south northamptonshire council updates for planning ...modgov.southnorthants.gov.uk/data/development...

1

South Northamptonshire Council

UPDATES

for planning applications to be discussed at the

Development Control Committee

13 May 2010

2

Development Control Committee – 13 May 2010 Committee Updates

The schedule below details those letters etc that have been received since the Committee reports were drafted:

Application Details: Item No.

Case Officer: Andrew Longbottom

Parish: Shutlanger

Application No: S/2009/0558/P

1 Third Parties. One additional letter has been received from the occupiers of 4 High Street who repeat that while they do not object to some development on the site it is their view that the development, as proposed, would unacceptably overlook their property.


Case Officer: Paul Seckington

Parish: Abthorpe

Application No: S/2009/0657/P

2 Additional Third Party Comment: A resident of Abthorpe has written in wishing members to consider a recent article in the Daily Mail (6th May) entitled ‘What about our human rights? This secret decree allowing travellers to build on green belt land is an insult to the law abiding’, advising that this must be how the vast majority of local people feel.

3

Revised Conditions It is considered that should Members decide to grant temporary planning permission, conditions 1 and 2 should be amended in the following manner

1. The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mr Nathaniel Fletcher, Mr & Mrs Craig Fletcher (son and daughter in law of Nathaniel Fletcher) and Mrs Jodie Webster (Née Fletcher, daughter of Nathaniel Fletcher) and their resident dependants, and shall be for a limited period of three years from the date of this decision, or the period during which the land is occupied by them, whichever is the shorter.

2. When the land ceases to be occupied by those named in condition 1)

above or at the end of three years, whichever shall first occur, the use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, buildings, structures (including toilet block), materials and equipment brought on to the land, or erected on it or works undertaken to it in connection with the use shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition in accordance with a scheme of work including an implementation period previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.


Case Officer: Peter Bateman

Parish: Blisworth

Application No: S/2009/0961/OUT

3 Letter from Agent: I refer to the above application which as you know is to be re-considered by the Planning Committee at the meeting on Thursday. The recommendation is that permission be refused on the basis that you do not have a completed S106 Obligation and in view of outstanding objections from the Environment Agency. As far as the S106 Obligation is concerned, you will have a completed document in the next couple of days now that agreement has been reached between the applicant, the owners and the Council as to the wording of the Obligation.

4

As far as the objection from the Environment Agency is concerned, they first responded to the application on 17 December 2009, five days after your Council resolved to grant planning permission subject to no objections from the EA. In that letter they requested further information and this was supplied to them on 28 December. Despite numerous reminders the EA did not respond until 22 March, some 12 weeks later. Following the receipt of that information, and discussion regarding clarification of certain points, a revised FRA was submitted on 15 April and the Agency responded on 30 April advising that they now require calculations to be done under a revised computer programme. Following further discussions with the officer at the EA that information is being submitted today to the Agency. Our drainage consultants have been advised that the Agency will respond to this additional information within twenty days. Your Council have confirmed that the development is acceptable subject to the Environment Agency’s objections being resolved. Whilst I appreciate that you want the application to be concluded, it seems as though we are now very close to a position where the EA will withdraw their objection. I would be grateful, therefore, if any resolution on Thursday of this week could be to the effect that if the Environment Agency objection has not been withdrawn by 13 June then Officers be given delegated authority to refuse the application. This would give time to resolve the outstanding matters and obviate the need for a further application once the objection is overcome. S106 Update: The applicant has provided a completed (but undated) legal agreement, which is acceptable to all parties, as well as payment of legal fees. To this extent refusal reason 2 is withdrawn from the recommendation. Revised recommendation: That committee delegate authority to the head of Environment and Development to refuse the application should the Environment Agency concerns not be resolved by 13th June 2010.

