Redhill Grange Community Association

Breaking News - 23rd February 2010

Developers Appeal Allowed - Outline Planning Permission Granted:
Copy of Letter to Developers:

From :Michael Taylor, Decision Officer Planning Central Casework Division Department for Communities and Local Government Zone 1/J1, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Tel 0303 44 41631 Email:

Mr Duncan Chadwick ,David Lock Associates Ltd, 50 North Thirteenth Street ,Milton Keynes
APP/H2835/A/08/2093066
BBD008
23 February 2010

Dear Mr Chadwick

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78

APPEAL BY NORTHANTS LLP

APPLICATION REFERENCE: WP/2008/0150/OEIA

LAND OFF THE A509 NIORT WAY AND THE A510 NORTHEN WAY AND SOUTH
OF GREAT HARROWDEN, WELLINGBOROUGH, NN8 4UF

1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to refer to his letter of 22 October 2009 and
to the report enclosed with that letter of the Inspector, Michael Ellison MA(Oxon) who
held a public local inquiry which opened on 2 June 2009, into your client’s appeal under
Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure of the Borough
Council of Wellingborough to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on
an application for outline planning permission for up to 3,000 dwellings, retail and
commercial facilities, non-residential institutions (including primary schools and
nurseries), a neighbourhood centre (comprising transport interchange, non-institutional
and commercial facilities), open spaces and parkland, associated facilities and
infrastructure (comprising utilities including gas, electricity, water, sewerage and
telecommunications, and diversion to existing utilities where necessary) and a reserve
corridor for the Isham-Wellingborough road improvement (IWIMP), on land off the A509
Niort Way and the A510 Northen Way and south of Great Harrowden, Wellingborough,
NN8 4UF, in accordance with application number WP/2008/0150/OEIA dated 4 March
2008. A copy of the Secretary of State’s letter of 22 October 2009 is enclosed and
forms part of the decision in this case.



2. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission
granted. For the reasons set out in his letter of 22 October 2009, the Secretary of State
indicated that he was, in principle, minded to agree with the Inspector and allow the
appeal, subject to the submission of a signed planning obligation (Deed) which was
binding on the Borough Council of Wellingborough (the Council) – a matter which he
noted the Council had already resolved to enter into. He accordingly deferred his
decision to enable this matter to be addressed.



3. The Secretary of State provided parties with 8 weeks to respond to his letter and he
received representations from Greg York, dated 23 October and 28 October 2009; Mike
Chislett dated 24, 26 and 29 October and 2 November 2009; Pat Kilshaw, dated 28
October 2009; S J Berwin, dated 17 December 2009; and the Borough Council of
Wellingborough, also dated 17 December 2009. The Secretary of State wrote to
interested parties on 23 December 2009, circulating these responses and inviting
comments on them. He also indicated that these would be carefully considered after
which he would proceed to make his decision on the appeal. Further responses were
received from Greg York, dated 23 December 2009; the Borough Council of
Wellingborough, dated 8 January 2010; Bryn Higgott dated 26 January 2010; S J
Berwin dated 27 January 2010; and the Borough Council of Wellingborough, also dated
27 January 2010. Copies of this correspondence are not attached to this letter but can
be made available upon written request to the above address.

Consideration

4. In their response of 17 December, the Council requested that the Inquiry be re-
opened in order to address certain matters relating to the appeal. SJ Berwin’s
response of 17 December submitted a draft Unilateral Undertaking (UU), which it
considered addressed the Secretary of State’s concerns regarding the absence of a
signed Deed by providing that development should not commence on the privately
owned land unless the Council’s Deed is entered into. (The Secretary of State has now
received an executed copy of the UU dated 27 January.)


5. Having carefully considered both of these responses the Secretary of State stated in
his letter of 23 December that he would not re-open the inquiry as he was satisfied that
the issues raised at the inquiry adequately dealt with the matters relevant to the appeal.
He also, once again, invited the Council to submit a signed Deed. With regard to the
draft UU he stated that its provisions were acceptable (subject to minor amendment,
which he now accepts is not necessary, as subsequently explained in SJ Berwin’s letter
of 27 January) and invited comments on the matters raised.


6. The Council, in their letter of 27 January explained that they were continuing to
decline to sign the Council’s Deed and indicated that they hoped that the Secretary of
State would now refuse planning permission.


7. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to all the representations and
the effect the new UU has alongside the main s106 obligation. While he is
disappointed that the Council have not seen fit to bind their own land at this stage, he
has weighed all the factors in the balance and decided that he will grant planning
permission as the Deeds he does have offer adequate protection for this site in the
circumstances. This includes that the appellants have addressed the Secretary of
State’s specific concern, where they state in their letter of 17th December (para 13) that
“development shall not commence on the privately owned land unless the Council’s
Deed is entered into.” The need to deliver this Sustainable Urban Extension in a key
growth area is also an important factor in the Secretary of State’s overall decision.


8. One other matter raised in the representations received relates to a suggestion that
compensation should be paid to owners of existing houses in the area in the event that
property values decline as a result of new development. However, as set out in
paragraph 29 of “The Planning System: General Principles” (the supplement to
“Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development”), “the planning
system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the
activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in
some cases…The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring
properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but
whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities.” In this case, the Secretary
of State is satisfied that the impact on amenity from the proposed development, when
weighed in the balance with all other considerations, would not be such as to justify
refusing planning permission.

Procedural matters


9. A written application for a full or a partial award of costs was made by your clients
against the Council. An application for a partial award of costs was also made by the
Council against your clients. The Secretary of State's decisions on those applications
are the subject of separate letters.

Formal decision

10. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, and in his letter of 22 October 2009,
the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby allows
your client's appeal and grants outline planning permission for up to 3,000 dwellings,
retail and commercial facilities, non-residential institutions (including primary schools
and nurseries), a neighbourhood centre (comprising transport interchange, non-
institutional and commercial facilities), open spaces and parkland, associated facilities
and infrastructure (comprising utilities including gas, electricity, water, sewerage and
telecommunications, and diversion to existing utilities where necessary) and a reserve
corridor for the Isham-Wellingborough road improvement (IWIMP), on land off the A509
Niort Way and the A510 Northen Way and south of Great Harrowden, Wellingborough,
NN8 4UF, in accordance with application number WP/2008/0150/OEIA dated 4 March
2008, subject to the conditions set out in Annex A to this letter.


11. An applicant for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition of
these permissions for agreement of reserved matters has a statutory right of appeal to
the Secretary of State if consent, agreement or approval is refused or granted
conditionally or if the Local Planning Authority fail to give notice of their decision within
the prescribed period.


12. This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under
any enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990.


13. This letter serves as the Secretary of State's statement under regulation 21(2) of
the Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales)
Regulations 1999.

Right to challenge the decision

14. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of
the Secretary of State's decision may be challenged by making an application to the
High Court within six weeks of the date of this letter.

15. A copy of this letter has been sent to the Borough Council of Wellingborough and
all parties who appeared at the inquiry.


Yours sincerely


Michael Taylor

Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf


Annex A – Conditions



Implementation Conditions



1. The applications for approval of all of the reserved matters in respect of Phase 1 (as
defined by Parameter Plan H - Drawing Number BBD008/017.01/J) shall be made no later
than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, and the development to
which this permission relates in respect of Phase 1 shall commence before the later of:
(a) The expiration of a period of 5 years from the date of this permission; or

(b) The expiration of 2 years from the date of the final approval of the details of the
last reserved matter given by the Local Planning Authority or, in the case of
approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be
approved.


