Agenda and minutes

Any information received after the agenda has been published, relevant to the applications on the agenda to be considered by the Committee will be published here.

There were no apologies for absence received.

There were no declarations from Members of the Committee to make representation as Ward Councillor on any item within the agenda.

The application which was put forward to Committee was divided in to two parts. Area 1 was for a change of use from agricultural to residential use. This was to provide accommodation for one extended gypsy family. The accommodation would be comprised of two living caravans, one family room caravan and two communal facility blocks, consisting of a wash area and bin storage. Area 2 was for a proposed revision to an existing planning permission in relation to the adjacent marina which had already been implemented in part. A revised access, parking facilities and facilities block were proposed for the marina.

The site was located within an Area of Best Landscape, in the open countryside as defined by the Local Plan.  It was also located within the Nene Valley, and the lower part of the site was an area of floodland/washland.  The proposal was located within approximately 700m of Sutton Heath and Bog Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).  A SSI was a national designation set up to protect areas that had been identified as having a special nature conservation interest.   

The site was located on a no through road, which also served an Anglian Water compound, a lorry park with a burger van and a picnic area. 

The site sloped steeply down to the river from the road.  The bottom half of the site adjacent to the river was grass, with the top part of the site adjacent to the road having been excavated with alterations to the original site levels.  The front hedge adjacent to the road had been retained, however all other trees on site had been removed.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal, specifically highlighting the position of the proposed gypsy accommodation and the points of access into the accommodation site and the marina.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Additional comments had been received from Environmental Health on issues relating to noise and contaminated land. An assessment on the site had been requested by Environmental Health with regards to contamination, in response Planning Officers had questioned the Environmental Health Officers to establish where the source of the contaminated land was. It was established that there was no contamination in the locality therefore the requirement for the suggested condition was removed.

A further request for a condition relating to the testing of the imported materials, which were to be used to form the points of access, had also been requested by Environmental Health. Discussions had been held as to whether this request could be better dealt with by Environmental Health Legislation. The Committee was therefore informed that if it was minded to approve the application, it would be giving authority to approve the application subject to the issue of imported material testing being resolved with colleagues in Environmental Health.

The Head of Transport and Engineering had requested that adequate visibility splays be provided at access points and a condition was highlighted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The building was currently in use as a retail unit, within use class A1 (shops).  Planning permission was sought for change of use to A3 (restaurant) with an element of A5 (hot food take-away). 

The application site was located within Midgate House on the junction of Midgate and Long Causeway within the City Centre.

The Long Causeway frontage formed part of the Primary Retail Frontage for the Central Retail Area. The application property was of 1980s design and was situated on a prominent corner plot. There were a variety of retail and non-retail units in the surrounding area.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were informed that it was perceived that the change of use would in no way be detrimental to the vitality of the city centre.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. The Committee was advised that further comments had been submitted by Environmental Health requesting a revision to a condition 3 as highlighted in the Committee report. Members were advised that a flue scheme had to be submitted as part of the planning consent and if the details did not protect the amenities of adjacent users then the business would not be able to open. A drawing was also required to be submitted before opening which delineates that part of the site which is to be used for takeaway purposes and that use would be limited to only that area, this would in turn prevent the whole of the floor area being converted to takeaway use.

The Highways Officer addressed the Committee and stated that he did not believe the traffic flow would be increased if the application was approved.

Mr Colin Molyneux, the registered speaker on behalf of the applicant was not in attendance.

After debate and questions to the Planning Officer, a motion was put forward and seconded to defer the application on the grounds of lack of information. Members requested that clearer floor plans be provided and further information on the impact and assessment of the proposed takeaway. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimously) that the application be deferred to a later date.

Reasons for the decision:

The Committee requested a deferral on the application in order that further information specifically relating to the floor plans and the impact and assessment of the proposed takeaway could be presented for consideration.

The application related to the proposed additional 21 car parking spaces within the approved Aldi Foodstore.

The application site was the former Bretton Woods School at Flaxland, Bretton.