5



Parish: Paulerspury

Application No: S/2010/0106/OUT

4

Natural England: No response received between writing of report and updates – please await update verbally at the meeting should a response be received. Correspondence from agent: Following the refusal of the application on the adjacent strip of land the agent has provided a more detailed transport statement in relation to the impact of the access on Lumber Lane: Job Name: Lumber Lane, Paulerspury, Northamptonshire Date: 7th May 2010 Subject: Development Access Statement Prepared By: M Davies of Peter Brett Associates LLP 1. Introduction This Development Access Statement has been prepared in support of a 5 dwelling development and its proposed access off Lumber Lane in Paulerspury, Northamptonshire. Lumber Lane is a back street within Paulerspury, providing local access to dwellings. It is a narrow road, with on street parking and does not convey through traffic. 2. Proposals As agreed with the Local Highway Authority the proposed access will be a private road with a width of 4.5m to a distance of 10m back from the access. The position of the proposed development access was agreed in principle with the Local Highway Authority as part of the preplanning consultation, using the existing field access point on the outside of the bend where visibility was maximised (as illustrated on the attached drawing 24117/001). For a development of this size it is anticipated that the additional vehicle movement generated along Lumber Lane will be in the order of four movements

6

in the peak hours, with lower hourly flows at other times. It is anticipated that the majority of these traffic movements will be turning into the development from the east and coming from the direction of the A5, with only very limited anticipated turning to and from the west / north. 3. Existing Conditions Lumber Lane is a back street within Paulerspury, providing local access to dwellings. It is a narrow road, with on-street parking currently acting as a further traffic calming measure, and it does not convey through traffic. It varies in width between 4.3m wide at the location of the proposed access, approximately 3.7m to the east and 2.7m to the west. This is essentially a single track road and whilst the speed limit in this location is 30 mph, the narrow road width and restricted forward visibility both serve to calm traffic currently and vehicle speeds are very low (approximately 10 mph – 15 mph particularly at the location of the site access) as a result. 4. Visibility / Potential Issues The junction visibility (x = 2m, y = 45m) accords with both the Northamptonshire Places and Movement Guide, December 2008 and Manual for Streets (Department for Transport and Communities and Local Government, 2007). The Northamptonshire Places and Movement Guide, 2008 supports the Manual for Streets ethos of reducing vehicle speeds. In deed it makes it clear that narrow carriageway widths, reduced visibility (including at junctions) and on-street parking, all help to reduce traffic speeds. The existing forward visibility along Lumber Lane is therefore considered satisfactory for the speeds that are observed on site, especially as Lumber Lane is essentially a single track road. Whilst there is currently some parking within the vicinity of the proposed access, this is not considered to be an issue due to the low number of turning movements anticipated and the low vehicle speeds currently observed in this area. 5. Conclusion The nature of Lumber Lane (narrow width, on street parking), which is effectively a single track lane, currently restricts vehicle speeds to approximately 10 – 15 mph in the vicinity of the access (this accords with the principles set out within Manual for Streets on restricting speeds). Due to the very small number of additional traffic movements, conditions on Lumber Lane will be unaffected with no impact on highway safety (a point that the Local Highway Authority obviously agree with as they have agreed the access location in principle). In addition the junction visibility is in excess of that required within the Northamptonshire Places and Movement Guide, December 2008 and Manual for Streets.

7

In addition, the Local Highway Authority have not objected to the submitted application, simply recommended that the Local Planning Authority impose standard conditions (relating to road width, surfacing, and gates) and stated that a S184 License will be required. In conclusion, there is no evidence of any highway safety issue in this case which could justify a refusal of planning consent on highway grounds. Additional Plan: In addition to the statement the agent has provided a full survey of the junction which shows the visibility, access details and road widths. This plan is to provide clarification and will form part of the officers presentation to committee. Third party correspondence: from Mr Coates from Windy End 39 Lumber Lane Paulerspury. Issues: Objection comment, parked vehicles at weekends turn Lumber Lane into a slalom course, concern about emergency service access, concern about the impact on his drive which is close to the proposed access, Recommendation: It is recommended to delegate approval to the Head of Environment and Development subject to Natural England raising no objections in their consultation response in relation to the additional ecological information and the inclusion of any conditions Natural England recommends in relation to migration measures. Alternatively should Natural England object to the additional ecological information it is recommended that Committee delegated authority to refuse the application to the Head of Environment and Development. Possible conditions – It is recommended to delegate the formation of appropriate conditions in line with the main recommendation to the Head of Environment and Development should Natural England raise no objection. Possible refusal reason: - If refused the following reason for refusal would be consistent with that applied to neighbouring site S/2010/0144/OUT, but would of course depend on the precise response of Natural England.