2. The applications for approval of the reserved matters in respect of Phases 2 & 3 (as
defined by Parameter Plans I & J - Drawing Numbers BBD008/017.02/J and
BBD008/017.03/J) shall be made no later than the expiration of 10 years from the date of
this permission, and the development to which this permission relates in respect of
Phases 2 & 3 shall commence before the later of:
(a) The expiration of a period of 12 years from the date of this permission; or

(b) The expiration of 5 years from the date of the final approval of the details of the
last reserved matter (for phases 2 & 3) given by the Local Planning Authority or,
in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such
matter to be approved.


2A Notwithstanding conditions 2 and 5A of this permission, no development shall commence
within Phases 2 & 3 (as defined by Parameter Plans I & J - Drawing Numbers
BBD008/017.02/J and BBD008/017.03/J) until development has commenced in Phase 1
pursuant to condition 1 of this permission.

3. Notwithstanding condition 2 above, no dwellings within Phases 2 & 3 (as defined by
Parameter Plans I & J - Drawing Numbers BBD008/017.02/J and BBD008/017.03/J) shall
be occupied until the IWIMP road has been completed and brought into use.
4. Applications for detailed approval of the following matters (hereby referred to as the
reserved matters) in relation to any phase of development shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of
development in that phase (save such preliminary work as the Local Planning Authority
may approve in writing):
(a) the layout, scale and appearance of buildings;
(b) vehicle, cycle and foot access routes and parking;
(c) hard and soft landscaping including boundary treatments and details of street
furniture and lighting;
(d) layout and design of public open space;


The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved
details.


4A Application for detailed approval of the following matters in relation to any phase of
development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority before the commencement of development in relation to that phase:

(a) layout, design and specification of drainage infrastructure;



(b) detailed survey of existing ground levels, details of any proposed alterations to the
existing ground levels, the final ground level of the development and the finished
floor levels of the buildings; and
(c) waste management facilities strategy and waste audit, including arrangements for
the provision of waste collection receptacles.


The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved
details.

5. No reserved matters application shall be submitted for development in relation to any
phase of development unless a design code (including schedules of external facing
materials for all the buildings) covering that application has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such design code to be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority for approval shall consist of guidance and coding relating to
the following matters for that application:
character area overview;
public realm strategy;
movement network including route hierarchy,
street, building and block typologies;
open spaces and landscape;
environmental standards; and
implementation.


The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved
design code details.


Phasing Plan

5A No development shall commence on any phase or sub-phase until a phasing plan in
respect of the phased implementation of the development in phases and/or sub-phases,
which shall generally be in accordance with the principles set out in Parameter Plans H, I
and J submitted with the application (Drawing. Nos. BBD008/017.01/J, BBD008/017.02/J
and BBD008/017.03/J), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. In particular, the phasing plan for Phase 1 of the development shall:

(a) identify the nature, scale and extent of the infrastructure to be provided to serve the
development within Phase 1;

(b) identify play and sports facilities, including formal and informal open space, to serve
1,500 dwellings within Phase 1, including the formal sports facilities adjacent to
Wellingborough Grange Farm and the timing for its delivery;

(c) incorporate the central phase of Brook Park and the Harrowden Ridge Park central
phase and the timing for its delivery;

(d) identify the extent of the neighbourhood centre to be associated with Phase 1 and
timing for its delivery;

(e) identify the extent of the woodland planting to be associated with Phase 1 and the
timing for its delivery including advance planting on the northern and eastern
edges of Redhill Grange.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the phasing plan and
programme so approved.


Masterplan and Parameter Plans

6. Each reserved matters application shall substantially accord with the Planning Application
Masterplan (drawing numbered BBD008/010BC) and the approved Design Codes and
shall be accompanied by a written statement which demonstrates compliance.
7. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out substantially in compliance with
the Parameter Plans contained in the Planning Application, namely Drawing Nos.
BBD008/043, 010/BC, 012/AB, 014/U, 015/T, 016/P, 029/F, 017.01/J, 017.02/J and
017.03/J, and save as is necessary to secure compliance with the conditions on this
permission, no variation shall be made without the prior written approval of the Local
Planning Authority which approval will not be given if in the reasonable opinion of the
Local Planning Authority the proposed variation creates new environmental impacts which
exceed the range or scale of those assessed and measured in the Environmental
Statement (including the further information submitted in October 2008) and which the
Local Planning Authority considers may require further or additional mitigation measures.
8. The total number of C3 dwelling units within the development shall be limited to 3,000. Of
that total, 1,500 units shall be limited to Phase 1, 700 units for Phase 2 and 800 units for
Phase 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, sub-phases of the development may be carried
out subject to the limits specified for each phase both individually and cumulatively not
being exceeded.
9. Prior to the commencement of the development of any phase, sub-phase or infrastructure
element in connection with any phase (save for such preliminary works as the Local
Planning Authority may approve in writing), all existing public rights of way affected by the
development of that phase, sub-phase or infrastructure element shall be protected and/or
diverted in accordance with statutory procedures and a scheme which shall previously
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such
measures shall remain in place for the duration of the construction in that phase, sub-
phase or infrastructure element and thereafter, any such route shall be returned to its
original state or such state as shall be approved in writing in advance by the Local
Planning Authority, and made available for public use once the works which immediately
affect them have been completed.


Landscaping

10. Prior to the commencement of any development (save for such preliminary works as the
Local Planning Authority may approve in writing), a structural landscape scheme shall be
provided in accordance with an updated version of the Landscape Strategy (September
2008) and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A
detailed scheme for each element shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme(s) shall be implemented in the first planting season
immediately following the completion of the relevant phase or sub-phase or within any
longer period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. If, within a
period of 5 years from the date of the planting, any tree or plant is removed, uprooted,
destroyed or dies, another of the same species and size shall be planted at the same
place in the next available planting season, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its
written consent to any variation. For the purposes of this condition a planting season shall
be the period from the end of October to the end of February.
11. Prior to the commencement of any development within any phase (save for such
preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing), a detailed plan
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority indicating
the position of existing landscape features including trees, large shrubs and hedges both
within that phase and overhanging the phase boundary. Trees are to be assessed for
their wildlife value and potential for providing bat roosts. The extent of the canopy shall
be plotted accurately and the plan shall specify protective measures to existing trees and
hedges to be retained on that part of the phase in accordance with British Standard 5837.
The plan shall also indicate the proposed route of all underground services and measures
to be taken to ensure that root damage is avoided. The approved measures shall be
implemented prior to development of the phase area or infrastructure element to which it
relates (save for such preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in
writing) and retained until the completion of the development. Any land so enclosed shall
be kept clear of all materials, machinery and temporary buildings at all times.


12. A Landscape Management Plan, including phasing and implementation strategy,
management responsibilities and maintenance arrangements for all landscape areas,
other than privately owned domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority as part of the reserved matters submission in
accordance with Conditions 4 and 10. The Landscape Management Plan shall be
implemented as approved.

Archaeology

13. The development of each phase, sub-phase or infrastructure element hereby permitted
shall not commence until a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a
written scheme of investigation (including site-based archaeological survey, trial
fieldworks to evaluate the archaeological potential of the sub-area and any work
necessary to preserve remains in situ and/or by record), or watching brief, as appropriate,
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for that
phase, sub-phase or infrastructure element. The relevant works shall only take place in
accordance with the detailed scheme or brief pursuant to this condition.


Noise Mitigation

14. The development of each phase or sub-phase shall not commence (save for such
preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing) until a scheme
for noise mitigation measures in relation to that phase or sub-phase, in accordance with
the Environmental Statement, to protect future occupiers from the industrial operations
within Finedon Road Industrial Estate has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The approved mitigation measures shall be implemented in
full prior to the first occupation of any building in that phase or sub-phase.


