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 Councillors Benton and Harrington.

Councillor Winslade attended as substitute.

Councillor Ash declared that he would be making representation as a Ward Councillor for agenda item 5.7, 78-80 Welland Road.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2010 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The proposal was to erect a street furniture column 12 metres high, with the antennas cloaked in a shroud towards the top of the column.  The lower part of the column would be similar to a street light column. There would also be three cabinets placed close to the column which would be similar in appearance to BT junction boxes.

The site was on the south side of Whittlesey Road, near to the junction with Coneygree Road.  On the south side of the street was an open green area, with a fence between this and an area of highway verge running alongside the footway.  There was a row of trees running in line with the fence, and nearby was a bus stop and street lighting columns. Across the road, there was a petrol filling station and a pub serving the local area which was mainly residential.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and stated that because of the nature of the application, the siting and appearance of the column were the only two factors that could be taken into consideration at that point.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. There had been a query received from Councillor Walsh, Ward Councillor, regarding whether it was appropriate for a mast to be located in such close proximity to a petrol filling station given the warnings seen on petrol forecourts stating that mobile phones should not be used. A response had been provided to Councillor Walsh stating that mobile phones should not be used on forecourts due to the danger of batteries sparking and the operator distraction it may cause to pedestrians and drivers. As the mast was located outside of the forecourt area there were no rules or regulations to prevent the application going ahead and if matters did exist, they would be dealt with via other forms of legislation.

Councillor Irene Walsh, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee on behalf of all of the Stanground Central Ward Councillors and local residents and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        The creation of an eyesore

·        The contribution to the visual deterioration of the area

·        The de-valuation of property

·        The open green area would no longer be used by young children, thus causing the loss of a valuable community amenity

·        The contribution of yet another visual distraction in the area on an already busy road

·        The maintenance of the mast next to the road side would exacerbate the visual distraction problem further

·        The similar application in Bretton which had recently been turned down due to it being higher than the surrounding street furniture. If the Committee was minded to approve the application, this would highlight inconsistencies in decision making

·        The surrounding trees would not provide adequate camouflage

·        The need for the mast was understood, but the search for an alternative site would be of benefit to all parties

Mr Brian Wolohan and Mr Stuart Banister, objectors and local residents,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The proposal was for the installation of a 12 metre high monopole to be painted ‘dove grey’ with a shrouded three-sectored antenna.  The proposal would have no dishes and would take the shape and form of a street light.  The proposal also included the installation of an equipment cabinet located adjacent to the monopole and an electricity pillar, both to be painted ‘midnight green’. 

The proposal was required due to the existing mast on the roof of Peterborough District Hospital becoming no longer available in the near future, due to the redevelopment of the site.  The existing mast covered a large single cell but this had to be split into 3 smaller cells.  The proposal was to serve one of these smaller cells. 

The site was part of the highway verge adjacent to the junction of Thorpe Road, Thorpe Park Road and Audley Gate.  It was approximately 31 metres wide at its narrowest point, comprising a grass verge with four trees varying from 9 metres to 12 metres in height.  To the rear of the verge, Blind Lane connected Thorpe Road to Bradwell Road.  There was a number of existing sluice valves adjacent to the footpath along Thorpe Park Road albeit these were not affected by the proposal.  Residential properties surrounded the site to the north east and west with the nearest residential property (No. 216 Thorpe Road) situated approximately 63 metres away.  The access road to Thorpe Hall was situated to the south on the opposite side of Thorpe Road. 

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal and highlighted the main issues. Members were advised that consideration had been given to the aspect of the proposal which stated that the mast would be designed to appear as a street light, so it would fit in with the local street scene. Street lights were generally found on the back edge of a footpath and not in the middle of a wide grass verge, therefore attention would be drawn to the mast as it would not be sited in a position where a street light would be likely to be. It would therefore be out of keeping with the street scene.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. There had been a number of objections received, including comments from Mr Stuart Jackson MP highlighting concerns such as the masts location in relation to residential properties, its siting next to a pedestrian route to Jack Hunt School and the loss of highway visibility at the busy road junction.

A petition containing 109 signatures had also been received as had several additional letters of objection to the proposal, these highlighted issues such as the possibility of attracting vandalism, devaluation of surrounding properties and the lack of consultation which had been undertaken with local residents. Jack Hunt School had also submitted comments relating to the potential health risks to its students and Councillor Arculus had also submitted a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

   The proposal was for the construction of a four bedroom house with three bedrooms on the first floor, one bedroom in the attic and a tandem double garage at the bottom of the garden.  The house was a skewed L shape with frontages to both Pudding Bag Lane and the access track that served a number of nearby houses.

   The application site was an irregular shaped parcel of land at the end of a terraced row of simple and unremarkable houses.  To the side and rear was an access to fields and other houses, which also provided access to the garage.  At the front of the site was a walnut tree.  There was a stone front boundary wall, which linked the site with the adjacent housing.