1) In the absence of a suitable ecological survey and mitigation measures with regard to possible Great Crested Newt activity on and adjacent to the site the Local Planning Authority must adopt a precautionary approach. This is because the Local Planning Authority has an obligation under the Habitat Regulations 1994 particularly regulations 3(4) and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act Section 40 to ensure that no protected species or their habitats are harmed as a result of the development process. Therefore the proposal is contrary to the advice contained in PPS9, policy 29 Regional Plan for the East Midlands, policy G3 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan as well as the advice contained in Circular 06/2005.

8

With regard to Natural England’s comments should these be received in the intervening period of time between the updates being drafted and the committee members will be verbally updated



Parish: Milton Malsor

Application No: S/2010/0203/FUL

5 No updates


Case Officer: Amanda Haisman

Presenting Officer (if different): Paul Seckington

Parish: Silverstone


6 No updates

9


Case Officer: Suzanne Groves

Parish: Yardley Hastings


7 No updates.


Case Officer: Rebecca Smith


Parish: Croughton


8 County Highways: After reviewing the proposal carefully we have no objections to the proposal. Additional Info received: The applicant has confirmed that the recycling element of the business is as described by the case officer in para 6.12 of the report, namely: the bringing back of items from house clearances/office moves/materials from sites, then repairing (if necessary) and selling on if possible or disposing via landfill sites. With regards hours of use, the applicant has confirmed that his hours of business are: Monday to Friday 7am till 6pm. Saturdays are 7am till 1pm. He does advise however that 80% of his work is off site, so this is normally only the collection and return of his plant and vehicles.

10

Conditions: A correction and amendment is required to condition 1 and an additional condition relating to hours of use. 1. This permission shall enure for the benefit of Mr Gordon Franklin only and

not for the benefit of the land nor of any other person, or persons for the time being having an interest therein and the land shall only be use for the purposes hereby permitted and for no other purpose. If Mr Gordon Franklin no longer occupies the site then the land shall revert back to agricultural use and the storage container removed from the site.

6. The use hereby permitted shall only operate from the site between the

hours of 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday and from 7am to 1pm on Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays or Public Holidays



Parish: Roade


9 Anglian Water: The site has sufficient water resource capacity to supply this development. In terms of foul sewerage provision the existing system cannot accommodate flows from this development. AW are not aware when capacity will become available but it is unlikely within the timescale of the application. If the development proceeds before adequate capacity is provided it is possible this will result in environmental and amenity problems downstream. In terms of surface water drainage the development can be accommodated within the existing surface water network which has sufficient capacity. Officer Note -In light of these comments the Anglian Water Report has been forwarded to the Environment Agency for comment. It is possible that the issue of foul drainage and lack of alternative options as part of the application would constitute a further reason for refusal. Therefore it is recommended to delegate the refusal reasons outlined in the report to officers plus any subsequent reasons for refusal recommended by the Environment Agency should they recommend refusal in their further comments.

11

Third Party Letter from 8 Church End: I have also just been advised of some additional relevant news that is likely to even more critically affect safety concerns outlined in my application for refusal further. I was reliably informed that the Railway Authority revealed last week that another part of the railway embankment over which the narrow A508 bridge adjoins the road abutting the proposed development, is subsiding. This is now evidenced by the fact that they have had to put bollards at the spot, and 'road narrows' signs in place in front of the proposed, ridiculously oversized for the plot, flats entrance (directly off the A508 roundabout!). This is presumably to prevent lorries pulling onto the path by either side of the bridge (which they still do) to let even larger lorries pass over the inadequate bridge that adjoins the narrow path/ zebra crossing/roundabout immediately abutting the flats' only entrance exit access/boundary (actually on the roundabout) before doing so themselves. This could cause more lorries to stop (as 2 large vehicles cannot pass over simultaneously) and pull onto the path at a point which would unsight even more anyone trying to join the roundabout from the High Street. Even more accident potential. Would you please ensure that Andy Preston and the Highways Authority and Peter Bateman are urgently made aware of this further, new development. (Which adds to previously known concerns about the immediate proximity of the busy train line and ancient embankment, A508, and obvious effects on an already unsatisfactory pedestrian crossing with school-children forced to cross the road both ways at that spot as there is only a path on one side of the A508 over the bridge at this point and schools either side). Already poor visibility and high risk vehicle safety on joining or leaving the abutting, inadequate roundabout will be exacerbated if permission is granted in any way to any design or height of development that allows substantial and weighty building to the full extent of the too small plot, as proposed. Third Party Letter from 56 High Street: Objection This over-sized, out of character development faced over-whelming objections. Despite claims that a development like this is ‘definitely wanted within the village’, I have been unable to locate those individuals who Mrs Holder claims to represent. The minor changes that have been applied do not in any way negate the devastating impact a development like this will have on the amenity of local properties and the village as a whole. The application on page 2 states, the site located in a prominent position and (at a) focal point. These details were then totally overlooked when the design stage relating to the impact of this application was reached. The first two reasons that the original application (S/2009/0332/P) were refused remain. A planning application for a similar type of development in Egham, Surrey describes it as ‘a multi-storey, large footprint building giving a course urban grain’. This is not the type of description any village property should