Construction Management

15. No development of any phase or sub-phase shall take place until a Construction
Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The Construction Management Plan shall include and specify the provision to
be made for the following:

(i) Dust mitigation measures during the construction period;

(ii) Control of noise emanating from the site during the construction period;

(iii) Hours of construction work for the development;
(iv) Contractors’ compounds and other storage arrangements;
(v) Enclosure of phase or sub-phase development sites;
(vi) Provision for all site operatives, visitors and construction vehicles loading, off
loading, parking and turning within the site during the construction period;
(vii) Arrangements during the construction period to minimise the deposit of mud and
other similar debris on the adjacent public highways;
(viii) Routing agreement for construction traffic.


The construction of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
Construction Management Plan.


Lighting

16. Prior to the commencement of development on any phase or infrastructure element (save
for such preliminary works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing), a
lighting strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The details shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved
strategy.

Drainage/contamination

17. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced (save for such preliminary
works as the Local Planning Authority may approve in writing) until such time as a
scheme to provide detailed suitable modelling of the watercourse through the site
(Harrowden Brook) to the limits of the site boundaries (to allow the fluvial flood risk
contours from the modelled 1 in 100 year and 1 in 1,000 year flood events to be mapped),
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained in accordance with the
timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme or within any other period as
may subsequently be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


18. Prior to the commencement of any development (save for such preliminary works as the
Local Planning Authority may approve in writing), a Stage 2 Flood Risk Assessment shall
be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained in accordance with the timing /
phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme or within any other period as may
subsequently be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

19. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 94, 98 and 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991,
no development shall commence (save for such preliminary works as the Local Planning
Authority may approve in writing) until details of a scheme, including phasing, for the
provision of mains foul water drainage on and off site has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until
the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.


20. Prior to the commencement of the development of any phase or sub-phase, a scheme for
the disposal of surface water from that phase or sub-phase shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall adopt
sustainable drainage principles in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage
systems set out in Appendix F of PPS25 and shall not result in an increase in the rate
and/or volume of surface water discharge to the local land drainage system. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme(s).

21. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at
the site then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has
submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an
amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination
shall be dealt with. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
amendment to the remediation strategy.


Sustainable Homes, Buildings and Energy

22. In accordance with the submitted development phasing plan, residential units delivered
between 2008-2012 shall achieve as a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (“CSH”)
Level 3; residential units delivered 2013-2015 shall achieve as a minimum CSH Level 4;
and those delivered from 2016 onwards shall be achieve CSH Level 6, (or the equivalent
national standard which replaces the Code for Sustainable Homes which is to be the
assessment in force when the residential units concerned are registered for assessment
purposes).
23. Non-residential buildings shall achieve a minimum of Building Research Establishment
Environment Assessment Method (BREEAM) level "very good" (or the equivalent
standard which replaces the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method which is to be the assessment in force when the Commercial Unit or Units
concerned are registered for assessment purposes).
24. All reserved matters applications shall be accompanied by a Sustainability Statement /
Assessment that demonstrates how environmental sustainability issues have been
addressed during the design process and sets out the way in which the credits under
relevant BREEAM Rating and relevant CSH Level will be achieved based on the actual
design of the commercial units or residential units (as appropriate) in the particular
development parcel. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
25. Prior to the commencement of development (save for such preliminary works as the Local
Planning Authority may approve in writing) a Low/Zero Carbon (LZC) Feasibility Study
shall be carried out by an independent energy specialist to establish the most appropriate
LZC energy source for the development in order achieve a target of at least 30% of the
demand for energy. The feasibility study should cover as a minimum; energy generated
by LZC source per year, payback, land use, noise, whole life cost impact of potential
specification in terms of carbon emissions, any available grants, all technologies
appropriate to the site, energy demand of the development, reasons for excluding other
technologies and should include technical and economic viability assessment supporting
actual target if less than 30%. The Study shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance
with the approved Study.


Use Restrictions

26. In relation to the Class A1 use of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order
2005 (as amended or any equivalent class within an Order revoking and or re-enacting
that Order with or without modification) proposed on site pursuant to this permission, the
cumulative / total gross floor area shall not exceed 2,600 square metres without the prior
written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
27. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any other Order revoking and or re-enacting this Order with
or without modification), any class A2, A3, A4 & A5 building / uses shall not be used for
retail purposes falling within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)
Order 2005 (as amended or any equivalent class within an Order revoking and or re-
enacting that Order with or without modification) without the prior written consent of the
Local Planning Authority.


Highways

28. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced, a detailed
Development Phasing Plan for all highway and access works shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Development Phasing Plan shall
be in accordance with the Phasing Plan submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority pursuant to Condition 5A of this permission. All highway and access
works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Development Phasing Plan.

29. Notwithstanding the plans and details submitted, prior to the commencement of any
phase or sub-phase of the development hereby permitted, details of the highway and
access works necessary as part of that phase or sub-phase shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All highway and access works in that
phase or sub-phase shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved
details and phased in accordance with the Development Phasing Plan.

30. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced, the applicant shall
undertake public consultation with residents of Redhill Grange concerning any alterations
to the existing access arrangements or creation of a new access or accesses to the
estate at Redhill Grange. The results of the consultation shall be considered by the
applicant and where appropriate taken account of in the subsequent detailed reserved
matters application submissions pursuant to this permission.

31. Notwithstanding the plans submitted, all roads, footpaths, cycleways and verges within
the development and linking to it shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details
shall accord with the standards contained within the Northamptonshire County Council
document ‘Place and Movement Guide’ and be supported by a Quality Audit.

32. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced, a Walking and
Cycling Audit shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Local Planning Authority.
No development shall be commenced until details of the Walking and Cycling Measures
arising from the Audit, which for the avoidance of doubt shall include measures such as
dropped kerbs, tactile paving and controlled pedestrian/cycle crossing(s) and signage to
be carried out within the public highway that reasonably relate to the proposed
development along with a programme of delivery, have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such Walking and Cycling Measures shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved programme of delivery.

Update on Wellingborough North planning application and appeal:

In his letter of the 22 October 2009, the Secretary of State advised that he had deferred his decision on the planning application to enable the Council to sign a Deed, relating to land owned by the Council and included in the development, under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

On the 15th December 2009, the Council responded by requesting the Secretary of State to re-open the planning enquiry due to new material which the Council wished the Secretary of State to have regard to.

On the 23rd December the Secretary of State advised that he had declined to reopen the enquiry and requested that the requested document be signed by the Council by the 22 January 2010.

The Council delayed its response until the matter had been considered by the full Council Meeting on the 26 January 2010.

At this meeting the Sue Suttle the Secretary of the Redhill Grange Community Association gave the following address:

“ To quote from the report following the Public Inquiry: 'Planning obligations such as 106 Agreements are used to secure infrastructure from developers and/or to mitigate the impact of new developments upon existing communities. They can also be used to restrict the development or use of land in a specified way or to require specific operations or activities to be carried out on the land. A 106 Agreement does not prejudice the Council's ability to do what it wishes with its own land unless it seeks to carry out its own development.'
My first point is that SJ Berwin, on behalf of both parties, suggested that it was not necessary for a signed and dated copy of the Council's Deed to be provided in advance of any planning permission being granted.
The second point is that Agenda Item 5 rejected Option 2 to sign the Council's deed of covenant which operates as a S106 said agreement, in favour of Option 3. Thirdly, the Agenda item 10 report says that the Deed should be signed to give the Borough Council of Wellingborough more control. This begs the question, if 3 is true why was it not relevant to 1 and 2 as well?
With Stanton Cross stalled and the town centre re-development dependent on Government and/or private funding, it seems to me that bringing forward 'Upper Redhill' may well be seen as the key to this funding, despite the supply of land being already ahead of the Core Spatial Strategy's five year supply.
If Councillors are forced to sign this Deed to include their land in a development for which they refused planning permission, a decision they were subsequently bound to justify at a Public Inquiry and which has resulted in a 106 Agreement then what use is this document that is supposed to protect the rights of a Council and mitigate the impact of a new development upon existing communities. In this particular case it makes an ass of the law and a mockery of the whole democratic process."

