevent intensification of the use and to limit the
operation of the site to an acceptable level.
_______________________________________________________________________________
49
2. To protect the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of nearby properties
from noise and disturbance, and to prevent intensification of the use and to limit the
operation of the site to an acceptable level.
3. To protect the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of nearby properties
from noise and disturbance, and to prevent intensification of the use and to limit the
operation of the site to an acceptable level.
4. To protect the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of nearby properties
from noise and disturbance, and to prevent intensification of the use and to limit the
operation of the site to an acceptable level.
5. To protect the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of nearby properties
from noise and disturbance, and to prevent intensification of the use and to limit the
operation of the site to an acceptable level.
6. To protect the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of nearby properties
from noise and disturbance, and to prevent intensification of the use and to limit the
operation of the site to an acceptable level.
7. To protect the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of nearby properties
from noise and disturbance, and to prevent intensification of the use and to limit the
operation of the site to an acceptable level.
8. To protect the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of nearby properties
from noise and disturbance, and to prevent intensification of the use and to limit the
operation of the site to an acceptable level.
S/2004/1739/P
WARD : Downs
WARD MEMBERS: Cllr John Curtis, Cllr David Harries
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site is situated within open countryside to the west of the village of
Bugbrooke, located between the Grand Union Canal towpath and the road that leads from
Bugbrooke to Nether Heyford. The land on the other side of the canal is within a Special
Landscape Area.
1.2 The site is accessed via a track off the Heyford Road and consists of an old workshop
building, a small single-storey brick-built building, three lorry trailer boxes, an old tractor,
several dilapidated cars and general storage of scrap.
PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 Until 1969 the land was used as a gas distribution depot. In 1973 an application for a
workshop for the repair and storage of motor vehicles and for the repair, maintenance and
storage of agricultural vehicles were refused. Enforcement action against the storage of
motor vehicles was upheld at appeal.
_______________________________________________________________________________
50
2.2 In 1977 an outline application for the erection of a motor vehicle repair workshop was
refused, but in 1981 temporary planning permission was granted for storage of small scale
agricultural equipment (S/1981/0143/P). This was renewed the following year and extended
to include storage and sawing of wood for fuel (S/1982/0698/P). In 1986 an application for
storage of damaged vehicles was refused. The subsequent appeal was dismissed. In 1988
planning permission for the temporary uses approved in 1981 and 1982 was made
permanent, but restricted to the stated purposes and personal to the appellant
(S/1988/1377/P).
2.3 In 2001 a retrospective planning application seeking use of part of the existing woodyard for
the storage and rebuilding of motor vehicles used in connection with banger car racing was
refused (S/2000/1160/P). An appeal against the subsequent enforcement notice was allowed
in June 2002 and planning permission was granted for a temporary period of one year,
subject to several conditions restricting the use of the site as follows:
1. No more than 9 cars in total shall be stored on the land for the purposes of storage,
repair or rebuilding at any time and no other vehicles shall be stored on the land
other than in connection with the use of the land for storage and sawing of wood for
fuel or the storage of small scale agricultural equipment.
2. No cars or engines shall be stored, repaired, rebuilt or tested on the land other than
within the area hatched red on the plan attached to the enforcement notice.
3. No part of any car stored on the land shall exceed 2m above ground level.
4. No engines shall be run on the land other than when fitted with a silencer in full
working order appropriate to the type of engine and vehicle.
5. No engines shall be tested on the land other than on Saturdays between the hours of
10.00 and 16.00.
6. Repair and rebuilding of motor vehicles other than in connection with the use of the
land for the storage and sawing of wood for fuel shall not take place other than
between the hours if 08.00 and 22.00 on any day.
7. The uses hereby permitted shall not be undertaken other than by Mr F Harrison and
his son Mr Jason Harrison.
8. The uses hereby permitted shall cease and all motor vehicles other than those present
in connection with the storage and sawing of wood for fuel and the storage of small
scale agricultural machinery shall be removed from the land on or before the
expiration of the period of one year from the date of this decision (26th June 2002).
2.4 At the end of 2003 a planning application was submitted seeking permanent permission of
the site for these purposes but a further temporary permission for one year was granted,
repeating the above conditions, and expired on the 14th January 2005 (S/2003/1425/P).
PROPOSAL
3.1 This application seeks consent for the permanent use of the site for the storage and re-
building of motor vehicles in connection with banger racing and storage and sawing of
wood.
_______________________________________________________________________________
51
CONSULTATIONS
4.1 BUGBROOKE PARISH COUNCIL: Object to the application. Whilst we have no concerns
regarding the wood side of the business we are aware that conditions 2 and 6 of the existing
planning permission have been contravened during the past 12 months. There has also been
the burning of tyres and oil on the site.
