Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors North and Lane. Councillors Rush and JR Fox were in attendance as substitutes.

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.

No declarations of interest were received.

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2015 were approved as a correct record.

The planning application was for the renewal of planning permission 91/00001/OUT – Housing, local facilities, open space and infrastructure at Paston Reserve, Newborough Road, Paston, Peterborough, the discharge of conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission 91/00001/OUT, and a deed of variation.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission 15/01771/WCPP be granted, application 15/01363/DISCHG be approved and the deed of variation be approved, subject to the completion of relevant S106 Agreements 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.

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

·         It was suggested that to support the application, basic infrastructure would need to be provided and more community facilities such as shops, medical clinics, play areas and public transport systems;

·         Concerns were raised over the confusing nature of the application. It was commented that it was difficult to understand whether the applications were individual or came together as a package;

·         It was suggested that whatever the outcome of the application, a school and community centre were necessary basic features which must be provided. It was stated that there was no community centre in Manor Drive and residents had to cross a dangerous road to access community facilities. An agreement to these requests was sought; and

·         It was suggested that the lack of replies throughout the consultations was due to the belief that the Council would not deliver on these requests due to past experience.

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

·         It was shown within the report that work had been undertaken to secure consent for the development to proceed and to meet the aspirations of the Council to find land to build a secondary school. A combination of these efforts had resulted in these applications;

·         Within the S106 Agreement, it was stated that open space would be brought further forward and that there would be land for a primary and a secondary school;

·         Community centres as standalone facilities were not often provided anymore. It was more likely that they would be provided alongside another function, for example an educational facility. Within the S106 Agreement, financial provision was provided to deliver these facilities;

·         The drainage problem had been identified during the second phase of development when the Drainage Strategy was reviewed. Consent was granted to ensure that the drainage problem would be fixed and a strategy to do so had been agreed; and

·         Mr Tucker was not aware of any problems with the foul water drainage system. A condition would be included within any permission granted to ensure drainage was fit for use.

In response to a number of points raised, the Head of Development and Construction advised that the original S106 Agreement proposed individual community buildings but these had been held to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

The planning application was for the variation of condition 28 (catchment area restriction) of planning permission 08/01081/ELE – Energy Park comprising two fully enclosed materials recycling, conversion and manufacturing buildings (comprising materials receipt and recycling hall, recycled material store and biomass storage, food waste bio-reactor/digester, biomass energy conversion area with 9 stacks; dry cooling system; plasma enhanced vitrification area and remanufacturing processes), research and development centre with visitor space, WEEE re-use building, administration building, vehicle store/workshop, weighbridge, landscaping and habitat creation (including lakes, reed beds, brown and green roofs, tree belt and meadow border) and the realignment of Storeys Bar Road between the junction with Edgerley Drain Road and Vicarage Farm Road and the site access, pelican crossing, shared footpath / cycleway on Storeys Bar Road and extension to the Green Wheel cycle network.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report, and that authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration to issue a notice of refusal if the required Section 106 Legal Agreement was not completed within a reasonable period. The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report.

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

·          An update was provided on the status of the Energy Park process highlighting delays, construction work beginning in 2014, the building of a new bridge and internal roadways and future builds;

·         Material would not be able to be drawn from places such as Wisbech, Spalding or Thrapston because they fell outside of the current 32 kilometre restriction. In reality, much of that waste would be exported to mainland Europe or sent to landfill. A larger catchment earlier would enable this waste to be drawn and create additional commercial benefit for the EPP development;

·         It was considered highly unlikely that residents of Peterborough would realise any appreciable difference between the two boundaries. There would be little effect on traffic movements or sustainability by increasing the catchment area; and

·         50km was granted for the Peterborough City Council application and this application was looking to mirror this.

The Committee considered that the application did not significantly alter the impact of the previously granted permission and, in light of the changes in approach to waste catchment areas, was appropriate.

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, and that authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration to issue a notice of refusal if the required Section 106 Legal Agreement was not completed within a reasonable period. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that:

1)    Planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report; and

2)    If the required Section 106 Legal Agreement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

The Committee received a report which outlined the Planning Service’s planning compliance performance and activity which identified if there were any lessons to be learned from the actions taken. The aim was for the Committee to be kept informed of future decisions and potential to reduce costs. The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the report and highlighted a number of key issues.

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee, the Head of Development and Construction advised that a planning contravention notice had been served in relation to 55 Cherry Orton Road. Information was sought on who the owner of the property was, as this was a sticking point for the prosecution earlier in the year. It was commented that in response to two Planning Contravention Notices (PCNs), officers were advised that decisions relating to the property were in the hands of the court. Due to the owner’s mental capacity issues, a draft enforcement notice had been provided to Peterborough City Council Legal Services along with a request as to how to proceed given that the court would be representing the owner in the event of an appeal or enforcement action.

It was questioned why the percentage of cases closed within 8 weeks if there is no breach was below target. The Head of Development and Construction advised that the service had been experiencing a high case load. It was further commented that closed cases made up the vast majority of this figure and so there was sometimes a slippage on closure if pressures were elsewhere.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted past performance and outcomes.

The Head of Development and Construction discussed the Stanground Anaerobic Waste Plant and explained that Cambridgeshire County Council wished to delegate their planning powers to Peterborough City Council and make Peterborough City Council the only decision making body on the application. The application was not expected to come before committee before the elections.