After some discussion, Connect Law'sAction, i.e."That the Council minute dated 21 July
2009 to sign be affirmed and the s106 Agreement be signed and the Secretary of State be notified of the decision forthwith." was put aside in favour of the following amendment put forward by Hemmingwell Ward Councillor Graham Lawman.

“The proposed action as set out in the Agenda Item as printed be not approved and that a letter in the following terms be sent to the Secretary of State.

“The Full Council at its meeting on 26 January 2010 considered the invitation made by the Secretary of State in his letter of the 22 October 2009 to execute and deliver a S106 agreement in respect of the land it owns and which is contained within the appeal site. Having given most careful consideration to the Councils duty of prudent management of its land, the potential financial obligations imposed on it by the S106 agreement, the viability of the proposals as set out in the Planning Inspectors report (paragraphs 6 & 11) and the present economic climate the Council is minded not to execute any deed or document the effect of which would be to encumber its land and expose the Council to any risk of adverse financial consequences.

The Council understands from the Secretary of States letter dated 22 October 2009 that in the absence of an executed S106 agreement provided by the Council the Secretary of State is not prepared to grant planning permission (paragraph 7 of that letter.

The Council has received advice that the Secretary of State may have some residual powers to compel the Council to execute the document, but despite requests that these be identified to unequivocal answer has been obtained. If the Secretary of State does have such powers, and is considering their application in this easer the Council would respectfully request that they be notified accordingly.''

The response of the Secretary of State is now awaited.

December 2009 Newsletter published
See Newsletters or Click here to read

October 23rd 2009 - Public Inquiry Result.

The Planning Inspector Michael Ellison has completed his report on the appeal by the Developers and has recommended that the appeal be allowed, and that, subject to various conditions, planning approval is granted.

This report has been submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who has advised that he is minded to agree with the Inspectors Recommendation and conditions. However to permit the completion of certain legal matters between the parties involved, the Secretary of State advises that he has delayed his decision until on or before the 26th February 2010.

To read the Inspectors Report, and the Secretary of State's letter click on the following link to Wellingborough Council's Planning section
http://www.wellingborough.gov.uk/site/scripts/news_article.php?newsID=488

October 2009 Newsletter published click here to view

July 2009 Newsletter published click here to view

Public Inquiry Update - June 2009

Although the Public Inquiry was scheduled to sit for 16 days and run from 2nd June to the 26th June 2009, it only sat for 9 days, concluding for all practicable purposes on the 18th June 2009.

As discussions are still ongoing between the parties on the content of the Planning Conditions and Section 106 Agreement, the Inspector, Michael Ellison, has allowed a further 4 weeks for this to take place and he hopes to formally close the Inquiry in writing on 16th July 2009 without a further sitting.

A brief summary of each days sitting

Day 1: 2nd June 2009 - Most of the morning was taken up with procedural matters but both QCs, Martin Kingston for Northants LLP and Anthony Crean for the Borough Council, delivered their Opening Submissions before the Inspector adjourned the sitting at lunchtime to give him time to read documents that were only presented to him that morning.

Day 2: 3rd June 2009 - Apart for some procedural matters, the day was largely taken up by James Williams of Drivas Jonas for the BCoW, delivering and being cross examined by Martin Kingston QC for the appellants, on his Summary Proof of Evidence. Mr Kingston's cross examination concentrated mainly on proving that the Upper Redhill development is justified on the basis that it was essential to satisfy the Government's housing supply requirements for Wellingborough.

Day 3: 4th June 2009 - Mr Kingston continued his cross examination of Mr Williams in the early part of day, with the latter part being taken up by third party submissions by the Reverend Pareira of Gleneagles, Richard Bowden of Bowden Land and RGCA Chairman Richard Lovett. Reverend Pariera asked for a Christian place of worship/social centre to be included in the development; Mr Bowden argued that the development should not be approved until Wellingborough East had been successfully established and Richard spoke of the Association's objections in both principle and in detail to the application.

Day 4: 5th June 2009 – The short half day session consisted of a submission by Nigel Durman of Drivas Jonas, on behalf of the BCoW, on land values. Mr Durman made the point that if both Upper Redhill and development to the East of Wellingborough took place together it would produce a surplus of land/houses and depress values. The main part of his submission, however, was fairly complex and related to a land value model undertaken by EDAW. In cross examination, Mr Kingston opened by questioning Mr Durman's terms of reference and went on to question him about the viability of WEAST and on the reasons for the difference between the figure he produced compared with those produced by EDAW.

Day 5: 9th June 2009 - The session was given over to third party submissions, the morning presentations being given by Furnace Lane residents Yvonne Blood, Martin Lawrence-Harris and Shelley Lawrence-Harris; Great Harrowden resident John Evans and Redhill Grange residents Ian Brown, Graham Mower, Sue Suttle, Trevor Tippet, Hayley Mitchell and John Burton. The afternoon submissions were presented by Borough Councillors Graham Lawman, Lora Lawman, Jim Bass and Geoff Timms. All argued that the application should be rejected.

Day 6: 10th June 2009 – The session saw Professor David Lock delivering his Summary Proof of Evidence on behalf of the appellants. In cross examination, Mr Crean dealt with the Upper Redhill proposal in relation to the Regional Spatial Strategy and the North Northants Core Spatial Strategy, the funding and delivery of the IWImp and the need to bring forward WEAST before Upper Redhill.


Day 7: 11th June 2009 – The session saw Mr Crean concluding his cross examination of Professor David Lock, dealing with the relevance of applying a Grampian Condition to the approval of the application in relation to the completion of the IWImp and the housing trajectory figures in the Borough Council's Annual Monitoring Report. In order to give the parties concerned more time to prepare for the Friday session, the Inspector adjourned the session at lunch time.

Day 8: 12th June 2009 - The session saw the conclusion of the main part of the Inquiry with a round table discussion of the Conditions and Obligations by the parties concerned.

Day 9: 18th June 2009 – The final session consisted of the closing submissions by Mr Crean and Mr Kingston and the application for costs by both parties.

Accompanied Site Visit: 19th June 2009 – Mr Ellison invited those people who had presented submissions to the Inquiry to join him on the visit and five residents of Redhill Grange accepted the invitation. The visit took in twenty five locations that had been referred to during the inquiry, including the woodland to the West of Redhill Grange between Kettering Road and the A509 and Redhill Grange itself, with particular reference to the stub ends of Redhill Way and The Banks and the proximity of the Finedon Road industrial estate.

Mr Ellison is now to write a report for consideration by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who will make the final decision.

Further Reference

The documents presented at the Inquiry are available to view on the Borough Council of Wellingborough's web site. To view paste http://planning.wellingborough.gov.uk/portal/ into your web browser, click on Planning Applications on the screen displayed and then on Application Search on the drop down options list. On the Application Search screen, enter WP/2008/0150 in the reference number box and click on Search. On the Search Result screen, click on WP/2008/0150 to display the Planning Application screen. The documents are listed towards the end of the Images section, just click on the document reference to display the document itself.