   The site adjoined the Conservation area and formed one side of an informal ‘square’ that comprised the centre of the hamlet of Pilsgate.  The ‘square’ surrounded a walled/fenced field, with boundary treatments approx 1.5m high.  The eastern side of the square was currently open, being constrained only by the gable of 1 Pudding Bag Lane and the walnut tree on the application site.

   The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal and highlighted the main issues. Members were advised that Pudding Bag Lane was an adopted road, however the track leading to the house was private. This track was proposed to serve the garage of the proposed dwelling. There was a walnut tree on the site which was proposed to be lost as part of the proposal. The proposal was a more traditional design than the terraced properties next door and it had incorporated themes from a key building in the village, Pilsgate House. There was a level of shadowing which would be likely to occur as a result of the proposal however it was considered that satisfactory amounts of daylight and amenity would be retained by the adjacent property. A further amended plan for the garage was being awaited to increase the depth of the garage to meet the satisfaction of Highways.

   Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report.  Two additional conditions had been requested with regard to tree and shrub planting and boundary treatments. There had also been two additional conditions and an informative recommended by Highways in relation to the garage construction, proposed street naming and the material to be used for the driveway. Members were advised that there had been subsequent revisions to these conditions and the informative. The wording for the first condition had been amended to ensure it would be retained as a garage and not turned into living accommodation. The second condition was to be converted to an informative and the informative that had been requested was to be deleted as there was no requirement for hard surfacing outside of the garage.

   There were no speakers on the proposal and Members commented that it was unfortunate that a representative from the Parish Council was not present  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

         The proposal was for 4 one bed flats and 4 two bed flats. The flats were to be in 2 blocks of 4 units each, both being 2 storey’s high with the ground floors providing the 1 bed units and the first floors the 2 bed units. The blocks were to be identical in terms of their footprints having an average depth of 7.5m and length of 23m. The elevational details were also near identical for both blocks, the only differences being within the first floor rear fenestration. The design of the flats incorporated four 2 storey gable elements to the front and rear elevations. These were to have pitched roofs. The main roof formed of the flats was to comprise a pitched roof with dark grey Calderdale slates and contrasting red ridge and hip tiles.

         Within the flat blocks at either end was to be a single garage to serve the parking for the occupiers of the ground floor flats. Four parking spaces, 2 in a gap between the two flat blocks and 2 single spaces at either end of the flat blocks were to serve the occupiers of the first floor flats. Each flat was to have space set aside for the storage of 2 wheelie bins to the rear of the buildings with space to be provided at the entrance to the site for the occupiers of the flats to place the bins on the days that they were to be emptied. Parking provision for 5 cycles was to be provided in a central location between the flat blocks.

         The application site was formerly a part of the rear garden of 105 Oxney Road which comprised a chalet style bungalow located close to the front of the property with garden area and a small woodland area to the rear.

         The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and stated that the proposal had been considered by the Committee at its previous meeting and had been deferred to enable the provision of additional information. The latest statistics for any accidents at the junction on Oxney Road after 2008 had been requested and Members were advised that this information had been provided in Appendix 1 attached to the main committee report. Since the spring of 2008 there had been four incidents that had occurred, all of which being of a similar nature to accidents which had previously taken place at the junction. Highways did not therefore feel that the proposal would make any material impact on road safety at that junction. An update on any traffic management plan that there may be on the Newark Road and Oxney Road junction had also been requested and Members were further advised that no scheme had been designed at that time, but there was to be a scheme implemented at some point during the financial year. The Committee had also requested Officers to approach the applicant to request a reduction in the number of properties contained within the proposal. The applicant had indicated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

         Planning permission was sought for the construction of three detached properties on the site.  The two properties proposed at the front of the site would be two storey high 4 bedroom houses, and the property at the rear of the site, a two storey high 3 bedroom coach house. 

Two car parking spaces were proposed for each property, all car parking spaces were at the rear of the site behind plots 1 and 2.

The site was the last remnants of a tennis club that had been on site for about 100 years.  Part of the site was developed for housing in the 1970’s, leaving a wooden clubhouse and four grass tennis courts, which was the subject of this application.  The courts were not currently in use.   