4.2 SNC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: No response to date
4.3 THIRD PARTY: Two responses to date from the occupier of The Old Crown, Bugbrooke (a
residential property located approx. 190m to the south on the western bank of the canal) and
from Heyford Fields Farm to the west. Summary of comments:
- The noise this site generates at times is incredible
- Car revving without exhausts is very annoying
- Burning of tyres from the site, black smoke
- It is fire and noise hazard for the stable yard which is only 180m away
- The site is an absolute mess and encourages fly-tipping
- A permanent permission should not be granted, only temporary
- Non-compliance with conditions 2 and 6 of the temporary permission
- The recent extension of one year was due to the applicant not observing the
conditions during the previous one year temporary permission – the situation is now
repeated. If the applicant has not observed the conditions during two one-year trials
it is unlikely that he will do so in the future, especially if a full planning permission
is granted
- Only noted one occasion where the running of car engines happened during the
permitted hours.
- The site was used for Banger Car engine running on Good Friday 09 April, Sunday
09 May, Friday 14 May and Thursday 26 August 2004. Engine running has also
occurred on other non-permitted dates which I have not noted down.
- On 17 May 12 cars were being stored on site, on 15 November there 14 and on 30
December there were 15. the number seems to be increasing, with no regard to the
permitted number
- The external boundary fencing of the woodyard is dilapidated and an eyesore
POLICY
5.1 This application should be considered having regard to Structure Plan Policy AR2
(landscape character) and South Northamptonshire Local Plan Policies G3 (general policy);
EV2 (development in the countryside); EV25 (Waterways) and RC7 (public footpaths).
5.2 The Structure Plan aims to conserve and enhance the landscape character of the whole
County. As such developments should respect local character and distinctiveness. The Local
Plan allows for development in the countryside only in limited circumstances and seeks to
prevent development which would harm the nature conservation, landscape or wildlife value
of waterways, the public rights of way network, and Special Landscape Areas. General
development control criteria require that developments should not cause unacceptable harm
to the amenities of neighbouring properties nor cause problems of pollution, noise, smell or
fumes.
5.3 Also of relevance is Planning Policy Statement 7: The Countryside.
APPRAISAL
_______________________________________________________________________________
52
6.1 Given the previous uses of the site and planning history the Inspector considered that the use
of the site for this purpose was not unacceptable in principle but rather hung on the actual
effects the use had.
6.2 With regard to noise and disturbance resulting from the use of the site, the two most affected
properties are considered to be the Old Crown to the south and Heyford Fields to the west.
The Inspector considered that serious disturbance is likely to occur from testing un-silenced
race engines. The Inspector saw no necessity for the vehicles to be tested in any other
condition. As such conditions were attached preventing the running of engines on the land
without silencers, no running of engines outside of the site and limiting engine testing to
10.00-16.00 hours on Saturdays only and other activities related to the repair and rebuilding
of banger cars restricted to the hours of 08.00-22.00 daily.
6.3 Given that the sawing of wood element could take place at any time, for any duration and
that the saw could be upgraded to a more powerful machine, the Inspector considered that
the other activities related to the repair and rebuilding of the vehicles would not be likely to
cause unacceptable noise and disturbance to occupiers of nearby properties or users of the
canal provided that they are strictly controlled by conditions.
6.4 The Inspector also noted that such conditions should also address the scale of future activity
on the site. The Inspector stated that even if the numbers of cars stored, kept or being
worked on is limited as suggested there would be no practical means of controlling their
turnover and hence the intensity of use. Much had been made of the hobby status of the
activity and the Inspector considered it necessary to restrict the use to the appellant and his
son to avoid possible future introduction of a commercial operation. In addition, the
Inspector considered it necessary to make the planning permission temporary for one year to
allow the re-assessment of the effects of the use in practice and to provide an element of
restraint upon the natural inclinations of enthusiastic practitioners of the sport.
6.5 During the initial one-year temporary period put in place to assess the affects of the use, no
complaints were received. However, at the end of 2003 the nearby resident informed the
Council that just recently the use had been operating outside the previously specified times
and by people other than the applicant and his son. As such, it was considered that a further
temporary planning permission be granted for two years with the same conditions as set out
on the Inspector’s decision repeated, to further assess the use of the land in practice. The
application was determined by the Members of the Development Control Committee who
granted a further temporary consent, but restricted it to one year.
6.6 Now that the second temporary planning permission has expired the applicant is now
seeking permanent planning permission for the use of the site for these purposes. During the
most recent temporary consent a letter was sent to the Council (May 2004) by the occupier
of the Old Crown stating that there had been several occurrences where the banger cars had
been run outside the permitted hours (see third party representations above). Concerns had
also previously been raised that people other than Mr Harrison and his son have been
working on cars on the site. During my site visit the site was rather untidy with cars stored in
a haphazard manner and I noticed that there were 12 cars stored on the land, 3 above the
permitted 9, and that there were 2 cars stacked on top of one another, which appeared to be
above the permitted 2m in height. In addition, a car was being worked on during my
weekday site visit and a fire was burning.