RGCA Comments

Throughout the Inquiry, the appellants argument for the approval of the Upper Redhill planning application has been solely that it is required by the BCoW to deliver houses in line with the Government's rolling five year housing trajectory. This is summed up in the final paragraph of Mr Kingston's submission:-

"In the circumstances we respectfully invite some urgency in the decision making process and the grant of planning permission as soon as possible in order to ensure that the delivery of housing in this area is at least given some chance to be restored to an appropriate level. Accordingly we invite a recommendation that planning permission should be granted subject to appropriate conditions and the S106 Agreement."

The Inspector Michael Ellison has to form his opinion based on the evidence presented and, it has to be noted, that when faced with a similar shortfall argument, an Inspector at a Public Inquiry in Kettering a while back allowed the appeal on the basis that:-

"There is a shortfall in the five year supply of housing land in Kettering Borough, and the proposal would meet the criteria set out in paragraph 69 of PPS3, and so should be considered favourably. Overall, subject to the recommended conditions and the Section 106 Agreement, the proposal would accord with the advice in PPS3 and PPG13."

Conversely, an Inspector at a Public Inquiry in Wellingborough dismissed an appeal on the basis that:-

"Although the general principle of redevelopment of this site complies with local and national policies, particularly those which encourage the better use of existing developed land in sustainable locations,
I am concerned about the overall scale of development and the effect on the character and appearance of the area."

Time alone will tell which view Mr Ellison will take but the Association's chairman and other third party speakers put up strong arguments for the preservation of the character and appearance of Redhill Grange, so it is to be hoped that the Inspector takes the latter view.

The Inquest

The Inquiry has raised several issues that the Committee now needs to address. The Committee is to hold a meeting to consider these issues on Thursday 2nd July 2009 and the results of the deliberations, together with a report of the Inquiry, will then be the subject of a Newsletter which will be delivered to all residents.

Issued by Mike Chislett, Honorary Secretary 22nd June 2009

Public Inquiry News 26th May 2009

The Tuesday 2nd June 2009 start of the Public Inquiry into the Borough Council’s non-determination of Northants LLP’s duplicate 3,000 dwellings Upper Redhill planning application is now only a few days away.

After consultation with our advisers, the Committee has agreed the final draft of the case that the Association is to put to the Inquiry. All that is left now is for the Association’s Chairman, Richard Lovett, to turn the draft into a suitable form for him to present to the Inquiry on behalf of the residents of Redhill Grange.

The above begs a question; in our April 2009 Public Inquiry News leaflet we asked that if you were not in agreement with the Association supporting the Council’s opposition to the appeal at the Inquiry on behalf of the residents of Redhill Grange to let us know. If you are not in agreement, but did not say so at the time, then please let the Honorary Secretary know without delay as we have to tell the Inspector if we do not speak for all the residents.

Although the Inquiry is not a court, both Northants LLP and the Borough Council will be represented by QC’s and any evidence presented can be subject to cross examination.

The Inquiry is to be held at the Castle Theatre and is due to start at 10 am on Tuesday 2nd June 2009 and it is to sit from Tuesday to Friday each week and take a possible 16 days.

The Inspector will set a programme at the start of the Inquiry, based on the number of people who want to speak, but it will be a rolling programme so some variation is to be expected

If you have not applied to speak, the Association would still appreciate your attendance at the Inquiry in support of our case but be warned, there is only seating for 50 people at the Castle so you might have to stand.

At the end of the Inquiry, the Inspector will submit his recommendations to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who will make the final decision; hopefully Northants LLP’s appeal will be rejected.

Public Inquiry News April 2009

Following Bee Bee Developments appeal to the Government against the non-determination of their duplicate 3,000 dwellings Upper Redhill WP/2008/0150 planning application, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ordered the appeal to be heard at a Public Inquiry.

At a pre-inquiry meeting held in the Council Chamber in Swanspool House on the 17th April 2009, the appointed Inspector, Michael Ellison MA (Oxon), gave details of the timings and procedures for the Public Inquiry.

The Inquiry is due to start at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday 2nd June 2009 and it is scheduled to take 16 days. It will sit for four days per week; Tuesday to Thursday from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm and Friday from 10:00 am to 1:30 pm. This means it should finish on 26th April 2009.

The main venue will be the Council Chamber at Swanspool House but, because the Chamber is also used for weddings, some sessions will be held at The Castle theatre.

Anthony Crean QC advised Mr Ellison that he had been briefed by the Council to answer the appeal and a Planning Consultant from Drivers Jonas would be co-ordinating their case. He would be calling witnesses who he would name later.

Martin Kingston QC said that he had been briefed by Bee Bee Developments to present their case and would call one witness, Professor David Lock.

Referring to third party witnesses, Mr Ellison said that they must state who they represent, i.e. themselves, their road, etc. Referring specifically to the Association, he said that we would need to establish that we were formally constituted and spoke for all the residents on Redhill Grange.

The Inspector asked for third party requests to either speak or submit written statements to be sent to the Case Officer by Friday 24th April 2009, but he also said it was a Public Inquiry and the public had a right to be heard at any time during the Inquiry.

The Case Officer for the Inquiry can be contacted as follows:-

Jennifer Saunders
Case Officer
Environment and Special Casework
The Planning Inspectorate
Room 4/04 Kite Wing
2 The Square, Temple Quay House
Bristol BS1 6PN
Tel 0117 372 8353
Fax 0117 372 6241
Email jennifer.saunders@pins.gsi.gov.uk

Quote Case Number APP / H2835 / A / 08 / 2093066

We are urging as many residents as possible to attend the start of the Inquiry as a poor attendance could be viewed as a lack of interest in the outcome.

Redhill Grange Community Association’s Response

To support the Borough Council of Wellingborough at the Public Inquiry, the committee has already taken advice from Sir Peter Fry and advice received from the Planning Officer at the Campaign to Protect Rural England is being studied. In addition, advice from the Royal Town Planning Institute’s Planning Aid service is in preparation and expected soon. The Committee is now planning to meet on a regular basis prior to the 2nd June 2009 start of the Inquiry to consider the advice received and agree and refine strategy and tactics. In addition, news leaflets will be distributed to all the addresses on Redhill Grange to keep the residents fully informed.

Planning Application WP/2008/0559 – Family Work Live Facility

Some residents have been asking questions about the planning application for a family work live facility that the Borough Council have submitted.

In explanation, it is intended to provide a new site for traveller Mr Hatfield and his family, who are currently living next to Weatherbys and are blocking the planned route through to the WEAST development.

The site, which is to include hard standing for three mobile homes plus a dayroom and be surrounded by a 1.8 metre high fence, is to be accessed from a lane between numbers 14 and 16 Bradfield Road on the Finedon Road Industrial Estate.

The details can be viewed by entering URL http://planning.wellingborough.gov.uk/portal/ into you web browser and selecting the Application Search option on the screen. In the Application Search section of the resulting screen, enter WP/2008/0559 in the Application box and then select Search; details of the application will then be displayed. 
 
For the record, Mr Hatfield, is the owner of the horses that you see grazing in the fields around Redhill Grange.
 
Redhill Grange Notice Board

Plans are underway for the Borough Council of Wellingborough to install a notice board in Redhill Grange. The Association has suggested that it be sited in Redhill Way in the telephone box/letter box/bus stop area.
 
It will be to a standard Borough Council design and it has been made possible by our three Borough Councillors, Graham Lawman, "Bob" Patel and Malcolm Waters, allocating some of their ward money to the project.
 
Redhill Grange Community Aassociation may be asked to make a small contribution to the cost but we see this as a small price to pay for the benefits that will be gained.
 
An indication of how it will look is shown below; it will say "Welcome to Redhill Grange" and have a road plan on the right hand side; which will be very useful to visitors new to the area. The left hand side will be used for BCoW, Police and RGCA notices.
 
