1

LATE LETTER'S LIST BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH Planning Committee - 26th March 2014 Report of the Head of Planning and Local Development WP/2014/0019/F 77 Gold Street, Wellingborough. Applicant’s Representations/Objections -

Received 6 March 2014 – Dear Mr Chapman,

The Learned staff in council office should be able to put me in direction of the page( 0f this 252 page constitution) that gives councilor,s the right to make a planning objection through the back door and keep the objection grounds secret from the applicant. I do not even know what the grounds of objection are and why council and councillor want to keep it secret Whose money is being spent on secret issues?. I await to hear what rule on which page is being used to run secret objections?.

Yours sincerely Harbhajan singh (applicant)

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 12:31:21 +0000 From: AChapman@wellingborough.gov.uk To: hsjosan@hotmail.co.uk Subject: RE: 77 Gold St - WP-14-19 Dear Mr Harbhajan Singh In response, please be advised that you are allowed to speak at Planning Committee. The following link to this Council's Constitution may provide you with all the answers to member involvement in planning matters. http://www.wellingborough.gov.uk/downloads/file/5245/council_constitution Best regards Alan Chapman

2

>>> harbhajan <hsjosan@hotmail.co.uk> 05 March 2014 12:43 >>>

Please provide a copy of the rule under which councilors can can keep their planning concerns secret .

Yours sincerelyHarbhajan singh(applicant)

Case Officer recommendations in response to the above:

It is recommended to Planning Committee that the suggested wording for Condition 9 contained in the Committee Report be amended to read as follows:

Condition 9: Pedestrian to vehicle visibility of 2.4m x 2.4m above a height of 0.6m must be provided and maintained on the south side of the point of access.

Reason: Applicant has direct control of land on the south side of point of access and does not have control of land on north side of point of access.

Statutory Consultee Response - BCW Environmental Protection Officer:-

An appropriate environmental risk assessment should be carried out or a condition be included in any approval requiring a scheme to be submitted to the satisfaction of the LPA.

WP/2014/0029/FM & WP/2014/0030/FM British Rail Sports and Social Club,

38a Broad Green, Wellingborough. Councillor Graham Lawman – commented on the previous proposal prior to design changes as follows: The design statement and other papers clearly state that there would be a re-alignment of the wall. I forgot to mention my impression is that the unattractive facing treatment of these building is at odds with the buildings on the other side of the road – you will recall that we took great pains to ensure that the masonic development matched the existing facings, etc. Both façade and roof should be sympathetic. In terms of access, it is clear that access should be through the other part of the development onto Knights Court, which has synergies with this development and direct access would ensure safer access for the likely residents. This can be done by re-aligning the housing on the residential development which would give the benefit of south facing gardens for more access. Valerie Siddons, 54 Knights Court, Wellingborough –

“Dear Sir, I have just been to the site meeting of the above planning application. We could not hear what was being said and did not have any answers to our questions. I represent 22 flats in the Knights Court Supported living scheme and the 18 flats

3

101 -135 (all odd numbers) the properties all face the road will be directly affected if the road comes by our flats. One gentleman who I think was the architect made a comment that the care facility was being separated from the other development as they needed peace and quiet. This supported living scheme also has people with disabilities who would also like peace and quiet. We have had years of building works that we have had to put up with. If possible can our point be brought to the attention of the Planning committee. I have also sent all copies to Wellingborough Homes asking if they have sold the small area of land that will enable this planning to go ahead hoping that this is not the case.”