6.7 In support of the application the applicant’s agent states that the trial period has lasted for
nearly two-and-a-half years and that during this time the applicant has complied with the
_______________________________________________________________________________
53
planning conditions, only a very small number of alleged breaches have been reported to the
Council with none of these substantiated and no action taken by the Council. The applicant
strongly disputes the alleged breaches and confirms that no vehicle testing has taken place
outside the specified hours and that his records show that on the dates specified a lorry was
present on site loading prepared vehicles ready to transport them to a race meeting the
following day. The agent states that there was certainly no vehicle testing on the days
specified and that it should be recognised that other moving activities are authorised on the
land.
6.8 In response to the complaints regarding a fire on the site, witnessed by the case officer, the
agent states this was the result of arson and the tyres that were burnt were not old or worn
but were to be used at the next race meeting. The agent states that the applicant wishes it to
be known that he has never burnt waste materials on the site and no previous burning has
been reported to the Council, waste tyres are disposed of when the cars themselves are
scrapped and therefore there is no need to carry out any burning on the site. It did not appear
that any attempt had been made to extinguish the fire.
6.9 Regarding the number of vehicles that have been stored on the site recently, again witnessed
by the case officer, the agent states that this was a direct result of the breakers yard at St
James’ Mill Road in Northampton ceasing accepting further scrap vehicles, which inevitably
led to vehicles being stored on site until a new facility could be found. The agent states that
this has now been achieved at a site in Daventry and that the wrecked vehicles, which have
been stored on the site, are now in the process of being moved off the site.
6.10 In the supporting letter the agent also requests that following a change in personal
circumstances an amendment to condition 8 to allow Mr Jason Harrison and one other
person to undertake the uses specified. It is stated that the applicant’s job now takes him
away from the area and it is no longer possible to be on site with his son who continues with
his banger racing. There is concern that working alone in such an isolated location,
particularly given the nature of the activities, represents an unsatisfactory solution,
introducing unnecessary risks. Therefore they believe it is important for safety reasons that
at least two people work on the site at any one time. The agent stresses that the activities
remain a hobby and they are not seeking any change in these circumstances. Indirectly the
agent is acknowledging the unsatisfactory nature of the location for the use permitted on
appeal.
6.11 In general terms, such a use in the open countryside, adjacent to the Grand Union Canal and
a Special Landscape Area would not be permitted, but given the previous authorised use of
the site the Inspector considered that the storage and rebuilding of motor vehicles in
connection with the applicant’s hobby of banger car racing, would have no greater impact,
subject to conditions restricting the scale of the activity and the hours of operation, and
giving a temporary consent to assess the use in practice. Over the 30 months since the
Inspector’s decision there have been a continuing number of witnessed and alleged breaches,
which the applicant either strongly disputes or has an explanation for, and that more cars
were stored on the land due to the fact that for a period they had no where to take them.
Further, whenever an application comes in to make the use permanent strong objections are
voiced by the adjacent neighbours and the Parish Council, not only stating alleged breaches
but also on the general untidy nature of the site and the impact it has on the character,
appearance and amenity of the countryside. As such, I am reluctant to recommend that a
permanent planning permission be granted for this site and consider that only a temporary
permission would be appropriate, given the repeated breaches of the conditions over the two
trial periods, the noise and disturbance of the use upon neighbours and the impact upon the
_______________________________________________________________________________
54
open countryside in general, and to further assess the impact of this site over a longer period.
6.12 When the first temporary permission was granted the Inspector made much reference to the
hobby status of the activity (i.e. a leisure and recreation past time) and was therefore
restricted to the father and son as he was concerned about the creation of a commercial
activity on the site. I am therefore unwilling to accept a variation to the condition to allow
people other than the applicant and his son to undertake the uses, as I believe this will go
beyond the reasons why the use was originally considered acceptable, and could lead to the
site being used far more intensely than if it were restricted to the applicant and son.
6.13 On a final note, the suggestion by the agent that because the Local Planning Authority has
not taken enforcement action against any of the alleged transgressions there can be no
serious issues of concern is spurious and fails to address the issue of expediency. Whilst it
may not be expedient to commence enforcement action, that does not in any way mitigate
the failure to comply let alone allow the conclusion to be drawn that the allegation of
breaching a condition(s) has not been proven. On balance therefore the Local Planning
Authority can see no alternative but to recommend a further 12 months on exactly the terms
as previously.
CONCLUSION
7.1 Reason for approval: When the use was operated in accordance with the conditions set out
in the permission granted on appeal, no complaints were received regarding the use.
