BOROUGH OF KETTERING

Committee Planning Sub Committee - 24/10/2006 Item No: 5.7

Report Esther Smith Application No:
Originator Planning Officer KET/2006/0752
Wards St. Michaels
Affected
Location 16-18 Station Road, Kettering
Proposal Full Application: Proposed demolition of existing offices for the
development of 19 no. apartments
Applicant Aswell Developments Ltd

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

• To describe the above proposals

• To identify and report on the issues arising from it
• To state a recommendation on the application

2. RECOMMENDATION

THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER RECOMMENDS that this application be

APPROVED, subject to S.106 AGREEMENT being entered into, and to the following
conditions:-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years
from the date of this planning permission.
REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.
2. No development shall commence on site until details of the types and colours of all
external facing and roofing materials to be used, together with samples, have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The windows shall
be constructed of either timber or powder coated aluminium. The development shall not
be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with the aims
of PPS1, policy GS5 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and policy 30 of the
Local Plan for Kettering Borough.
3. Prior to the first occupation of the development, the access, manouevring and
parking areas shall have been laid out and marked out on the ground in accordance with
the approved site plan and maintainaed as such thereafter. Notwithstanding the details on
the approved site plan, the baustrade adjacent to the vehicular access shall not exceed
600mm in height within 2 metres of the highway. The parking areas shall be permanently
set aside for parking purposes only.
REASON: In the interests of the transport requirements of the site and highway safety in
accordance with policy T3 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and policy 84 of
the Local Plan for Kettering Borough.
4. Prior to the commencement of development details of a covered cycle store, to be
sited on the area of the plan detailed as landscaping now hatched, should be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle store shall be
constructed fully in accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter.
REASON: To ensure adequate and secure cycle parking within the site in accordance with
policy T8 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and policy 30 of the Local Plan
for Kettering Borough.
5. The bin store as shown on the approved plans shall be permanently set aside for
the storage of refuse from the approved flats and shall be used for no other purpose.
REASON: To ensure that adequate bin storage is provided within the site.
6. The windows in the northeast side elevation shall be glazed with obsured glass [in
accordance with a sample panel which shall have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority] and thereafter shall be permanently retained in
that form.
REASON: To protect the privacy of the adjoining property and to prevent overlooking in
accordance with policies 30 and 47 of the Local Plan for Kettering Borough.
7. a) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of a
contaminated land investigation have been submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. This submission shall be made to the Local Planning Authority in the
following sequence:-
(1) a desk top study, and, if required by the LPA following this submission
(2) a site investigation, and, if required by the LPA following (1) and/or (2)
(3) a remediation strategy setting out the measures to be carried out on site to
mitigate against any unacceptable risk or risks to all potential receptors
b) If required, the remediation of the site shall be carried out fully in accordance
with the approved details and timetable contained therein. Within one month of
completion of the remediation works, two copies of a closure report shall be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority
c) If during the development of the site, contamination not previously considered is
identified, no further work shall be carried out until the Local Planning Authority has been
notified in writing of the discovery and a method statement detailing a scheme for dealing
with the contamination has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority. The remediation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved detail.
REASON: To reduce the risk to all receptors to acceptable levels and ensure that the site
is suitable for its proposed use, and to safeguard the environment of the area, in
accordance with the aims of PPS23.
8. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in accordance
with the amended plans number 06/1038/SK01, 06/1038/SK05, 06/1038/SK04,
06/1038/SK03 received 3rd October 2006.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.
 Notes (if any) :-
• This Decision Notice must be read in conjunction with a Planning Obligation
completed under the terms of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 (as amended). You are advised to satisfy yourself that you have all the
relevant documentation.