12

match. The Elevation Location plans, showing all 4 facades, highlight the oppressive outlook and urban nature of the development. It should be held in mind, when viewing these images, that these views are within metres of cottages dating back to the 1800’s and bungalows; all of which are at a lower ground height due to the fall of the land. The development is also sited at the entrance to the High Street, an area that 71.5% of the village would like to see protected from out of character development and form part of a village conservation area (Master Plan Results). This development does not fit in with the design wishes of the village and the way its residents wish to see the village grow. The development will dominate the entrance to the High Street, its cottages and the bungalows on London Road, failing to respect the local vernacular, despite claims on page 15 of the application. The rear view is even more oppressive than the front elevation and will be visible from around the village, especially the rear of the cottages in the High Street and The Leys. The applicant still states, on page 7, that the removal of the trees on the site will take place (despite the TPO’s in place), further exposing the village to this development. The new plans have shifted the development closer to the rear of the existing properties at the back of the plot, whose privacy will be significantly affected by the over-looking living room windows of the flats. The excessive scale and height of the development (greater than the original George PH) will create a cramped, over developed mass, harming the established street scene in this prominent location. The urban town centre scale development fails to sit amongst this rural context. This proposal does nothing to enhance this area and simply applies the design patterns of ‘Upton One’ in Northampton, to this village setting. There has been no attempt to ensure this development resembles its surroundings and the claim that it is now 2 storey high and 2.5 in parts is untrue. The plans clearly show three floors plus the roof and refer to ‘3 storey’ in the application.

Planning Policy G3, clearly calls for any development to be compatible in terms of type, scale, siting, design and materials – in keeping with the existing character of the locality. On these recommendations alone, the overall size and scale of this development is unsuitable for this location. It will be overbearing and out of character with the entrance to the High Street and the village as a whole. The development will create an urban eyesore, visible from around the village and creating a harsh, prominent focal point against the much smaller cottages and bungalows.

As part of the Design-Layout information (page 13), the claim that the flats benefit from ‘far reaching views across the village’ proves that the village will have views back at the imposing block that will abut its plot for almost its entire boundary with the recreation ground. The development will actually finish in line with the first of the cottages in the High Street and become their only view, both internally and from their garden. With living room and kitchen windows looking out over the