Planning permission (07/01697/FUL) was granted for the construction of an Aldi Foodstore with 76 car parking spaces and landscaping scheme. The sites main entrance was from Flaxland. The boundary treatment comprised of partly lined trees and soft landscaping. The front facing Flaxland boundary treatment comprised of 1.2m high hooped metal railing and the rest of the boundary treatment comprised of 2.5m high close board fence. The area was characterised by mixed use comprising of offices, retail outlets and residential buildings.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were informed that the number of requested spaces fell in line with policy. Members were further informed that there had been no comments received from the Highways Department.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. it was highlighted that on 19 November 2009, Councillor Nick Sandford had sent an email to the Planning Department to confirm withdrawal of his objection, provided that the proposal complied with Local Plan Policy and PPG13 (Transport) as advised by the Planning Officer.

After a brief debate a motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application. The motion was carried unanimously.                                                                                                            

RESOLVED: (unanimously) to approve the application.

Reasons for the decision:

The proposal was acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighting against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

-  In policy terms the proposed additional 21 car parking spaces were in compliance with both National policy and development plan policy contained in the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) 2005. The empirical evidence from the survey that was carried out linking the number of pedestrians and vehicles visiting the Aldi suggested that this proposal was sustainable.

- The number of pedestrians shopping at Aldi during the initial opening days demonstrated that the location of the store and its users were considered sustainable and the additional 21 car parking spaces would not adversely affect traffic in the area. The proposal was therefore in accordance with policies T1, T9 and T10 of the Peterborough Local Plan, Agreed Travel Plan and PPG1

The meeting was adjourned for ten minutes.

The proposal was for the provision of 14 apartments. 10 to be provided in the two blocks of two and a half storey high buildings positioned at the frontage of the site facing on to Fletton Avenue.  4 to be provided in a two storey high block positioned to the rear of these.  Access to the site would be via a central access point from Fletton Avenue to a central courtyard containing 14 car parking spaces, bin storage areas and small areas of grass landscaping.  Ten of the apartments would have two bedrooms, and four one bedroom.

Building works had commenced on site, but had stopped in view of the legal challenge to the approval of reserved matters issued under 08/01504/REM.  The site was previously vacant and before that used as a second hand car sales garage with parking.  The area surrounding the site was predominately two storey residential housing.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal, highlighting the main issues surrounding the application, namely the impact of the development on the street scene particularly on Fletton Avenue and the impact on residential amenities in relation to adjacent residential developments.

Members were further advised of the planning history of the site and the reasons for the refusal of the previous reserved matters scheme, namely the design, height and associated impact on the street scene and adjacent properties. The car parking layout and bin layout had also been considered to be awkward and detrimental to future occupiers of the scheme.

The applicant had applied for full planning permission due to part of the development having been constructed already, and the outline consent had lapsed. Although the outline planning permission had lapsed, the planning decisions were still material considerations.

The Committee was informed that consideration should be given as to whether there had been a change in circumstances in respect of policy, site characteristics, or whether or not new information had come to light that the Committee had not previously been aware of. Of primary importance with regards to this application was whether the siting, with regards to the fact that the building was situated further forward than was approved at outline, was such that it rendered the development unacceptable in terms of its impact on the street scene.

The application laid out before Committee was highlighted as being almost identical in layout to that which was presented to the Committee at reserved matters stage which had been approved. The only difference highlighted was the bin store area, which had caused a considerable amount of debate at an earlier meeting. The applicant had subsequently stated that he would arrange for a private bin collection to take place.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Numerous objections had been received in the form of letters and comments and a petition had been submitted by Fair-Play for Fletton, a group of local residents. Wording had also been provided by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Committee unanimously agreed to the exemption and members of the press and public left the meeting.

The Committee received a report requesting it to note the situation in respect of the unauthorised development listed in part 1 of the report and to agree the proposed action plan as detailed in the report, namely that no enforcement action be taken but a subsequent letter be sent to the owners advising them that the decision not to take enforcement action in no way condoned their actions.

After debate, a motion was put forward and seconded to agree to the recommended actions as detailed in the Committee report. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously) to agree to the recommended actions as detailed in the Committee report.

Reasons for the decision:

It was established that there were three breaches of planning control which were not to be condoned. However, a breach ought not inevitably lead to enforcement action if the breaches were not considered to be harmful. The fact that the development had not been built in accordance with the approved plans, presented a problem for the owner, should the property be sold, refinanced or used as collateral, in that the whole of the development was unauthorised, but this could be addressed by a retrospective planning application.