Justification for Granting Planning Permission

The proposal is in accordance with national and local policies as set out in Planning
Policy Statements 1 and 23, Guidance Note 3, RSS8, policies GS3, GS5, H2, H6, T3,
T8, T9 and T10 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan, policies K18, 30, 35,
47 and 84 of the Local Plan for Kettering Borough or adopted supplementary planning
guidance notes on education and car parking provision. The issues relating to
overshadowing and overlooking are material planning considerations and, in reaching
the decision to approve the proposal, have been carefully weighed against all relevant
policy considerations.
Officers Report

3.0 Information

Relevant Planning History

KE/2006/0189 - Redevelopment of existing building to provide 17 no.
apartments. Approved.
KE/87/0038 - Change of use of northern basement suite to small off set
printing, light office type machinery. Approved.
KB/69/763 - Planning permission for dental laboratory.
KB/66/209 - Planning permission granted for conversion of houses to offices.

Site Description
Officer's site inspection was carried out on the 18th August 2006 and 1st
September 2006.

The application site comprises 798.4 square metres currently occupied by a

2/3 storey building situated to the front of the site. The building was previously
in commercial use but is presently unoccupied. The current building is rather
ugly in its form, constructed in brick and render and of little architectural
interest. The office building has a half hip roof and windows in the roof. Access
to the site is currently to the side and leads to a car park to the rear. This
access additionally serves the neighbouring office building to the southwest
(number 20 –22 Station Road). This is a two storey red/orange flat roof modern
office building.

To the north east of the application site is Aspen House. Aspen House is a
recently built office conversion and extension providing 23 flats and is of a
modern design.

On the opposite side of Station Road are predominantly three storey Victorian
buildings, most of which are in red brick.

To the rear of the application site is Drill Hall Court.

The area is characterised by a high proportion of grand Victorian buildings,

however that are a large number of modern building as well. The area is in
mixed use.

The contours of the site and surrounding area dictate that the land slopes
significantly from front to rear (south east to north west).

Proposed Development
The proposal is for the demolition of the existing office building and the
construction of a new five-storey building containing 19 flats. The proposal is of
a relatively modern design with a mansard roof. The existing access would be
widened and would be built over whilst retaining access to the proposed
parking at the rear and the adjacent car park for number 20-22 Station Road.
Some of the parking provision (7 of the 19 spaces) is under croft and to the
rear of the proposed building. Parking provision is on a one for one basis to the
 rear of the building and the layout plan details some cycle storage. The
provision of bin storage and recycling space is contained within the lower
ground floor with pedestrian access provided to the street frontage.

Part of the building is supported by columns/piers. To the rear of the proposal is

a protruding element that extends over four floors with a flat situated in the roof
space. This rear projecting element does not extend as far out to the rear as
Aspen House, and is lower than the main building on the street frontage. Whilst
the building extends over more floors the overall height of the proposal is lower
than the neighbouring Aspen House.

Any Constraints Affecting The Site

None.

4.0 Consultation and Customer Impact

Highway Authority
No response received at time of writing committee report.

NCC Education Authority

Response received on 22nd September 2006 requesting an education
contribution of £483 per two bedroom flat towards improvements in secondary
schools in Kettering.

Environment Agency
Response received 21st August 2006 stating no objections to the proposal.
However the response makes informative comments regarding the site being
within 250 metres of a former landfill site and that all roof surface water should
be piped directly to an approved surface water system.

Neighbours
Three third party comments received in respect of the application from the
residents at flat 5 and 15 Aspen House and 21B station Road objecting to the
application for following reasons:

• Residents of Aspen House will be affected by loss of light, as the

projecting part of the building is 13 metres away from the main living
room windows. The extended footprint of the proposal will restrict
daylight to Aspen House even further.
• The projection of the building will have an overbearing appearance,
particularly to the lower floors of Aspen House at such a short distance.
Question the merit of having the rear of one building facing the main
building windows of another.
• The proposal interrupts the building line to the rear of Station Road.
• The car park design does not meet Government requirements some of
the parking is not visible.
• The inclusion of balconies to the flats increases the potential for
overlooking and loss of privacy further.
• Would rather the additional residential accommodation be
 accommodated over extra floors rather than the protruding footprint to
the rear?
• Residents at Station road will be overshadowed by the proposal.
• The proposed flats will be directly opposite and will not only block
daylight but also disrupt privacy, by directly overlooking between the
residents of the proposed flats and those existing residents on Station
Road.
• The building work will result in noise, dust and disturbance.