We have been debating installing a notice board for some time but the cost has always been beyond us, so our thanks go to Graham, "Bob" and Malcolm for making it possible.




February 2009 Update:

Bee Bee Development's Upper Redhill Planning Applications WP/2007/0750

At the 4th February 2009 Extraordinary Meeting of the Borough Council of Wellingborough, Councillors voted by 18 votes to 7 votes to refuse the Upper Redhill planning application submitted by North Northants LLP (Bee Bee Developments).

The Councillors put forward many reasons for their decision, the main ones being:-

Lack of certainty over infrastructure in order to deliver a comprehensive development.

Inconsistency with Policy 7 of the Core Spatial Strategy regarding the phasing of development for the growth of the town

Lack of clear boundaries and a gap between the development and other settlements causing coalesance contrary to national and regional guidance.

In response to a leaflet campaign organised by the Committee, over 100 Redhill Grange residents packed the meeting and heard members of the Committee and other residents argue against the proposals.

The refusal is seen as a victory in round one of our Association's opposition to the Upper Redhill proposals but the fight is far from over as Bee Bee Developments are expected to appeal against the decision. This would result in a public enquiry being held where the final decision would by made by a Government appointed inspector from the Bristol based Planning Inspectorate.

Bee Bee Development's Duplicate Identical Upper Redhill Planning Applications WP/2008/0150

As reported in the January 2009 Breaking News, Bee Bee Developments have used their duplicate identical WP/2008/0150 planning application to lodge an appeal against the Borough Council of Wellingborough for non-determination of the application in the statutory 16 week period.

This tactical move on Bee Bee Developments part stopped the Council's decision to reject the WP/2007/0750 application also applying to the WP/2008/0150 planning application.

We are told that if the Inspector finds for Bee Bee Developments then the WP/2008/0150 planning application is automatically approved, in spite of the rejection of the WP/2007/0750 application; an incentive for the Association to put up a strong fight at the public enquiry.

Where do we go from here?

Our next moves are now dependant upon the timetable that the Planning Inspectorate set for Bee Bee Developments' WP/2008/0150 appeal and what action Bee Bee Developments take regarding the Council's rejection of the WP/2007/0750 application.

Although this is a time for waiting for events to take place it does not mean that the Committee are idle. Advice is being sought from Planning Aid, who give free advice and support on planning issues, we are in contact with Peter Bone MP and Sir Peter Fry is due to attend our next Committee meeting to update us on his STOP campaign and give us advice on strategy and tactics for the forthcoming public enquiries.

January 2009 - BeeBee Developments lodge Appeal

Bee Bee Developments have used their duplicate identical WP/2008/0150 planning application to lodge an appeal against the Borough Council of Wellingborough for non-determination of the application in the statutory 16 week period.

This means that the appeal will now go to a Public Enquiry and the Planning Inspectorate has issued the following timetable for this process.

Appeal stages and dates
Appeal accepted: 8th January 2009
Completion of Questionnaire & attachments due date: 22nd January 2009
Statements and representations due date: 19th February 2009
Final Comments, due date: 12th March
Dates for Inquiry evidence and decision are unknown at this time

To view details of Bee Bee Developments appeal and the Councils response see Appeal Documents under Breaking News section of this website.

Our advisers tell us that the Council need do nothing and simply hand the whole thing to the inspector but that the incentive is for the BCoW to press on to make a determination one way or the other.

One thing that we find strange about BBDs' move is that they submitted major changes to their plans in October 2008 but advised the BCoW about the appeal just before Christmas. We will, however, investigate this matter further.

As far as progress with the planning application is concerned, the Borough's Development Committee has been considering a Planning Guidance for Wellingborough North Sustainable Urban Extension document. This has been prepared by the officers of the Council, in the absence of the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document which is in preparation, to give guidance to the 4th February 2009 special meeting of the Full Council which is to determine the application.

The Association has serious reservations about the guidance document, particularly as it was initially called Planning Guidance for Upper Redhill Sustainable Urban Extension document, and we have made several representations to the Development Committee about our concerns. Unfortunately, these concerns have had little effect on the content of the guidance document and it is now to go to the 27th January 2009 meeting of the Full Council for approval.

Events are now likely to move quickly from here so keep checking Breaking News on the web site for further updates



4th December 2008 - Response by Anglian Water
Following the article in the Evening Telegraph on the 21st October 2008 and concern over increased charges by Anglian Water expressed by a resident at the AGM, the Hon Secretary wrote to the organisation requesting clarification. The following response has been received from Anglian Water:

4 December 2008

Dear Mr Chislett

Thank you for your letter of 20 November regarding Anglian Water's proposed increases to customer bills and the Government's growth agenda for Northamptonshire.

The Northants Evening Telegraph article (21 October) to which you refer in your letter incorrectly stated that Anglian Water proposes to increase bills by f13 per year. Our proposal to Ofwat, which was developed after considerable consultation, is to increase the average household bill from £360 per year in 2010 to f373 in 2015 (excluding inflation). This increase, which is for the whole five-year period, equates to an average annual increase of 0.7 per cent.

The increase, if approved by Ofwat, would equate to a capital investment programme of f2.5 billion between 2010 and 2015 for our region as a whole. Part of this investment is intended to deal with the planned housing growth across our region, a relatively small proportion of which will be needed in Northamptonshire.

A breakdown of our investment programme for 2010-2015 is included in the enclosed leaflet. Further information about our long term challenges, including the impact of climate change, are contained within our Strategic Direction Statement, which looks ahead to 2035.

I hope this information is useful to you. Please do contact us again if you require further information.

Yours sincerely

Adrian Smith
Head of Communications
Registered Office
Anglian House,
Ambury Road, Huntingdon,

19th November 2008 - Article in Evening Telegraph

MP calls meeting on 3,000 homes
A public meeting has been called over controversial plans to build 3,000 homes.

Wellingborough and Rushden MP Peter Bone has called the meeting at Redwell Leisure Centre on Friday, November 28, in response to opposition to proposals to build 3,000 new homes in Upper Redhill in the town. The meeting, which will start at 7.30 pm, will give residents a chance to voice their fears about poor infrastructure and lack of affordable homes in the plans for Wellingborough North.

However an extraordinary full council meeting planned for Tuesday, November 25, where the plans were due to be discussed in more detail, has been cancelled.

Mr Bone said: "There has been a concern expressed about the Wellingborough North development. "This gives me the opportunity to judge the opinion of the public, make sure their voice is heard and help them make representations to the appropriate body. I'm going along to listen at that meeting and formulate a policy in response."

And Mike Chislett, secretary of the Redhill Grange Community Association, which has contacted Mr Bone about the plans, said: "As far as the plan in general goes, we're totally opposed. "We are certainly not happy about it."

The debate about Wellingborough North Sustainable Urban Extension has heated up in the past week. Last week councillors, residents and planning officers argued about a legal document outlining how the plans would be carried forward.

Although council officers said the document was necessary to give planners the correct guidance in the future, members of Wellingborough Council's development committee objected to some of the language in the report.

They were particularly concerned about a line in the report which said "most development should be below the ridgeline when viewed from Little Harrowden."

This caused concern that some development could be seen from Little Harrowden and the councillors asked for language which made clear houses would not be visible from the village.

Meanwhile Cllr Graham Lawman, who represents the Hemmingwell ward, raised worries that only 20 per cent of the homes were being earmarked for affordable housing.

There are also fears roads, schools and medical centres could be overcrowded if extra provision is not made.

Councillors said next Tuesday's council meeting was cancelled because they need more time to consult agencies about the plans.

25th October - Letter from Government re Compansation

The Association's Hon Secretary advised that he has received a letter from from the Government in response to his letters, to both Gordon Brown and Hazel Blears, about compensation for the loss of property value if BBDs' Upper Redhill development goes ahead.

