Search powered byGoogle

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Bourges/Viersen Rooms - Town Hall

Contact: Philippa Turvey Senior Democratic Services Officer 

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

No apologies for absence were received.

 

2.

Declarations of Interest

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification” that has been disclosed to the Monitoring Officer.

 

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were received.

 

3.

Members' Declaration of intention to make representations as Ward Councillor

Minutes:

No Member declarations of intention to make representations as Ward Councillor were received.

 

4.

Development Control and Enforcement Matters

4.1

15/01292/FUL - St Theresas House, Manor House Street, Peterborough, PE1 2TL pdf icon PDF 25 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair advised that planning application ‘15/01292/FUL – St Theresas House, Manor House Street, Peterborough, PE1 2TL’ had been withdrawn by the applicant.

 

4.2

15/01568/FUL - Webbs Yamaha Centre, High Street, Eye, Peterborough pdf icon PDF 21 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The planning application was for the change of use at Webbs Yamaha Centre, High Street, Eye from motorcycle sales to commercial units (use classes A1, A2, A3 and A5), industrial processes (use B1C), general industry (use B2) and storage/distribution with trade counter use (use B8). Also included in the application were minor external works, including part demolition and site reconfiguration.

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report. The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report.

 

Chris Dodds, Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The present use of the building was for motorcycle sales and the current business as such was failing.

·         A change of use was imperative, as any further motorcycle sale business would likely encounter, it was believed, the same problems.

·         Mr Dodds suggested that the application would expand and reinforce the local commercial offering and increase employment opportunities in the area.

·         Close work had been carried out with officers, which had resulted in a reduced workshop space, and reconfiguration of the vehicle access and egress.

·         A number of conditions had been agreed with Environmental Health officers. It was considered that the proposals would improve the area, rather than have any detrimental impact.

·         Conditions would be put in place to restrict delivery times and opening times, which were not currently applicable.

·         The larger commercial unit would be a convenience store, with the small units yet to be identified. The workshop would be small scale in nature.

·         No initial consultation was held with residents or the Parish Council, however all points raised in objection had been responded to.

·         Conditions in relation to odour extraction were proposed.

 

The Committee discussed the application and considered that the proposals represented an improvement to the site and would be a benefit to the local community. Concerns were raised by a Member of the Committee in relation to traffic and parking. It was noted, however, that there were no current restrictions in place for parking on the site, as such the proposal would not worsen the existing situation.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation, subject to the conditions set out in the report. The motion was carried 9 voting in favour and 1 abstaining from voting.

 

RESOLVED: (9 voted in favour and 1 abstained from voting) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

 

·         The site was an existing commercial use and was located within the village of Eye which was designated as a Key Service Centre.  The proposed uses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.2

4.3

15/02146/FUL - Land Adjacent to 2 St Martins Street, Millfield, Peterborough, PE1 3BD pdf icon PDF 21 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The planning application was for the construction of a two storey side extension on the land adjacent to 2 St Martins Street, Millfield, Peterborough, comprising a retail (Class A1) unit at ground floor and a one-bed residential unit at first floor. The application was a re-submission.

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the report. The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report.

 

Councillor Peach and Councillor Shearman, Ward Councillors, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Councillor Peach noted that the applicant had addressed the concerns raised by the Committee during prior consideration, including improving access to bin storage.

·         It was believed that this application would assist in addressing a number of existing issues at the site, including drug taking, fly tipping and prostitution. The gates to the site had been locked for a number of years.

·         Parking was available in the form of laybys on either side of Lincoln Road.

·         All the Ward Councillors were in favour of the application and it was suggested that the proposals were supported by local residents.

·         Councillor Shearman did not believe that parking was a substantial issue. The application was within Zone M (residents’ parking) where residents could not expect to park their car outside their residence.

·         It was further noted that ample parking was available along adjacent roads.

·         It was suggested that a delivery vehicle entering and leaving the site to load and unload would be more dangerous than a vehicle parking on the road.

·         It was considered that the development would enhance the local area and that to refuse the application would go against the principles of the CanDo operation, which was active in the area.

·         It was not believed that one additional delivery vehicle would have any additional cumulative impact onto of the pre-existing delivery vehicles and bin collections.

 

Mr Iqbal, local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Iqbal advised that he ran a business at 287 Lincoln Road, which backed on to the application site. He further advised that he had a civil right to park his vehicle on the site. This would not be possible if the application was allowed.

·         The site was used during the loading and unloading of deliveries and been used for such for 15 years.

·         Mr Iqbal had not had access to the site while it had been locked, however had discussed the matter with his solicitor. He believed he had a legal right to access the land.

 

The Planning and Highways Lawyer advised that any potential private access rights of individuals over land were not material planning considerations. Such matters could not be considered by the Committee as they were civil matters for the individual parties to pursue.

 

Mr Shahid Anwar, Applicant, and Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.3

5.

Planning and Environmental Protection Committee Meeting Cycle Review pdf icon PDF 70 KB

Minutes:

The Committee received a report which outlined proposals to change the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee meeting to a three weekly cycle prior to Full Council’s consideration of the meetings schedule. The Development Management Manager provided an overview of the report and highlighted a number of key issues.

 

The Committee were in agreement that a three weekly meeting cycle would provide a greater level of certainty and would represent a more efficient use of Member and officer time. It was noted that careful management would be required to ensure agendas were not impractically full.

 

It was further discussed whether it would be appropriate to reschedule the Committee site visits to be held during the morning of the meeting, and whether procedures could be altered to oblige Councillors that had referred applications to Committee to attend the Committee meetings. The Planning and Highways Lawyer would investigate these possibilities.

 

RESOLVED:

 

The Committee endorsed the proposal to change the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee meeting to a three weekly cycle prior to its consideration at Full Council.