Comments from Councillors Henson

Comments were received from Councillors Henson with regard to the proposal
on 31st August 2006. The points raised included queries with regard to the
processing of the application and consultation with neighbours. This included
the plans being of insufficient quality to be placed upon the Councils web site
and whether Councillors may be allowed to visit the site prior to it going to
committee. These issues are not material considerations to the application.

Additional concerns have been raised regarding the merits of the proposal,
particularly with regard to the impact of the building upon the residential
amenity of neighbouring residents in Aspen House, by virtue of overshadowing,
loss of light and overlooking.

The proposal is out of keeping with the surrounding area. Aspen House is one
residential building presently between two commercial properties and is
acceptable in a “one off circumstance”.

When viewed from the rear in Drill Hall Court Aspen House is overbearing and
the additional building of this design would dominate the outlook.

Kettering Borough Council – Environmental Health Department

Response received 4th September 2006 requesting the imposition of conditions
on any approval regarding contaminated land.

5.0 Planning Policy

National Policies
PPG3. Housing
PPS1. Creating Sustainable Communities

Regional Policy
RSS8 – Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands

Development Plan Policies

Structure Plan
K18. Kettering: New Employment Sites (Offices)
30. Environment: New Development
35. Housing: Within Towns
47. Housing: Residential Amenity
84. Transportation: New Development Access and Layout Considerations
 Local Plan
GS3. Land Use and Transport
GS5. Design
H6. Density
T10. Parking for Housing
T3. Transportation Requirements
T8. Walking and Cycling
T9. Parking Standards

SPGs
SPG Parking
SPG Education

6.0 Financial/Resource Implications

Section 106 agreement to cover contributions towards education provision. No

financial implications for the Local Authority.

7.0 Planning Considerations

The key issues for consideration in this application are:-

1. The principle of residential development

2. Scale, design and impact upon street scene
3. Access/transport requirements
4. Impact upon residential amenity of neighbours

The principle of development

The application site is previously developed land situated within the Kettering
Town boundary. This area of Station Road is characterised by a mix of uses.
Policy K18 of the Local Plan for Kettering Borough states that planning
permission would be granted for uses falling within the Use Class B1 in the
immediate vicinity of the railway station but does not preclude other uses in the
area, including residential. Therefore the principle of residential development
on the site is considered acceptable.

Scale, design and impact upon street scene

The height of the proposal is approximately 15.7 metres, compared to the
neighbouring Aspen House, which is approximately 16 metres in height. The
proposed development is therefore of a similar scale and height as the
neighbouring Aspen House and is in this regard considered acceptable.

However it is acknowledged that the proposed development will not relate

particularly well in terms of height and scale to the neighbouring office building
at number 20-22 Station Road. This neighbouring building is approximately 6.5
metres in height and is relatively low rise in comparison to the proposal under
consideration.

The existing office building occupying 16 –18 Station Road is a 2/3 storey
building and does not relate particularly well to the developments on either side
or on the opposite side of Station Road in terms of design, scale and
appearance and in some respects may be regarded to detract from the visual
amenity of the locality and street scene along Station Road.

The proposed residential development is of a bold and contemporary design

and in keeping with the character and modern design of the neighbouring
Aspen House. The scale of the proposed five storey building is broken up by
the use of a variety of different materials (brick and render) to the front
elevations. Similarly the construction of the building in a series of blocks aids to
the breaking up of the building.

The proposed development is modern in its form and design and will be
situated in a prominent position on Station Road. Arguably it is important to
provide buildings of an appropriate scale and design in key locations in order to
provide a strong street frontage. Station Road is a key approach route into the
town centre of Kettering and it is important to provide an attractive street scene
on the approach to town whilst ensuring that development does not detract
from the historic elements and other building within the surrounding area.

