Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Delapre

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2010/0997 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out a revised wording to Condition 3.

Councillor Glynane, as Ward Councillor commented that he supported the current application as he had done the previous one. He had been against the construction of the bund in the first place. He noted that the removal of the bund should be at little or no cost to the Council. He was pleased that the report referenced PPS 5 as the topsoil removal had uncovered three British Romano graves and pottery kilns; these would be protected. He observed that issues of alleged contamination of the bund material had never been proved.

Councillor Reeves, as Ward Councillor, commented that he supported the application and noted the recent debate in the media about the removal of the bund. He referred to a letter from the Far Cotton Residents Association noting that residents had discussed the bund and its removal and had made comment about an article in the Chronicle and Echo on 4 January 2011 that residents views on it were split. The 25 residents attending the Residents Association meeting had voted unanimously for the removal of the bund and had noted obscured views, increased traffic noise and limits on access caused by it.

Councillor Clarke, as a founding patron of the Friends of Delapre Abbey commenting that he opposed this application but not the aim to remove the bund. He commented that the Town and Country Planning Acts were clear that where land may be contaminated a risk assessment had to be undertaken at the planning application stage. This had not happened. He circulated a copy of correspondence dated 15 October 2008 from the Council to Mr Christopher Merry that appended affidavits made by Mr Merry and John Thomas concerning the content of some of the bund material that they asserted had come from contaminated sources at the former Express Lifts site and Countess Road. Both Mr Merry and Mr Thomas had indicated that they were happy to make further affidavits if required. In fact they had asserted that there was a long term problem with other bunds throughout the Borough where contaminated material had been used.  He urged the Committee to defer a decision so as to allow the proper tests to take place.

Mr Fitzhugh, Chair of the Far Cotton Residents Association, commented that he was pleased that the report was seeking that the existing planning permission be extended. He felt that there was nothing to be gained by raking over the history of this issue and trying to apportion blame. Instead the focus should be on the restoration of the Abbey and its grounds. He appreciated the comments about the costs of the removal of the bund and observed that if it was suitable the bund material could be sold. He believed that the bund had not served any proper purpose and that its removal would not lead to an increase in anti social behaviour. He supported the application.  

Councillor P. D. Varnsverry, speaking as a member of the public stated that he welcomed the report. He referred to paragraph 6.4  of the report and noted that the original one metre bunding had prevented vehicular access but neither that or the current bund had prevented motor cycle access. Even so, it had not completely prevented vehicular access as there were other entry points to the park land. He noted previous statements that the bund material could be used at Ransome Road and that the Delapre Options Appraisal foresaw the removal of the bund. He noted possible soil compaction issues and consequential potential damage to the trees in Delapre Spinney and noise reflection from the bunds towards residents’ homes.

The Head of Planning commented that the financial issues relating to the removal of the bund were outside of the Committee’s consideration. In respect of Councillor Clarke’s comments about contamination, the Environment Agency were a statutory consultee. They had pointed out to the Council its duty of care but had not required that a risk assessment be undertaken. In respect of soil compaction the Arboricultural Officer had proposed an appropriate condition. In answer to questions, the Head of Planning noted that responsibility for the boundary lay with the Council as landowner: it was not part of the current application; that the Environment Agency had not requested that a risk assessment be undertaken; and that if contaminated material were found as the bund was being removed that the Council had a duty of care in law: the Environment Agency would require that the works ceased and that tests were carried out. This issue had been made public about three years previously, the Environment Agency were aware of this and would have made their decision with that knowledge.  

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:     That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and as amended by the Addendum as the proposed development was considered to be acceptable in visual terms and would not unduly impact upon the historic character of the area. The proposal was in accordance with Policies E1, E9, E20, E26, and E38, of the Northampton Local Plan and PPS5- Planning for the Historic Environment.