A scan of this letter has been included in the Image Gallery - click here to read

24th October - Bee Bee Developments advise revision to plan

In the following e-mail to the Association's Hon Secretary, Bee Bee Developments advise that they have made changes to their development plans for Upper Redhill:

Mike,
As ever, hope all well. Since our last meeting at the Council we have been doing some further work on the Upper Redhill application and thought it would be worth updating you on progress. This is particularly the case as we have now addressed the remaining major concerns that you and other residents raised both to us directly and to the Council at the meeting on 3rd September, so hopefully that below will come as good news.

At time of last discussion the foremost remaining concern of the residents was that the mixed use centre of the development was too close to the western edge of Redhill Grange and it was requested that we move the centre west, at least to the other side of the existing A509. Our understanding was that if this change was made your residents would be broadly happy that we had done our best to address their concerns, so we have now made it. This means that the area of woodland immediately west of Redhill Grange will now be left as it is, increasing the buffer between yourselves and the new development. In addition to this, the scale of retail proposed has also been reduced by a third, meaning it is now 4,000 sq m.

You will also note from the revised masterplan that I have attached (*) that we have reduced the amount of housing bordering Redhill Grange, omitting a large chunk to the immediate north and adding some extra space at the south east. Added to the previous amendments of increasing the general buffer around the Grange that we have discussed and also the prior road changes, we are hopeful that you will now be happy that you would not be engulfed by the new housing. The northern boundary of development has also been moved south in line with comments from both yourselves and Great Harrowden residents, which should also lessen any impacts.

Richard is aware that we have now carried out the trees and woodland survey that he requested, although I have not yet received the results. In truth these are no longer that relevant given that we will not be building on the affected land, but it is useful to have the information anyway and I will send Richard a copy for his interest as and when I get.

Hopefully this comes as welcome news and again demonstrate our genuine commitment to trying to make the new development as positive as possible for your residents. I am confident we have now addressed all your major concerns as best we can and hope that you will now be as happy as is possible and that the level of your objection will be correspondingly reduced. Finally, thanks for the constructive approach that you, Richard, Neil and company have taken in our more recent meetings, as these have been very helpful in refining the changes and I hope that, although there is always scepticism about developers, there will be some acknowledgement from your group that we have genuinely tried hard to listen to concerns from the residents and made very real changes to try and accommodate these where possible.

As always, do let me know if anything is unclear.
Many thanks,
Vittorio
Vittorio Davico
Bee Bee Developments Ltd

Click here to view the Revised Master Plan

Article from Evening Telegraph - 21st October
Anglian Water to pass bill for works onto customers

Published Date: 21 October 2008
A bill of tens of millions of pounds to improve water works so the area can cope with thousands of new homes will be picked up by residents.
Anglian Water is proposing to increase the average household bill by £13 a year, from £360 in 2010 to £373 in 2015.

The plan is to generate £2.5bn, some of which will be spent on major improvements at Broadholme sewage treatment works near Wellingborough.

There were fears that with the treatment works reaching capacity, the development of thousands of new homes would have to be put on hold.

But now bosses at Anglian Water say that work will be completed in line with housing developments.

It is planning a series of improvement works, including a linked sewerage system for Rothwell, Desborough and Kettering, subject to its business plan for 2010-2015 being approved by Ofwat.

Some of the money will come from developers but the cash spent on improving treatment works will have to be met by customers of Anglian Water, which announced pre-tax profits of £331.9m in 2007/2008
It comes as county leaders, planners, developers and the North Northamptonshire Development Company, met with Anglian Water and the Environment Agency yesterday to discuss the water cycle in Northamptonshire.

Paul Hickey, growth planning manager for Anglian Water, said customers were getting value for money.

He said: "We're trying to get ahead of the game to make sure the infrastructure is there before development proceeds. We will do the work as and when it's needed.

"Tens of millions of pounds will be spent in key areas to extend sewerage treatment centres and pipelines.

"We need to make sure that customers pay a fair price and the service they receive is upheld – we can't increase prices unduly to pay for improvements.

"We have been working on this plan for five years and it will evolve as the planning process evolves."

A study carried out by Anglian Water states: "North Northants Outline Water Cycle Strategy does not identify any ultimate technical constraints to growth.

"It concludes that planned housing completion dates are attainable, provided that funding and phasing issues are addressed."

The study also found more work needs to be done to address flood risk, which Mr Hickey said means ensuring new developments include things such as ponds to cope with surface water run-off.
The full article contains 430 words and appears in Northants Evening Telegraph newspaper.


Meeting with Peter Bone MP - 28th November 2008

Our MP, Peter Bone, has noted our concerns about both the BCoW's plans for the expansion North of Wellingborough and BBD's Upper Redhill planning application and has asked to be able to talk to residents about these concerns.

We have arranged the meeting for 7:30 p.m. on Friday 28th November 2008 at the Redwell Leisure Centre and hope that residents will take the opportunity to both hear what Peter has to say and make their views known to him.

If the Full Council does consider BBD's Upper Redhill planning application on Tuesday 25th November 2008 as planned, we will be able to take the opportunity to give you a report on the meeting as well.

It is important that Redhill Grange residents make every effort to come along so please make a note in your diary to keep the evening free.

Conservative Party's Position on Government's Growth Agenda

Having been told by the BCoW planning department (at the meeting on the 25th September) that a change of Government would not affect the Growth Agenda, we asked David Cameron the question. The reply that we received is below.

Hi Mike,

David Cameron has passed your letter onto Grant as the Shadow Housing Minister and he in turn has asked me to get back to you with his thoughts.

We have a simple position on the growth agenda which follows our broader housing policy - it will be up to local communities to decide – we won’t impose development where it’s not supported locally.

Best regards,
Tim Collins
--------------------------------------
Chief of Staff to Grant Shapps MP
Shadow Minister for Housing
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
020 7219 8497 / 07813 883473
collinsti@parliament.uk

For the record, the Association is non political and does not want to get involved in politics. However, it was felt that we should be aware of where the Conservative Party stood on the Growth Agenda issue in view of the BCoW's comments.

M J Chislett
Honorary Secretary
Redhill Grange Community Association

25th September 2008 Committee Meeting with Borough Council

On 25th September 2008, five members of the Committee attended a meeting with Borough Council of Wellingborough Corporate Director James Wilson and members of the Planning team, to discuss development to the North of Wellingborough and the Upper Redhill Planning Application.

The Borough Council took minutes of the meeting and these will be made available on the web site when our copy is received. In the meantime, some salient points for your information.

1. Bee Bee Developments' Upper Redhill planning application is scheduled to be put to a special meeting of the Full Council on Tuesday 25th November 2008. A second meeting of the Full Council, to consider the highways issues, is expected to take place in January 2009.

2. We were told that to satisfy the Government's Growth Agenda, Wellingborough needs to build 12,800 homes by 2021. Wellingborough East and other planned developments will only deliver 9,000 homes so the 3,000 shortfall has to be covered otherwise the Government will i) impose severe penalties and ii) possibly step in to manage the providing of the 3,000 homes.

3. Having considered all possible locations for providing the 3,000 homes shortfall, the officers see the North of Wellingborough as the obvious choice, particularly as the area has been identified in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, which the Government has approved, for a Sustainable Urban Extension.

4. James Wilson has offered to talk to a meeting of residents and we are trying to co-ordinate this with the AGM, the date of which has been provisionally set for Tuesday 18th November 2008. Note: In view of the importance of this issue, the AGM may have to be truncated to give residents the full opportunity to discuss matters of concern with Mr Wilson.

