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.

            Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lowndes, Thacker and Councillor C Burton.

Councillor C Day attended as substitute.

Councillor Ash declared that he would be making representation as a Ward Councillor for agenda item 5.1, Cerris Road.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 January 2010 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 February 2010 were approved as a true and accurate record subject to the following points of clarification:

·        The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and stated that on the last page of the minutes it was written that “after brief discussions Members highlighted concerns regarding the speaking times being weighted in favour of Parish Councils, Members were advised that further consultation was being undertaken on this point”. For clarification, the issue at that time was whether it was an equitable situation with objectors, Parish Councillors and Ward Councillors all speaking against an application and receiving three separate time slots as opposed to only the supporter, namely the applicant, speaking in favour of an application and receiving only one timeslot.

·        For further clarification, Members were advised that discussions had taken place at the last Parish Council Liaison meeting and the speaking time for Parish Councillors at the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee would remain the same.

            The Committee agreed to vary the order of the agenda and to allow agenda item 5.4, Hyholmes Bretton, to be the next item of business.

The site was part of the highway verge along Bretton Way.  It was approximately 29 meters wide and was comprised of a grass verge of approximately 13 meters and a belt of trees before the rear gardens of Hyholmes.  To the opposite side of Bretton Way there was a bus lay-by and a narrower verge before the rear gardens of houses in Essendyke.  There was no footway at the proposed location.

The proposal was to erect a monopole telecoms mast, 15 meters high which would incorporate two cabinets, one of which would be 1.5 meters tall and the other 1.3 meters tall.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the main issues including the size of the mast in relation to the adjacent street lighting and the distance of the siting of the pole in relation to the surrounding dwellings.

Members were advised that the application had to be either approved or refused at the meeting, a deferral would not be possible, the reason being that the application had been made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001 which provided set time scales for an application to be determined, otherwise consent would automatically be granted to erect the monopole mast. The date for expiration of determination of this application was 5 April 2010.

Members were further advised that the application could only be determined on the grounds of its siting and its appearance, consideration could not be given to any health implications relating to the proposal, the reason for this being that these issues were covered by specific health and safety legislation and not planning legislation and as such could not be considered as material planning considerations.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report.  Twenty three emails from local residents had been submitted via Councillor Fitzgerald, a Ward Councillor for Bretton North. The main issues highlighted in the emails were that the mast would be aesthetically unpleasant, there were numerous other areas where the mast could be erected, there had been inadequate consultation with local residents, the de-valuation of surrounding property, the mast would be hazardous to locals and road users, the potential damage to health, the mast could attract vandalism, the area was used as a footpath and the erection of the mast would mean that a proper footpath could not be laid in future, the mast was not needed and it would have a detrimental impact on wildlife.

Numerous photographs had also been submitted showing the levels of vandalism in the local area.

A further two letters had been received from local residents stating that the mast was not required as telephone reception in the area was good. However, if the mast was to be erected there were other locations better suited for the proposal such as the adjacent roundabout, the Sainsbury’s site and other wasteland in the vicinity. The masts prominent location would downgrade the area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Full planning permission was sought for the construction of eight, two bedroom affordable houses, with associated external works and parking.  The properties would be arranged in two, two storey high terraced blocks, each containing four houses.  Plots one to four would be accessed from Western Avenue and plots five to eight from Cerris Road.  Eight car parking spaces were proposed, one for each property, together with five visitor car parking spaces.           

The site was located within a predominately residential area, consisting of two storey high residential properties.  The site was bounded on three sides by the rear gardens of the properties on Western Avenue, Birchtree Avenue, and Cerris Road and to the north by an existing recreation/play area.  The access to the recreation ground was through the application site.         

The site covered an area of 0.21 hectares and was a former residential garage court.  The garages that remained on the southern boundary of the site had been boarded up, with only one still in use.  The garage buildings that were positioned on the northern boundary of the site had all been removed.  The access from Western Avenue currently had bollards in position preventing vehicle access.  The access roads had kerb and footways. 

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal and highlighted the main issues including access to the site, car parking, the distance between properties and the windows located on the side elevations having frosted glass.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. There had been a public meeting held on the 15 March 2010 where a number of issues had been raised, one of these being the safety of the access to and from the recreation ground. Members were informed that the plan had been amended so that the footpaths along either side of the access now continued along the side of the entrance all the way to the park, in addition to this a condition had been proposed which required a scheme of barriers to be put in along the edge of the footpath to prevent vehicles from mounting the curb and being a danger to pedestrians.

A further concern had been expressed regarding access for refuse vehicles, Members were further advised that the development would not be served by the Local Authority but by a private service. Other concerns highlighted were the restricted access for fire engines, the overbearing impact of the development and the insufficient details of boundary treatment. There had also been a request for construction to commence after the school holidays however, this was not a request that could be conditioned.

Comments from the Senior Recreation Officer had also been received stating that the only concern was to ensure that children and other users of the recreation ground were able to enter and leave the recreation ground safely.

A letter of support had been received stating that the proposal was a good idea and affordable housing was needed. A further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Full planning permission was sought for the construction of a fifty bed care home, with a new access and associated car parking.  The accommodation would be provided in a three storey L-shaped building positioned on the western half of the site.  The new access from Matley was on the eastern side of the site, leading to the car parking area which had increased in size from fourteen to thirty two spaces in the amended plans.

The site was located within a predominately residential area, consisting of two storey and one and a half storey residential properties.  The site was positioned to the north of the Matley Primary school site and to the south of a small local centre, which contained some shop units and a community centre.  It was also positioned to the south of some two storey residential houses.  To the west of the site was a busway and beyond this further two storey residential housing.  The residential houses on Matley Road to the east of the site were one and a halfstorey.   