Owner of no. 38 Broad Green –

“My name is David Feary and I own No 38 Broad Green directly to the right of the Railway club site. Firstly I am delighted that the site is to be developed and I am overall happy with its proposed use and design although I think that the Dun Cow development is much too high. The top floor accommodation should have utilised the roof space to give a lower building, like the superb recently completed Masonic Development opposite. I am so glad that there is now some Ironstone ! Well I hope its Ironstone Facia ??? included on this site proposed building. Me and my neighbours want to advise some concerns and advice to you as follows : They are in respect of the infrastructure along Broad Green. We really hope that these are taken seriously in the initial planning and eventual development of the site and immediate surrounding areas. ISSUE 1. Flooding on the front road gullies and narrow pathways from the Dun Cow Traffic Lights right to the Queens Head Public House : The worst areas are in front of the Railway Club, my Property at No 38 and my Neighbours at No 39 Broad Green.( I have some photocopies for you all ) There is an ongoing problem of massive flows of water raking across the busy traffic light areas into our gullies, because the road has been built up over the years .There are 2 ineffective drains that do not take water away at a fast enough rate, or are silted and blocked. We did succeed in getting larger storm gullies fitted in 2009/2010, but these still silt up and have needed continual maintenance and cleaning to stop this serious problem. As the proposed use of this of the site is to be for wheelchair and disabled residents its worrying that several times over the last 2 I 3 years the traffic hitting the waters has meant that several local wheelchair residents have been completely soaked through and have had to be taken into our homes and dried off ! The water reaches a depth of up to 10 inches which when traffic hits& splashes 3 - 4 ft in onto the narrow pavements. 2. Cyclists use our narrow pavements along our side of Broad Green, but ! all our

4

gateways onto the pavements as per the Railway Club site, are blind ! ! ! and we always try to remember to sound our horns when exiting . There have been many, many dangerous incidents over the years and especially recently, where added new residential developments ( approx 112 apartments in total ) are prompting much higher levels of cyclists and pedestrian traffic along the narrow pavements. There are continual collisions, with people exiting their front doors I a baby knocked out of its pushchair when exiting the local shop, collisions by pavement cyclists hitting at speed, our cars on exiting our driveways. We have continually contacted and pressured the local highways departments and finally last year had 3 plastic very basic "No Cycling" signs put onto 3 of the street lamp posts. But we do get verbal abuse when challenging cyclists. We understand that on probably the busiest traffic light area in the town ! that cyclists feel nervous to use the road areas and choose the pathways. We are really concerned about higher levels of wheelchair based traffic on the paths in respect to pavement Cyclists. There is kind of a more serious accident ! Waiting to happen we feel ! Proper " Cycle Lanes " along the side of the road areas should be implemented as now is the ideal time to do this for future safety. 3. Litter along our Frontages : We do regularly contact the local schools as the children flow past at high levels in the mornings and at night along our pavements, using the newly sited "Gold St" fish and chip shop and other shops. Their levels of litter are appalling at some times and we have to clean the paths ourselves. Also with much higher numbers of residents from the new developments, the Dun Cow I The 2 large Railway Club sites - this traffic and litter will be rising. We would request some extra very LARGE litter bins fitting, say 3 or 4 sited along the areas to cope and encourage good disposal , as surely now is the time to also solve this issue. Finally, I and some of my close neighbours were very very actively involved with the council in the completed Masonic apartment development opposite. What a great result we have, and a real example of the local community getting together.”

WP/2014/0001/F Car Park for Electrosite UK Limited, Easton Lane, Bozeat. Addendum - Please change recommendation to 'Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a suitably worded section 106 Agreement in respect of transfer of the land for the cemetery car park to the Bozeat Parish Council at nil cost' and the following conditions'. Also amend condition 5 to read as follows: The car parking spaces and the parking area for the cemetery shown on the approved

5

drawing shall be provided and ready for use before the occupation of the approved dwelling. The approved car park shall thereafter be kept free from obstruction and shall be retained for parking purposes for the visitors to the cemetery and for purposes incidental to the use and maintenance of the cemetery. WP/2014/0025/C – Land opposite Sports Ground, Grendon Road, Earls Barton. Third Party objections received from 130a Naming Road [Error: The correct address is 130a MAIN ROAD], Wilby – contents of the letter dated 4 February 2014 received from Mrs Judith Thompson were not included in the Committee Report. Mrs Thompson’s comments are included below:

6

Agent’s Representations -

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Applicant email and attachment received 24/03/14:

Dear Chairman and Members of the Borough Council of Wellingborough Planning Committee

I am the agent who has submitted the planning application on behalf of Mr and Mrs Skinner for a marina at White Mills Lock near Earls Barton.

I understand from your planning officer, Alan Chapman that you will be considering the planning application at your Committee Meeting of 26 March 2014.

Please see the attached, I thought it would be helpful to provide you with a brief resume as to why we believe planning permission should be granted for the proposed development.

I will be addressing the Planning Committee on 26 March and will therefore be available to answer any questions you may have about the development.