Perhaps you will make a note of Tuesday 18th November 2008 in your diary, otherwise you will miss what promises to be an "interesting" meeting with Mr Wilson.

We have to accept that the extension to the North of Wellingborough is inevitable but that does not mean that we have to accept that Bee Bee Developments' Upper Redhill proposals are the way it should be achieved. The Association is vigorously opposed to any development to the East of the A509 and we will continue to fight on that basis. Let us hope that our elected Councillors recognise that the settlement of Redhill Grange is unique and reject, at least, this unwanted area of development in the Upper Redhill proposals.

*********************************
Letter to Evening Telgraph and Herald and Post from the Redhill Grange Community Association dated 8th September 2008

Title: Is "Building our Future" in the right hands?

Dear Sir

Residents of North Northamptonshire should ask themselves; what sort of company is Bee Bee Developments and do they really want them to be 'Building our Future'? To answer the question, consider the situation in Wellingborough.

In November 2007 Bee Bee Developments submitted an outline planning application for their proposed Upper Redhill development. Then in March 2008 they submitted a second identical outline planning application for the same development. This was followed in August 2008 by a second submission of the second application.

The logic of Bee Bee Developments' approach seems convoluted to say the least and, although whatever they are doing may be legal, you have to ask; is it ethical?

Whatever game Bee Bee Developments are playing it certainly has the Borough Council of Wellingborough running around.

After the Government's agreement of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, the Council were tasked with producing a Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document which would build on the policies in the CSS. Once completed, this document would go to public consultation in 2009 for adoption in 2010.

However, with Bee Bee Developments planning applications to consider by the end of this year, the Council chose to issue an interim planning guidance document to aid that consideration. That document was put to the September meeting of the Development Committee, who agreed it subject to certain amendments.

As there will be little chance that this interim document will go to public consultation, the established procedures will be ignored and the public will not, as is their right, be consulted; just to satisfy Bee Bee Developments' commercial ambitions. Against this background, the planned 2009 consultation on the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document would be too late to influence events and, to the people affected by any prior decision to approve the Upper Redhill application, largely irrelevant.

However, Bee Bee Developments have put the borough council in an invidious position. If they turn the application down, Bee Bee Developments will ask for a Public Enquiry. This will mean the council having to spend money defending their refusal, money that would be better spent for the benefit of the community, with little guarantee of success. On this basis, a cost/benefit analysis would say approve the application; which would not go down well with a lot of the people who will be voting at the next election.

In the final analysis, the Government's growth agenda is not welcome to many of us in this part of Northamptonshire and its' house building target is one target just asking to be missed.

As for the people who drive Bee Bee Developments ambitions, in an article in the Observer on Sunday May 30 1999, Alfred Buller, director of Bee Bee Developments is reported as saying 'The Irish are a nation of property people. They understand bricks and mortar. They're now making lots of money. They have an affinity with this country and are saying let's get stuck in: England's cheap.'

So, effectively, Mr Buller is saying we are a soft touch when it comes to property speculators making money. We have to wonder why?

The answer is probably in an article in Property Week in May 2005, on the day after a third successive Labour general election victory, Alfred Buller is quoted as being a relieved man, saying 'If we'd lost them, billions of pounds would have been wasted. The last term made it (John Prescott's Communities Plan) law. The next term will see the answer.'

Perhaps, with the possibility of a Labour Government not getting a fourth term, Mr Buller is faced with losing those billions after all; hence the rush to get the Upper Redhill planning application approved by the Borough Council of Wellingborough while the going is still good.

Yours faithfully
Redhill Grange Community Association

Sent on behalf of the Association's Committee by
R A Lovett, Chairman
M J Chislett, Honorary Secretary

*******************************
Borough Council of Wellingborough - Report to the 3rd September 2008 Development Committee Meeting - Upper Redhill - Sustainable Urban Extension

An emergency Redhill Grange Community Association Committee meeting was called on Monday 1st September 2008 to discuss the BCoW's Upper Redhill - Sustainable Urban Extension report. The contents of the report having given the Committee some cause for concern

The purpose of the BCoW report is to give guidance to the Council in the determination of Bee Bee Developments' Upper Redhill planning application in advance of the preparation, public consultation and agreement of the definitive Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document. This latter document, which is to be based on the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy as approved by the Government, is not expected to be completed until 2010.

In discussion of the report, the Committee concluded :-

1. The titling of the document is most unfortunate as it indicates an undue influence by BBD on the contents of the report. To show independence the title should be WELLINGBOROUGH NORTH, which would fall in line with the use of Wellingborough East for the eastern SUE.

2. The CSS indicates that the development North of Wellingborough is expected to commence in about 2011. In spite of this, Policy 7 of the CSS enables the development to be brought forward earlier. This would mean that three major developments, i.e. Stanton Cross, Wellingborough Town Centre and Wellingborough North, would be ongoing at the same time; the logic of which has to be questioned.

3. The residents of Redhill Grange take vociferous and specific exception to paragraph 3.4 of Appendix 1 which makes Redhill Grange sound a terrible place to live when it is quite the opposite. Many residents moved there because of it's isolation from Wellingborough and, as for facilities, we have shops, a Post Office, food outlets, and a pub within walking distance and the Leisure Centre and other shops are not too far away. There is a local bus service to Wellingborough and a stop for the wider bus service is situated at the edge of the estate.

4. Following on from the above, we are totally opposed to the suggestion made in paragraph 5.2 of Appendix 1 that the opportunity should be taken to integrate Redhill Grange into the town. This settlement has sustained itself for over 30 years, a situation that will not be bettered by surrounding it with more houses

5. We take specific objection to the emphasis being place on protecting the settlements of Great and Little Harrowden from the Wellingborough North development when the "Settlement of Redhill Grange" deserves just as much protection from coalescence as these settlements. It should be remembered that i) the population of Redhill Grange far outnumbers that of Great Harrowden, ii) the precedence of preventing coalescence between Redhill Grange and Wellingborough has already been set by the gap left between Northen Way and the settlement and iii) the preservation of our outlook is important.

6. Mention is made of the views expressed at the 25th May 2006 workshop being taken into in the formulation of the policies in the report but that begs the question; who were the residents of Redhill Grange who were invited to attend the workshops?

It was then agreed that representatives from the Committee would attend the Development Committee Meeting and put the above, and some other points, to the Councillors and Officers present.

The presentations to the Development Committee were as follows:-

1. Richard Lovett: The proven sustainability of the estate for the last 30 years.
2. Graham Mover: The inadvisability of undertaking 3 major developments at the same time.
3. Richard Fraiel: The need to protect the ecology of the area.
4. Neil Kipling: The need to protect the outlook of existing residents
5. Mike Chislett: The need to maintain the identity and separation of the "settlement" of Redhill Grange from any development.
6. Sarah Lamin: The need to improve other areas first, primarily the town centre, to provide a greater attraction for people to move to Wellingborough.
7. Sue Suttle: The existing encroachment on Redhill Grange and residents desires, as expressed by their signing of a petition, that this encroachment should go no further.

The Development Committee agreed to consider the points made and then went on to discuss the sections of the report in detail: Development Boundary; Phasing; Market & Affordable Housing; Employment Provision; Green Infrastructure; Biodiversity; Open Space, Sport & Recreation; Transport & Public Transport; Pedestrians & Cyclists; Historic Environment; Retail and Community Facilities.

In the detail discussions the Development Committee asked for changes to be made to the report and delayed approving it until these changes had been made.

The Development Committee decided to delegate that final approval to the Chairman and the senior member of the Committee.

The RGCA Committee is now to await the publication of the final report before deciding on further action.

Mike Chislett
Honorary Secretary
Redhill Grange Community Association
8th September 2008