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:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lane.

 

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 Solicitor to the Council.

Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

 

Minutes:

Councillor North declared, in relation to agenda item 5.2 15/01431/OUT – Land to the East of Alwalton Hill, Fletton Parkway, Peterborough’, that he was acquainted with a number of the parties involved. He was not, however, predetermined on the application.

 

Councillor Okonkowski declared that, in relation to agenda item 5.2 15/01431/OUT – Land to the East of Alwalton Hill, Fletton Parkway, Peterborough’, he had attended a number of Norman Cross Action Group meetings. As such he would withdraw from the Committee for that item.

 

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.

Minutes of the Meeting Held on:

5.

12 January 2016 pdf icon PDF 94 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2016 were approved as a correct record.

 

6.

26 January 2016 pdf icon PDF 91 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 January 2016 were approved as a correct record.

 

7.

Development Control and Enforcement Matters

8.

15/01292/FUL - St Theresas House, Manor House Street, Peterborough, PE1 2TL pdf icon PDF 21 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The planning application was for the conversion to 12 bedsitting rooms at St Theresas House, Manor House Street, Peterborough.

 

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

 

Carole Aldous, resident, and Margaret Randall, resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         It was suggested that the application should be refused on the grounds of parking and highways;

·         The local area had been experiencing parking problems for the past 10 years, to the point where it was believed residents would not receive parking permits;

·         The survey that the applicant had undertaken did not match the plans submitted and it was believed that the plans would only work with small cars;

·         The access to the parking at the rear of the development was considered to be substandard and too narrow;

·         It was believed that the development was being shoehorned in and would have a detrimental effect of the area;

·         Concern was raised regarding the believed increased potential for anti-social behaviour, with the proposal situation in a conservation area; and

·         The issue of loss of privacy and the potential for overlooking into neighbouring gardens was raised.

 

Paul Sharman, agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The proposals were accepted by Planning Officers, with the exception of the parking and access;

·         The area proposed for parking had been used for parking for 20 years;

·         The site was close to the City Centre Core, as such it was not considered that all residents would own or use a car. Using 2001 census data, it was expected that 40% of the developments residents would own a car;

·         The applicant had undertaken a traffic survey, in which it was found that only 60% of the on street parking available was utilised;

·         In order to manage the access to the car park, the applicant intended to install a control system, most likely a barrier system; and

·         Mr Sharman suggested that a number of points raised in objection by Simon Jackson MP, including intensification of use, insufficient parking, overlooking, poor quality development, and the detriment to the character of the street, were incorrect and could not be substantiated.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, the Development Management Manager advised that the previous use of the site as a funeral parlour could cater up to 35 people at a time. As such, this was considered to be the ‘fall back’ position and the proposed use would not be greater than this. Officers had considered the amenity, outlook, privacy and ambience of the proposal and had considered them acceptable. It was noted that a number of windows within the application would be obscure glazed and this would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

15/01431/OUT - Land to the East of Alwalton Hill, Fletton Parkway, Peterborough pdf icon PDF 21 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Okonkowski left the meeting at this point.

 

The planning application was for residential development with provision of a Primary School at Land to the East of Alwalton Hill, Fletton Parkway. This included new open space, highways and associated infrastructure, including new drainage features with details of part of the strategic landscaping submitted.

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the delegations and conditions set out in the report, the completion of a S106 Agreement, and the passing of an Appropriate Assessment. The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report and update report.

 

Councillor Sharp, Hampton Parish Council, and Councillor Reed, Yaxley Parish Council addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The proposed bus stops to service the site were considered to be too remote;

·         The Secondary School that would serve the development was also believed to be too far away from the site to be practical;

·         Concern was raised regarding the impact of noise from the Yearsley development, and at the lack of social infrastructure proposed on application site;

·         It was suggested that car usage would increase, however, that no discussion of the proposed road network was permitted, as the application was outline only;

·         Reference was made to the Design Statement and it was suggested that the application before the Committee conflicted with this;

·         The proposed infrastructure, services, roadways, junctions, bus routes and communities facilities were believed to be inadequate;

·         The change from employment use for some areas of the proposal was considered to be detrimental to the sustainability of the area; and

·         It was suggested that the Design Statement would need to be reconsidered to provide for such a change.

 

Chris York and Olive Leonard, Norman Cross Action Group, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The Norman Cross Action Group represented a number of Parish Councils, including Farcet and Stilton, and also included representatives from Cambridgeshire County Council;

·         The Group did not object to the change of use of the land proposed, nor the principle of housing on the proposed site. The Group objected to the development of housing in isolation, without any infrastructure to serve it;

·         It was believed that such isolation would place greater pressure on nearby settlements and increase car journeys;

·         It was suggested that the infrastructure needed to be developed first, prior to any housing being provided on the site; and

·         It was believed that the proposal as currently applied for would not provide sufficient quality of life for those residing there.

 

Steve Harley, agent, and David Boddy addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The applicant had worked closely with officers and it was highlighted the no objections had been received from any of the statutory consolatory  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

Article 4(1) Directions (Non-Immediate) to Remove Permitted Development Rights at Specific Properties in the Barnack Conservation Area pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Okonkowski re-joined the meeting and Councillor Serluca left the meeting at this point.

 

The planning application was for an Article 4 (1) Directions (non-immediate) to remove permitted development rights for the installation of solar photovoltaic and thermal equipment at specific properties in the Barnack conservation area.

 

It was officer’s recommendation that the Article 4 (1) Direction be made and served, and that authority be delegated to the Corporate Director Growth and Regeneration to confirm the Directions as appropriate following public consultation. The Principal Built Environment Officer provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, the Principal Built Environment Officer advised that the proposals were not intended to prevent residents from installing solar panels, however were mainly intended to provide the Council with an element of control over the style of solar panels used.

 

The Committee discussed the report and noted that the proposals appeared to have the support of local residents. It was considered that there was value in preserving the local conservation areas and that the Council should have a role in managing the installation of solar panels in such areas. A Member of the Committee raised the importance of encouraging sustainable energy and expressed concern over limiting residents access to this.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree to make and serve a non-immediate Article 4(1) Direction to remove permitted development rights for the installation of solar photovoltaic and thermal equipment in the Barnack Conservation Area and to give delegated authority to the Corporate Director Growth and Regeneration to confirm the Directions as appropriate following public consultation. The motion was carried six voting in favour and two voting against.

 

RESOLVED: (six voted in favour and two voted against) that:

 

1)    The making and serving of non-immediate Directions under Article 4 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 to withdraw the ‘permitted development’ right of development within Part 14 Class A of the Order for the installation of solar photovoltaic and thermal equipment be approved to preserve the character and appearance of the Barnack conservation area; and

2)    Authority be delegated to the Corporate Director Growth and Regeneration to confirm those Directions as appropriate following public consolation.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

The properties listed in the proposal for Article 4 Directions were considered to have the potential to result in significant impact on the Barnack Conservation Area by way of unrestricted installation of photovoltaic (solar/thermal) panels, by virtue of their location, prominence and visibility in longer views within the locality.  It was considered that making the installation of such equipment at certain prominent properties the subject of planning control through the use of Article 4 Directions was in the interests of the proper planning of the area.