Kind regards. Yours sincerely Stephen Rice MRICS Managing Director SBRice Consulting Ltd

Attached letter:

Planning Application Reference WP/2014/0025/C Proposal: Extraction of Minerals together with new Inland Waterways Marina, Access Road, Parking, Facilities Building and Improved Landscaping Scheme Location: Land opposite Sports Ground, Grendon Road, Earls Barton Applicant: Mr John Skinner, Pastures Farm, Grendon

A planning application has been submitted to Northamptonshire County Council for a new marina to provide offline moorings on the River Nene. The moorings will be recreational not residential.

The proposed development is located adjacent to Station Road between Earls Barton and Grendon.

My clients, Mr and Mrs Skinner, are local farmers who run a small family farm based between Earls Barton and Grendon. They have diversified in a number of ways on their farm, including converting redundant farm buildings to commercial workshops and offices, letting out a log cabin type building for craft workshops and taking in bed and breakfast guests into their farmhouse. They have also started a small scheme breeding rare breeds of farm animals. They have three sons who are all involved with the family farm business on a part time basis.

16

Although they all have other jobs at present, the plan is for them to return to the farm when Mr and Mrs Skinner retire to take over the running of the business.

I have been working with the family since 2009 on the planning application for a marina at White Mills Lock.

We have during that period had a significant amount of dialogue and consultation with the Borough Council of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire County Council, the Environment Agency and Natural England. We have also spoken to other bodies and organisations that would be potentially impacted by the development although the four organisations named above are the most important.

The scheme has been designed to take account of all of the concerns that were raised by the various organisations, most notably from the Environment Agency with regard to flood risk and Natural England with regard to the potential impact on the Special Protection Area.

We have also taken account of the need for new offline mooring facilities on the River Nene between Northampton and Peterborough that was identified by the River Nene Regional Park. I contributed to the process that the River Nene Regional Park undertook in trying to identify how to make better use of the River Nene as a recreational facility within the county. The RNRP identified that there was a need for an additional 1,000 moorings on the river between Northampton and Peterborough. A number of marina schemes have been brought forward, notably Becketts Park in Northampton, Blackthorn Marina near Ringstead and Lilford Marina near Oundle. They will only provide 240 additional new moorings leaving an identified shortfall of 760.

I have also, as part of the planning application process, assessed all other potential sites along the river corridor that may be suitable for an offline marina development. The site at White Mills Lock which is the subject of this application is probably the most suitable site left undeveloped for a marina on the river between Northampton and Peterborough. There are a number of complex criteria that a potential marina site must satisfy and the White Mills Lock site satisfies all of them.

The marina has been carefully designed to have a very low impact on the landscape and is located in a position where it will not have any adverse impact on either the highways network or the river navigation itself.

If planning permission is granted the applicants will develop and operate the marina themselves as a family run business that will complement the existing farm and other diversified businesses.

We believe that White Mills Marina will very quickly become a very important recreational facility in the region providing high quality berths for local people and tourists to the region. It will complement other existing businesses in the area including pubs, restaurants, local village shops, etc. whilst not having an adverse

17

impact on other resources which are at full capacity such as schools, etc.

We firmly believe that this development will be of significant benefit to the area and this has been recognised by the local Parish of Earls Barton in voting to support the application by a majority of 8 to 1 at their Parish Council meeting.

Whilst the determining authority for the application is Northamptonshire County Council as the development includes the extraction of a small amount of minerals which must not be sterilised by the marina development, we very much hope that the Borough Council of Wellingborough will also feel able to support the application.

Stephen Rice MRICS Planning Consultant to the applicants.

WP/2014/0059/F 3 South Street, Isham. Third Party objections received from:

5 Park Close – “Following my email and attached note, dated 27th February 2014, outlying my objections to the Planning Application: WP/2014/0059. I have examined the revised application (letter dated 21st February) and my objections contained in my original email and note still stand, as nothing has significantly changed. Therefore, I want my objections to be taken into consideration for the original and revised Planning Application. Please would you advise me of date and times of the Site Visit and the Committee meeting?” 3 South Street – “I would like to object to this proposal for the following reasons. I believe that this proposal does not address some of the reasons given for the previous applications refusal: The development will still be detrimental to the safety and convenience and users of the highway, The development is, in my opinion, contrary to CSS Policy 13 Part D (satisfactory means of access and the provision for parking, servicing & manoeuvring) The development is, in my opinion, contrary to CSS Policy 13 Part N (it prejudices highway safety). The development is, in my opinion, contrary to CSS Policy 10 (which proposes limited development in villages).