The rear elevation of the proposal is similar in design to the neighbouring

Aspen House in terms of layout and the protruding ‘arm’ to the rear. This arm is
an interesting element and somewhat innovative, with the projecting arm
comprising four/five storey over the proposed car parking area. The form, siting
and design of the residential development is very similar to the neighbouring
Aspen House, with the rear ‘arm’ approximately 9.65 metres in length. This is
not as deep as the neighbouring ‘arm’ to Aspen House, which is approximately
15.7 metres in length.

The materials that the proposal is constructed in will be key to the end
appearance of the building. The submitted plans detail the use of Witton Multi
Red bricks, Cottenham Cream buff bricks and the use of terracotta render with
a mansard roof. It is considered that the use of modern materials, as at Aspen
House may be regarded as acceptable in principle on the site, however it is
intended to include a condition requiring that samples of all materials be
submitted for approval.

Access and Transport

The proposal includes the provision of access to the south west of the building
and car parking to the rear. Nineteen car parking spaces are provided within
the curtilage of the proposal and therefore provides one space per flat. This
provision is in accordance with national and local planning policy guidance with
regard to on site parking provision.
Details of a wall mounted cycle arm for the storage of bicycles is detailed upon
the submitted plans. It is not considered that this provision is sufficient in terms
of the level of cycle parking provision or in terms of its location, directly behind
a car parking bay. It is therefore intended to impose a condition requiring
details of a cycle storage rack to be sited in the area of landscaping to the rear
(east) of the parking spaces (6 No) to be submitted and approved.

Impact upon residential amenity

The nearest residential properties to the application site are those at Drill Hall
Court and Aspen House. The ‘arm’ to the rear of the proposal is likely to have
some impact upon the neighbouring residential properties. The ‘arm’ to the rear
of the development is approximately 18.5 metres away from the nearest
residential properties in Drill Hall Court. The original proposal included Jubilee
balconies to the rear elevation these have been omitted from the scheme and
the windows to the rear elevation have been sited to try to avoid direct
opposition with windows to Drill Hall Court. The removal of these balconies
reduces the potential for overlooking from the rear elevation of the proposal.
Arguably the relationship between the proposal and Drill Hall Court is better in
terms of overlooking, as the ‘arm’ to this proposal does not protrude so far.

The rear ‘arm’ includes windows to the northern elevation facing onto the side
elevation of windows in the ‘arm’ of Aspen House. The side elevation of the
‘arm’ directly opposes the side of the similar rear extension to Aspen House,
which contains windows to habitable rooms. The windows in the proposed
‘arm’ of the development serve the kitchens of the proposed flats and are high
level and obscure glazed and it is therefore not considered that issues of
overlooking will arise. There is approximately 12.9 metres between these
elevations.

It is recognised that the proposed development is likely to lead to some loss of

light and overshadowing of windows to Aspen House. The rear ‘arm’ element of
the proposed development is likely to result in some direct overshadowing of
the side elevation of Aspen House. However the distance of approximately
12.9 metres between the side elevations and the fact that the ‘arm’ does not
protrude as far will arguably allow some sun light to reach the side elevation
windows of Aspen House. Additionally is should be stated that both Aspen
House and the proposal are large, relatively tall buildings in a town centre
location and by their virtue it may be regarded inevitable that some shadowing
will arise. In this instance the relationship and distance between the two
buildings is considered acceptable.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is recommended that this application be approved subject to

the imposition of conditions and the agents/interested parties entering into a
Section 106 agreement to secure education contributions. Should the applicant
fail to deliver such a suitable agreement within the timescale for determining
this application i.e. by 7th November 2006, it is recommended that the decision
be delegated to the Development Control Manager to refuse the application.
Background Papers Previous Reports/Minutes
Title of Document: Ref:
Date: Date:
Contact Officer: Esther Smith, Planning Officer on 01536 534316
 SITE LOCATION PLAN

16-18 Station Road, Kettering

Application No.: KET/2006/0752

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the N

permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
© Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

LA078344

Date: 08/08/2006
10/08/2006 Do not scale from this map. For illustrative purposes only.