13

neighbouring gardens, loss of privacy and the creation of an over bearing and imposing development cannot be denied. It is not possible for any element of this design to claim to ‘fit in’ with the surroundings. Furthermore, on page 8, the applicant claims that the development on the old Walkerpack site, now Grafton Gate has been withdrawn. This is untrue, with development well underway. The design of this site stipulated that ‘no three storey buildings should abut the A508’. Any deviation from this will leave many development plots within the village open to high-density, urban development, unsuitable for a village environment. The applicants claim that the need for such an urban mass is needed to reflect the cost of the land and its development is not a planning consideration. It is not the fault of the village that Mrs Holder chose to purchase a site, remove a business premises from it and then attempt to bully residents with threats of ‘a derelict space’. In the application, Mrs Holder quotes planning policy E4, relating to planning permission not being granted for a non-employment (residential) development where a commercial property has existed. Despite Mrs Holder claims that there is no other viable use for the land and the retention of ‘The George’ or business was not suitable, she has since stated that she has met with a developer who is interested in the site for a client of theirs, a supermarket chain. Claiming the site could be developed with a mini-supermarket and possibly small take-away outlets – (of which the village has plenty.) The site could be designed around the existing trees, thereby, honouring the TPO. Also as the units will be commercial there will be no need for the Air Quality and noise assessments. In addition, it will bring further employment into the village. An email to Mr Bateman dated 22.10.2009, claims that there is sufficient parking away from the site for delivery lorries, refuse collection lorries etc. As parking on the A508 is not an option, this suggests that vehicles will be expected to park away from the roundabout – in the High Street. The High Street, especially at the end nearest the development, consists of properties without off street parking and parking restrictions to one side. There is little to no capacity for additional cars, and visitors to the current properties, to park on the street without actively encouraging lorries and refuse collection vehicle to use this as a ‘suitable’ parking location. In essence, each of the six-1100 ltr bins will need to be manually moved across the site, out and down the public footpath and manoeuvred across a road to where the refuse lorries have had to park. The bins will be further than 10m from the nearest collection point as recommended in SNC Appendix G – Refuse and Recycling Requirements for New Developments. The plans do not show that the bins, for ease of access for residents and crews, could possibly be arranged in a horseshoe shape as required or even stored in the space allocated. Furthermore, there are three windows that look directly out

14

onto the bin store area, two of which are kitchen windows, with one actually abutting the fence surrounding the bins.

The applicant states that the bin store will be accessible off the High Street – it will be accessible off the roundabout on the A508. It also states it will be accessible from the rear of the development, but there is no vehicular access to the rear or side of the development and only a narrow pedestrian access. The age of ‘residents’ has been reduced since the first application from 55 to 50 years of age. Residents of this age can look forward to 20 years of working life, therefore referring to them as ‘Retirement Flats’ is particularly misleading. Whilst the applicant has selectively highlighted findings in the Parish Plan that show support for ‘elderly housing’, she fails to mention that flats were in the bottom three desired accommodation types. The Master Plan also shows that 84.2% of the village are against more than 2 storey flats, 96.4% want to see development reflect and retain the feel of a village and 87.7% want new development to have space around it, be on good sized plots in relation to property size and maintain an open and pleasant environment. Where the applicant highlights 54 households indicated in the Parish Plan that they may need residential care in the coming 5 years, this was from a sample of 593 households, representing only 9% of respondents. These flats do not provide an answer to the needs of residents who mostly asked for some residential care housing. This is not residential care, but flats for the over 50’s, who would hardly welcome the description of elderly. The implication that car sharing ‘could’ be introduced is an idea and not supportive, factual information. With the suggestion that ‘pool cars’ are the answer, how 22 flats full of working people could all share a couple of cars is a major over-simplification of the traffic problems this site will cause. With 1.8 cars per property being the village average for residents under 65, and most over 65’s having 1 car, even a conservative estimate would expect 30 or more residents vehicles, not to mention those of staff and visitors, but could in reality see 40 cars for residents only. The parking allocation falls well below the recommended numbers with only 20 spaces (inc 3 disabled). However, 2 of these spaces are unusable as they are set behind other spaces which would result in vehicles being blocked in. The applicant states that 22 spaces are provided, achieving 95% parking ratio – this is quite an obvious error. Planning policy for a category C3 (Dwelling houses) development states that: (i) Dwellings and flats require parking spaces to be allocated as follows: 1 Bedroom flats - 1 space plus minimum 25% visitors' parking.(15+3 spaces required*) 2-3 Bedroom flats - 2 spaces (14 spaces required*)

15

(ii) Category I Elderly Persons Dwellings (i.e. independent units for the 55+ age group) Resident Warden(s) - 1:1 warden plus 25% visitors parking for residential staff (2+1 spaces*) Other Staff - 1:3 staff (1 space*) Independent Units - 1:1 units

Visitors - 1:5 units

* denotes the number of spaces this development should provide based on these guidelines, a total of 37.

Parking at the site does not meet these requirements, the 20 spaces fall significantly short. The site’s location provides no opportunity for alternative, on-street parking, visitor parking or parking for deliveries, maintenance, or refuse collection. All additional vehicles will be forced onto the High Street, where there is already serious parking congestion and problems, with no adequate crossing facilities. As car ownership is almost essential for those of working age when living in a village, a pool car or car share scheme will do nothing to reduce the number of vehicles owned by residents.