The site covered an area of 0.56 hectares and was currently vacant land that had become overgrown.  The site was currently well screened from surrounding sites by mature hedge and tree landscaped boundaries.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal, highlighting the main issues surrounding the application, namely the impact of overlooking, the appearance of the application from the street, the proposed car parking, the elevation levels of the site, the loss of part of the hedge surrounding the site and the vegetation to be retained namely the boundary hedge owned by the school.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. The Head of Transport and Engineering had originally had issues with the scheme with regards to car parking, the pedestrian link and visibility splays. All of the issues had been addressed in the amended plan and a number of conditions had been proposed and were highlighted in the update report. Members were advised that a number of these conditions could be amalgamated together and incorporated into the conditions highlighted in the committee report.

Three letters of representation had been received highlighting concerns as previously raised in the committee report. Additional concerns were also highlighted in one of the letters with regards to the impact of construction vehicles on the area and the amount of traffic that was generated by the local shop and dentist.

Mrs Suzanne Jones and Mrs Shirley Stapleton, objectors and a school governor and the Head Teacher from Matley Primary School, addressed the Committee jointly and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        The safety of the children and the staff at Matley Primary School

·        The traffic that would access Matley during construction and during occupation of the site, namely staff and visitors accessing and leaving the site

·        The proposed access pathway may encourage people to walk along that area and then  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Retrospective planning permission was sought for the additional 84 car parking spaces already provided on site, to be used in association with the Garden Centre development.  This was an approximate 20% increase to the car parking compared to the 412 spaces that were originally approved.  The area of land of the additional car parking was originally approved as a picnic area for visitors to the site under planning reference 07/00011/OUT. 

The site was located on the north east edge of the City.  The site was positioned within the urban area boundary of the city, with its northern boundary marking the settlement edge. The site was to the north of the Eye/Peterborough Road and A47 Paston Parkway roundabout.  The site was previously used as a sports ground by the Parkway Sports and Social Club. 

The site covered an area of 5.94ha and contained the Garden Centre development and associated car parking, which recently opened on 5 February 2010.   

The northern boundary was edged by an existing drainage dyke.  To the north and west of the site were the Dogsthorpe Landfill site and a Household Waste Recycling Centre.  Eye village lay to the north east.  Trees and shrubs bound the site to its Paston Parkway frontage.  Immediately to the east of the site was a petrol filling station containing a Somerfield convenience food store and a Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) restaurant.  The site was separated from existing residential areas by Paston Parkway and Parnwell Way.

The site was accessed via a vehicular access road leading off Eye/Peterborough Road.  A footpath along the southern boundary from the roundabout provided further access to the site.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal and the main issues. Members were advised that the applicant had stated that the additional spaces were required, the primary reason being that given the nature of the goods sold at the development (primarily bulky goods) a higher vehicle visitor rate was expected. Additional spaces were also needed to cover busy periods and the applicant had also identified, through research, that this proposal provided less car parking than its competitors. In addition the applicant had stated that if they were to apply the car parking standards from the existing local plan more spaces could be provided.

Mr John Holmes, from Gregory Gray Associates the agent, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the issues highlighted to the Committee included:

·        The application would sustain the £22 million invested in the Peterborough Garden Park

·        The scheme was getting busier by the day and it was believed the scheme would get   even busier as the weather improved

·        The land was designated as a picnic area and through a bird survey it was deemed to be unsuitable for that purpose due to the landfill site nearby

·        It was important to provide adequate parking

·        Garden centres had peak periods, particularly around bank holidays and seasonal times, therefore additional parking was required

·        The Peak periods had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

A report was presented to the Committee which sought its comments on the draft Peterborough District Hospital Site Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) before its submission to Cabinet for approval for the purposes of public participation.

The Peterborough District Hospital site was to be vacated by the end of 2011 following the transfer of remaining medical services to the new city hospital on the Edith Cavell site. The site would become vacant and would require comprehensive regeneration. The purpose of the Hospital Site SPD was to provide detailed guidance to prospective developers as to the type and level of development the Council would expect to see come forward on the site, and in turn meet the objectives of the Local Plan, the emerging Local Development Framework, the Local Area Agreement and the Sustainable Communities Strategy.

The Hospital Site SPD had been prepared jointly by King Sturge (acting on behalf of the Peterborough and Stamford NHS Trust) and Peterborough City Council Officers. However, as the SPD would become official Council planning policy once adopted (post consultation), the final text as presented to the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee (PEP) was that as recommended by Peterborough City Council Planning Officers.

The draft Hospital Site SPD set out the Council’s ambition to see a mixed-use development incorporating residential, community, local retail and ancillary uses on the Peterborough District Hospital site. This would help to meet one of the key priorities of the Sustainable Communities Strategy to deliver substantial and truly sustainable growth. 

Members were advised that it was anticipated that Cabinet, at its meeting due to be held on 29 March 2010, would approve the draft Hospital Site SPD for public consultation in April 2010 and it would be assisted in its decision by any comments made by the Local Development Framework Scrutiny Group and the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee.

Members were invited to comment on the District Hospital Site SPD and the following issues and observations were highlighted:

·        Members questioned how much of the memorial wing was to be retained. Members were advised that the core of the building was locally listed and to be retained. The remainder of the building was comprised of later extensions and was not to be retained.

·        Members further questioned whether the community site located on the plan, comprising the memorial wing and the surrounding area, could be utilised for the war memorial site. Members were further advised that the community area had no specified use at that stage.

·        The Committee commented that there appeared to be no church or chapel provision on the site and this point was to be relayed to Cabinet.

·        The Committee further commented that there also appeared to be no provision for a nursery or school on the site. The Committee was informed that the education department had been consulted on the need for a school and it had been stated that the development would not generate the need for a school. There would however be an education contribution sought to meet  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.