However given the reported breaches of the conditions over the last eighteen months, the
noise and disturbance of the use upon neighbours and the impact upon the open countryside
in general, it is considered that only a further temporary planning permission should be
granted to further assess the use in practice. If further breaches of control take place
appropriate enforcement action can be taken.
_______________________________________________________________________________
55
Item No 012 _______________________________________________________________________________
Application Number : S/2004/1745/PO Parish : Silverstone
Case Officer : Amanda Haisman
Applicant : Mr R Knight
Location : -
Land adjacent 5 Brackley Road
Silverstone
Description : -
New dwelling with detailed access - Outline
Recommendation - Approval
Conditions :-
1. A1 Statutory time limit
2. A4 Reserved matters - alternative
3. A10 Threshold levels
4. B3 Amended details and/or plans
5. C1 Landscaping (outline applications)
6. C9 Maintenance of planting (full and outline applications)
7. D4 Parking, turning, loading and unloading required
8. E19 Construction of vehicular access required before occupation
9. E13 Pedestrian visibility splays
10. E25 Single driveway-gradient and surfacing
11. E24 Width of access and gates
12. Notwithstanding the details provided in connection with condition 2 above, the rear
elevation of the dwelling shall be a minimum distance of 15m from the rear boundary
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
Reasons :-
1. RA1
2. RA3
3. In view of the differing ground levels on the site
_______________________________________________________________________________
56
4. RB2
5. RC1
6. RC5
7. RD3
8. RE9
9. RE5
10. RE10
11. RE10
12. In view of the differing ground levels on the site, a dwelling closer to the rear boundary
may result in a loss of privacy to neighbours
S/2004/1745/PO
WARD : Silverstone
WARD MEMBER : Cllr Dermot Bambridge
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The site currently forms part of the garden of number 5 Brackley Road and lies between the
existing dwelling and the Royal Oak public house. Direct road frontage is available and the
village confines line runs along the rear boundary. The site levels fall away from the road
towards a small stream.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 Outline permission was refused for a dwelling in 1977 reference S/1977/1645/P on grounds
of inadequate sewage disposal facilities.
PROPOSAL
3.1 The application is for outline permission for one dwelling on 0.05 hectares of land. All
matters are reserved for approval with the exception of access, although indicative plans of
siting and external appearance are supplied. Details of the access have been amended to
provide adequate visibility in accordance with the Council’s adopted guidance.
CONSULTATIONS
4.1 SILVERSTONE PARISH COUNCIL – has no objections to the original plans. Response
awaited to the amended plans.
4.2 ARBORICULTURAL OFFICER – has no objections to the proposals and notes none of the
trees on the site are worthy of a TPO.
_______________________________________________________________________________
57
4.3 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (HIGHWAYS) – Requested amendments
to the access to accord with visibility requirements. They confirm they have no objections
to the amended plans.
4.4 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – has no objections but recommend a percolation test to ensure
soakaways will work adequately on the site.
4.5 THIRD PARTIES – One letter of objection on grounds of overlooking and loss of privacy.
POLICY
5.1 The application should be considered with regard to policies GS5 and H3 of the County
Structure Plan and policies G3, H5 and EV1 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan
which seek to guide residential development to appropriate sites within the village confines.
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The main issues to be considered with regard to this application are:
- The principle of residential development on the site.
- Highway safety
- Impact on neighbouring residents.
6.2 Number 5 Brackley Road is a traditional detached dwelling set perpendicular to the road and
with a substantial side garden fronting onto the road. Part of the garden would form the site,
which lies within the village confines and proposes a new vehicular access directly onto the
Brackley Road. The proposal is therefore acceptable infill development in accordance with
policy H5 of the Local Plan. The application refused in 1977 related to policies then
prevailing and no longer constitutes grounds for refusal.
6.3 The new vehicular access provides adequate visibility in accordance with adopted highway
guidance and the plot is of sufficient size to be able to provide turning within the site.
6.4 The size and location of the site is sufficient to be likely to be able to provide a dwelling of a
design that is in keeping with the area. The third party objection received regarding
overlooking refers to the indicative plans that do not form part of the application. I consider
the characteristics of the site are such that it should be possible to provide a new dwelling
which would not adversely affect the residential amenity of the existing or neighbouring
dwellings. However, due to the levels on the site it is considered that the rear of any new
dwelling should be a minimum distance of 15m from the rear boundary in order to prevent
overlooking of the dwelling to the rear. A condition is attached to this effect.
CONCLUSION
7.1 Reason for approval – The application complies with the relevant development plan
policies and the site is likely to be able to accommodate a dwelling of an acceptable design
without a significant adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring dwellings.
_______________________________________________________________________________
58
_______________________________________________________________________________
59