We ask that the council considers the parking arrangements in line with its SPG Parking where it states that a development must: (b) posses a satisfactory means of access and provide adequate parking, servicing and turning facilities, including for the disabled. And (d) will not unacceptably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties. Claims that the parking is hidden from the street are again false, with the view of the car-parking area visible from along the A508. Parking will be very visible to the residents of the neighbouring cottages, as will the noise of the cars manoeuvring, the smell of the fumes and the light pollution caused by the vehicles and the illuminated car parking area. As turning circle diagrams have not been included with the application or car park diagram, it is hard to conclude that the space provided will meet the necessary space needed for satisfactory vehicle manoeuvring. The shuffling of cars trying to park or leave the spaces will adversely affect neighbouring properties (see Planning Inspectorate comments on Appeal Refusal S/2008/0094/PO). Furthermore, the narrowing of the car park to the rear of the site between the building corner and spaces, does not show that access and egress would be possible simultaneously creating further vehicular movement adjacent to the neighbouring gardens. Note: A large part of the parking area shown on the plans was grass and planted when The George was there. This provided a significant gap between private gardens and patrons vehicles.

16

The access from the site onto the A508 will further create congestion for those trying to exit from the High Street. The access is not set far enough away from the junction with the High Street and, if vehicles try to leave simultaneously, the junction poses a risk to current residents and pedestrians. The noise studies show that this site has noise levels in excess of those recommended as acceptable and that pollution levels here are known to be excessively high. The applicant states that the flats facing the A508 will have fixed windows with ventilation systems and yet has positioned 6 amenity spaces abutting this busy, congested junction on the A508, where the railway crossing creates a bottle neck and traffic queues are a regular occurrence. Noise from the railway affects properties as far down as the bottom of the High Street, so at this point, these amenity spaces are nothing more than health hazards that will make them unusable for the occupants. Vehicle vibration and noise caused by the poor road surface across the railway bridge can also be heard further down the High Street throughout the day and night, adding to the low standards of living conditions these flats will provide residents with. There is no case to answer, despite Mrs Holder’s claims of power and persuasion that a block of flats, will in any way, increase pressure on Highways for a by-pass of Roade. Research and meetings by the Parish Council and Master Plan group have confirmed that only large scale, mass development with developer funding will see a by-pass built around Roade. This development will simply increase the pollution, traffic and congestion within and around the village and will in no way ‘help’ the village gain improvements to the terrible road and traffic situation that under funding and over-development in the local area have contributed to. The applicant’s conclusion that the development site is suitable and will have little impact on neighbours is completely farcical. This development will impact on every property throughout the village, dominating the sky line and standing over the surrounding smaller cottages and bungalows in a mass of high density urbanisation. Any development that is permitted against the wishes of the residents, village design wishes and planning policy will set a precedent that could see pockets of land throughout this and other villages, over developed and urbanised without a thought for the established layout, design and appearance of the surroundings. Flats of this size on sites this small should remain in the urban, town settings that can accommodate their design features and oppressive impact. The over dominant development is in conflict with the policies by which the original application was refused. The loss of amenity to the surrounding properties will be devastating and for all residents surrounding the recreation ground and with views up the High Street or across the village towards the site will be blighted by this unsightly urban mass for evermore. This development cannot be screened, hidden or made to blend in until it is reduced in height, depth and overall mass.