18

Throughout the planning statement repeated references are made to turning heads being shown to prove the ability of vehicles to access the site but this isn't the case. The proposed site plan DOES NOT address how vehicles will access the proposed development from the highway; it only shows turning heads for vehicles to travel from South St to the existing garage and from the proposed parking spaces to the proposed shared driveway. Vehicular access from south street to the proposed parking spaces will be very awkward and will involve approaching the shared driveway on the wrong side of the narrow road and will require a second reversing manoeuvre back towards the highway to complete the turn. It will also require the shared driveway to remain free of other vehicles (which is fine on a drawing, but is less likely in practice). The proposed dwelling has two parking spaces allocated to it and, because the shard driveway needs to be free of vehicles, it means that the existing dwelling (3 south st) also has two parking spaces. There is no allowance for visitors/service vehicles to either of these properties and there is no room for additional parking on the street in this area. This problem will only be exacerbated when the dwelling currently under construction on the other side of 3 South St is completed and there are even more vehicles in this very narrow village street. It is my opinion that these factors will have a very real and direct detrimental effect on the safety of users of the highway in this area - many of which are elderly or families and small children who use the road to get to the church and/or school and also the horse riders and dog walkers that regularly use South St. CSS Policy 10 proposes limited development in villages and, considering the immediate vicinity of 3 South St, with a new house being constructed on one side and a proposal for another new dwelling on the other side, can this really be considered as "limited development" ... especially within a Conservation Area??”

4 Park Close – “The grounds for this objection primarily relate to North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13: General Sustainable Development Principles. Our property, 4 Park Close, lies to the rear of the site of the proposed new detached dwelling. We have lived at 4 Park Close for 26 years. We moved to Isham from a local town in order to benefit from the enhanced amenities afforded by village life. Our understanding was that as Isham was in a conservation area the existing amenities of the village would be protected. We have enjoyed uninterrupted views to the rear of our property for 26 years as did the previous owner of the property and in fact this was a deciding factor for us in choosing to live in Isham and thereby paying the additional premium that a property in Isham would attract. The proposed building of a two storey house would mean that our house and garden would be directly overlooked. The plot on which our house lies and the plots of our immediate neighbours in Park Close are significantly smaller than

19

those to our rear in South Street. We would therefore be disproportionately disadvantaged by any development which resulted in our houses being overlooked and/or by remedial measures. Several years ago we were invited to comment on proposals to crown a large tree which was located in the garden of No 3 South Street on the basis that the tree had become dangerous. It would appear that in the end this tree was in fact removed altogether, so we have already lost the amenity of one tall tree from our immediate vicinity. With the removal of this tree the houses in South Street now have unrestricted views into the bedrooms at the rear of our property. We fully agree with the reservations which have already been expressed by Highways and by the Parish Council in relation to access. As Isham residents who regularly walk around the village, we fully share their concerns about safety to pedestrians and to people driving in both directions along South Street. From a process point of view, given the numbers of people living in South Street and Green Lane who would potentially be impacted by people trying to park near the proposed new dwelling as well as people trying to access it by car, we are surprised that the distribution list for notification of planning proposals for the proposed new dwelling at No 3 South Street was not considerably wider. This proposal talks of a shared driveway …at the moment for access by the family at number 3 South Street. What happens in the future with regards to parking when they decide to sell it on, as in my mind this is a strong possibility with the prices of houses in Isham at a premium? Living at 4 Park Close we have been subjected to the extensions carried by Mr Coles a few years ago at 3 South Street. At that time I could not object as my neighbours at that time would not join me in objecting. This meant that I was overlooked by 2 bedrooms and a bathroom not many metres from my bedroom. That however is bye the bye. When we objected to the proposed building adjacent to 3 South Street on WP/2013/0593, we were informed by yourselves that Planning Permission had been refused on the grounds of overdevelopment and safety of users of the public highway. The planning application was also deemed to be contrary to Policy 13 D.H.I.N. of the Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy - What Differs Now ? The height of the building needs to be high enough so as not to impede the low winter sun that we now enjoy in our gardens. When you speak of overdevelopment Mr Coles has already extended his own cottage by I think 100% and he has also developed a rather large property to his right….and he now wishes to build another one to his left – where have all the gardens gone?