17

In 2009, the Planning Inspectorate refused an application less than 50m from this site for a bungalow/1.5 storey house. It stated that the proximity of its boundary and the loss of screening from the recreation ground and surrounding cottages would create an intrusive urbanisation of the area and undoubtedly affect the amenity of the surrounding cottages. As the recreation ground is a well used public space with views to the rear of the High Street, development that is out of character would be detrimental to the area. Any development that affected the character and appearance of the area without room for retaining or replanting sufficient landscaping went against all policies relating to high standards of design. If this is the perceived opinion of the Planning Inspectorate in relation to a planning appeal regarding the impact of a bungalow, the same effects but only magnified, must be applied to this development. I urge the Planning Department to refuse this application in its entirety. Third Party Correspondence: 45 Northampton Road raises a comment in relation to the application making reference to the Roade Bypass. As details of this have not been produced and is not be considered in the near future any reference to this issue is not relevant. Letter from Agent: Comments on Reasons for Refusal 1. The scale and massing of the building has been significantly reduced from the original proposal as a direct result of negotiations with officers, with many of the changes being directly sought by officers. This reason therefore amounts to a significant change in officer opinion or a case of us and our client being misled in the negotiations which led to this latest amended scheme being proposed. We feel very strongly that no Planning Inspector would agree that the proposal is a cramped form of development when less than half of the site would have buildings on it. To do less would clearly be an inefficient use of the site and contrary to PPS1 and PPS3, as well as the regional and local policies that are compliant with these national policy documents in this respect. The highly prominent location demands a strong visual presence from any new building, rather than some meek and underplayed form that could be anywhere in the village. The site itself is also clearly not in a rural context – it is wholly wrong to conflate the rural context of Roade as a village with the specific character of individual sites within it. This site is adjacent to an important junction, alongside a busy ‘A’ road and a bridge over a wide railway cutting: it could hardly be less rural as sites go. The village also contains a significant amount of retained and ex-industrial land that is decidedly un-rural. Crucially, the Council has only recently approved residential development of the same scale on the former Walkerpack side

18

immediately the other side of the railway bridge. For this reason alone the reason is inconsistent with the Council’s approach to that site. 2. We have not seen the highway officer response to our detailed explanation of the scheme’s parking provision and how it would be managed. We have therefore not been afforded the opportunity to provide clarification, correct any misunderstanding, or amend the proposal in this regard. In any case, the proposal is fully in accordance with PPG13 and its clear expectation that car use should be reduced in part by limiting parking provision. The site contains perfectly adequate vehicle turning space for cars and light vans. The site is incapable of allowing larger vehicle to enter and turn within the site, which was the case with the previous use and will be the case with any use of the site – it is simply too small to allow for this. The conclusions about on-street servicing and parking fail to acknowledge that any development of the site will result in this happening, as was the case with the previous use. Te reason is also factually incorrect in stating there are no visitor spaces. 3. Our Air Quality Assessment concludes there would be no harm for the site and surroundings as a result of the development. We have had no detailed feedback to query this or demand more information or analysis. 4. Our noise assessment concludes that there would be no noise problem for the occupants of the scheme, subject to suitable noise insulation achieving a specified attenuation standard. We have had no detailed feedback to query this or demand more information or analysis. This would only require a standard condition requirement agreement of the noise attenuation details. 5. The development has less than 25 dwellings. Policy H7 of the Local Plan has a threshold of 25 dwellings. The Affordable Housing SPG (2003) repeats this threshold. Therefore, the development falls below the threshold for requiring affordable housing. (NB. the reason quotes the Developer Contributions SPG, but this document notes that reference should be made to the Affordable Housing SPG.).

19


Case Officer: Daniel Callis

Parish: Kislingbury

Application No: S/2010/0270/MAO

10 Withdrawn from the schedule




Parish: Kislingbury

Application No: S/2010/0292/RES

11 No update.

20




Parish: Towcester


12

Additional comments received: Conservation Officer: This application seeks consent for the resurfacing of Moat Lane, Bakers Lane and part of Chantry Lane in Towcester. The work forms part of the Moat Lane regeneration project which is a strategic priority of this Council with multi agency support. The resurfacing of Bakers Lane and part of Moat Lane have already been granted approval under application S/2008/1331/P. This current application seeks to extend the area to be resurfaced by including additional elements of Moat Lane and part of Chantry Lane. The proposed resurfacing works will improve the quality of the road surface and enhance the character and appearance of the area with a lighter warm coloured surface dressing that compliments and enhances the setting of the surrounding heritage assets. The works should be considered as the first step towards meeting the aspiration of the wider Moat Lane scheme where a new more pedestrian-friendly environment will be sought. They will make a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment and as such comply with Policies EV10 and EV12 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan and are also supported by the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 5 – Planning for the Historic Environment. For the above reasons I am supportive of this application.

21



Parish: Potterspury


13

County Council Highways: No objection. The turning area at the head of Woods Lane will be required to dedicate as public highway, the shared drive will be a minimum width of 4.5 metres for the first 10 metres and not gravel, inter-vehicle visibility at the access should be 2 metres by 43 metres with 2 metres by 2 metres pedestrian visibility. A section 184 License will be required. Third parties Objections received from numbers 3, 21, 23a Woods Lane, 2 Coach Yard, 44b, 102, 104 High Street, 88 Meadow View. Issues: Additional traffic is unacceptable, parking difficulties, pot holes already exist, boundaries on the plan are not correct, impact on listed buildings, adverse impact on privacy, adverse impact on the views of the site from footpaths, impact on wildlife, school capacity, devaluation of properties, noise and disturbance, out of character with the area,



Parish: Bugbrooke

Application No: S/2010/0383/MAO

14

Bugbrooke Parish Council 1. This is an outline application and, while the Diocese has been very co-

operative in keeping the parish council informed of the application, the parish council is keen to ensure that any developer to which the site is

22

sold should continue to consult with the parish council. It is a concern that this will not be the case when a reserved matters or new full application is made. Please can the district council impress on any new applicant that full details of the application and any changes to it should be given to the parish council.

2. Affordable housing should be initially for local residents and only after local applicant lists have been exhausted should the list be widened

3. Proper drainage arrangements are vital in this part of the village, as is confirmed by the drainage report submitted with the application. Drainage of the site itself is not an issue, owing to the elevated location, but the West End area of the village is vulnerable to flooding and it is vital that any drainage strategy should take this into account. Please ensure that consultants make use of the extensive local knowledge of flooding and drainage issues, which the parish councillors have. Also, if the boundary hedge in Peace Hill is to be maintained by the parish council (or other organisation), the ditch on the highway side of the hedge should be culverted for ease of maintenance.

4. Please ensure that the designs of dwellings facing the village complement the existing old cottages in West End.

5. Access was considered at length. The existing access to the houses in Peace Hill is dangerous, since visibility towards the main road to Litchborough is substandard. It is considered that to increase the number of dwellings using that access would be extremely inadvisable, and that serious consideration should be given to looking at alternative access arrangements. The parish councillors have personal experience of the daily traffic problems encountered in this area of the village and would be pleased to liaise with consultants and the applicant on this matter. It is appreciated that access is a reserved matter, and that the plan submitted with the application is indicative only, but there is some level of concern that the ultimate developer will ignore the parish council’s concerns, especially in view of the latest ecological survey, and the parish council remains of the view that access is unacceptable as shown.

6. The primary school, at least, will be overstretched when this development is completed. The parish council accepts that a contribution will be made towards education requirements. It is understood that contributions can be earmarked for the village schools, and the parish council welcomes this and re-iterates that this is required in connection with the new application also.

23

7. How enforceable will planning condition 24 (no floodlighting without consent) be? Would this not be more enforceable as a s106 requirement?

8. How is the compensation site (to be used to encourage species to flourish in place of the development site) to be secured? This should be by way of a s106 obligation, presumably? The parish council is puzzled, and not a little concerned, at the lack of clarity in the documentation supplied, about the location of this area. The ecology report has attached to it a plan showing land opposite the site which is put forward as a compensation site, but there is also a free-standing plan showing a very small area at the other end of the village, possibly even outside the parish, which would be left unimproved. The parish council considers that the option more relevant to the village is the site opposite the development land, and would like this clarified by email please, as a matter of urgency.

9. While the parish council accepts that this application is a re-submission of the previous application, it believes that it is entitled to treat each application on its merits. Since the previous application was considered, the parish council has produced its list of possible s106 benefits which could be considered on each application, and the provision of a churchyard extension is becoming increasingly relevant. This should be considered by the applicant, especially bearing in mind the identity of the applicant.

10. A new ecological report has been commissioned, and this makes clear that the site is of district importance from an ecological and historical viewpoint. The development control committee should please therefore consider whether all considerations have been taken into account in respect of the landscape and visual matters referred to in the report.

Consultation responses: Comments reiterating the previous comments in relation to S/2009/1212/MAO have been received from:

• Crime Prevention Design Advisor

• Northants County Council

• Northants Bat Group Third party letter from The Firs – Objecting on the following grounds: Impact on their daylight, privacy reduced, impact on wildlife, type and massing of the development is not in-keeping with this part of the village, noise, impact on resources such as schools, query the boundary treatments to their property concern about access to their septic tank.

south northamptonshire council updates for planning ...modgov.southnorthants.gov.uk/data/development...

Documents