20

This proposal I feel must have the same response as your last decision. That the refusal be upheld by yourselves as decided at your Council meeting. I would therefore ask that another site meeting takes place, and I would like to be notified when this is to take place, also that if it goes to Committee that we the residents of Park Close are notified of this also.”

6 Park Close – “I live at 6 Park Close Isham, immediately to the rear of the site of the proposed new detached dwelling in the garden of 3 South Street Isham. I believe that the use of this garden plot for building would constitute overdevelopment within a conservation area and it would impact on my quality of life as regards loss of light, loss of outlook, noise and reduction of enjoyment of the amenity of living in a conservation area. I am also very concerned that the impact of further development on this site would prejudice highway safety, particularly in relation to access to the site by car and also the inevitable increase in street parking. In January 2014 the Planning Committee rejected the plan for a single two storey house on the basis of Perceived overdevelopment of the site which would be unacceptable to the

amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties Detrimental to the safety and convenience of users of the highway Contrary to Policy 13 of the NNCSS

Recent plans relate to a proposed single one storey building on the site with some additional minor amendments to the previous plans. Potentially this will be viewed as a more reasonable and more proportionate development which would be much less likely to disadvantage neighbours, however I would respectfully suggest that this is not the case. The proposed height of the roof for this ONE storey building is less than one metre lower than the height of the roof of the adjacent TWO storey building at 3 South Street. I would have expected particularly in a conservation area that the height of proposed new buildings would be proportionate to the overall size of the building particularly when this directly impacts on the amenities enjoyed by nearby residents, but this is not so in this case. From the perspective of the affected houses in Park Close, there would still be a potential loss of light to our gardens especially in winter months, as observed at the site visit in January 2014, and our current pleasant outlook would still be replaced by an expanse of tiled roof. The road is particularly narrow in the direct vicinity of 3 South Street. It is difficult to envisage how a vehicle approaching the site would manage to make a very tight turn into the site safely, particularly if two cars were parked in the shared drive.

21

As there is no continuous footpath at that point, the situation would potentially be very hazardous for pedestrians and in particular for children, particularly as it appears inevitable that any building works would result in additional street parking in the vicinity. I fully agree with the concerns which have already been expressed by the Parish Council and other objectors in this respect.”

Applicant’s Representations/Statements: Below is a statement that my client would like put on the file and also addressed to the Committe members prior to consideration. Dear Councillors, My wife and I would wish to submit the following information to the Committee for due consideration in support of our planning application WP/2014/0059. My wife and I have lived in Isham village for approaching 20 years now, and I have family connections in the village going back much further than that. During our period of residence here, we have raised a family of three children (19, 17 & 9 years of age) all of which have attended to village primary school and have been fully engaged with all the activities on offer within a small rural village. Now that our elder children are growing up they have commenced the process of trying to start up a home of their own, and would have ideally like to live in the village where they reside now and have grown up in, but unfortunately due to the fact that Isham village has no real affordable housing stock & almost no social housing provision, their search has proved to be an impossible dream. This has resulted in our eldest child now moving out of the village in order to start a life of her own. More recently, my elderly father (77) has found it difficult to cope with living on his own and we have taken the family decision for him to move in with us in the near future, rather that considering a care home placement, consequently our current house (3 South Street) is at its very maximum occupancy level. Hence the reasoning behind our planning application. We also have a daughter with learning difficulties who will always need help and support in order to live independently. With a dwelling next door this would allow us to provide that help and support without looking for other external resources to provide this assistance. Being able to build a dwelling will allow us to support the growing needs of our family while still maintaining a life of our own and allowing our father and daughter to have some independence.

22

We respect the issues and concerns that have been raised by the last application, and we have done our best to make sure all of these have been addressed in our revised application, given fact the Planning Officer recommended approval previously. The highways authority also reviewed and gave guidance as to how access would need to be improved - which we adhered to fully. Although we have built an extension on our original home some 10 years ago we have not developed any of the site. However our next door neighbour sold some land next to us which some people may believe to have once been part of our property but has nothing to do with our land. We currently have a plot size of approximately a quarter of an acre and so will leave us with plenty of garden space. We would be happy to provide any other supporting information should you require it. We are delivering this statement in this way rather than attending the committee meeting as we find it difficult to arrange child care and appropriate supervision for our daughter. Yours faithfully Jonathan & Linda Coles