The site fell within the Park Conservation Area and lay opposite Central Park.  The front boundaries of this and many nearby sites were marked by distinctive diaper work fences and hedging.  The adjoining houses were modern (having been built around 1970), although the overall character of the area reflects its history as an Arcadian Victorian/Edwardian residential area.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal and highlighted the main issues. Members were advised that a previous scheme for flats had been refused on the grounds of inadequate provision being made for alternative tennis facilities as part of the development proposal. The scheme in front of the Committee was now for houses, which followed the same footprint as the flats. The previous refusal had been appealed and the inspectorate had agreed with the Council that there were not firm enough proposals for alternative tennis provisions being made as part of that application, therefore the current application sought to address that issue. The applicant’s proposal was to provide the sum of £100,000, which would be put into a joint account between the Local Authority and the applicant and the money would be used within twelve months to provide two new floodlit all weather tennis courts at Bretton Gate. If that did not happen within twelve months, then the Local Authority could draw the £100,000 and use it to improve existing tennis facilities in its own ownership. The £100,000 had been checked to see if it would be sufficient both internally and with a third party contractor and it had been confirmed that the funds would be sufficient.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report.  A number of additional conditions had been requested by Highways regarding parking provisions, turning areas and bin stores. The Broadway Residents Association had submitted an updated letter of objection and Mr Stuart Jackson MP had also submitted an email of objection. Members were also advised that the tennis club, since 2008, had merged with the Peterborough Town Sports Club at Bretton Gate and both parties were committed to the provision of the alternative facilities.

Councillor John Peach, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

         The proposal was for the construction of a five bedroom house and garage within the garden of an existing house fronting Second Drift.  The house had two storeys with no accommodation in the roof and was similar in its characteristics to the three houses built in recent years immediately to the south of the site.  Access was via an existing gated access to the northern edge of the site.

The application site was the rear half of a garden and measured approx 27m x 36m.  It was served by an access drive approx 40m long which ran between The Haven and Cromwell House, approx 5 m from Cromwell House and 7m from The Haven.  The site sloped in several directions and a small stream ran along the eastern edge.  There were a number of trees within the site, most of which were to be retained. 

There was a tradition of large plots, some with development in the rear, in Wothorpe, including adjoining sites where there was a bungalow and opposite where the replacement of one house with four new houses was allowed on appeal; despite this history, the character of the area remained one of large houses in large plots.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal and highlighted the main issues.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report.  There had been additional comments received from six local residents highlighting issues such as de-valuation of property, damage to wildlife, overlooking, overdevelopment, loss of amenity and increased risk of flooding, among numerous other points. The Parish Council had also reiterated its original comments as highlighted in the committee report.

Mrs Anne Marshall and Mr John Finch, objectors and local residents, addressed the Committee jointly and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        There was a planning application for two houses on the front of The Haven, the two applications should not be considered separately, there was not enough room for three properties on the plot

·        Wothorpe was about to be made an exception area in from planning, therefore rushing through applications at the last minute made no sense

·        The application flew in the face of the Council village design guidelines that were published on the Peterborough City Council website

·        Local MP Mr Shilesh Vara had written to the Chief Executive of Peterborough City Council expressing his concern against the application

·        The house which had been approved in February 2009 and had outline planning permission had a much smaller footprint with integral garage. The proposal before the Committee had expanded including a number of additional bedrooms and a detached garage

·        The proposal would not enhance the amenity value of the area

·        The special character and uniqueness of The Drift would be lost

·        The proposal was big and bold and would completely dominate surrounding properties

·        Its mass contravened policy DA1, creating adverse visual impact

·        The proposal was two storeys high next to two bungalows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The application sought planning permission for the retention of the bungalow on the site which was complete and occupied.  A dwelling was granted permission under application reference 01/01585/FUL albeit the dwelling was not built in accordance with the approved plans.   

There had been several applications submitted to regularise the situation however none had been successful and at that time, the dwelling had no planning permission.  The revised scheme had been submitted following extensive discussion between the Applicant, Officers, Ward Councillors and local residents of Figtree Walk.  The revisions to the dwelling included alterations to the glazing of the rear elevation and the construction of a new boundary wall.  The scheme proposed replacement of three no. double patio doors with fixed standard glazed windows and insertion of a 400mm strip of obscure glazing to all windows and doors in the rear elevation.  The scheme also proposed a 1.9 metre rear boundary wall to be constructed of bricks to match the surrounding area. 

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal and highlighted the main issues. Members were advised that their approval was sought for some alterations to the structure which had already been built, these alterations were summarised by the Planning Officer. A previous application to rectify the faults with the application had been refused at Committee and had subsequently gone to appeal, the appeal inspector considered a series of points including the option of the wall as a barrier, which was considered to be oppressive to the occupiers of the properties on Figtree Walk. The current proposed wall was 20cm less in height than was previously refused, the inspector also considered the option of frosted glass in the patio doors, it was considered not appropriate as it would be oppressive to occupiers of new build house, therefore it was now proposed to frost the tops of the windows only. The scheme was recommended for approval as it was felt that it was a reasonable compromise for protecting the neighbour’s amenity and having the development amended to the satisfaction of the Planning Officer in a way that would not be significantly detrimental to the occupier of the property.

Councillor Chris Ash, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        The situation had been going on for a long time and was a worry for all parties involved

·        It was a shame that the applicant had not followed the original plan

·        The aim was to make sure the dwelling did not have an undue impact on Figtree Walk

·        The gardens in Figtree Walk were very small and the wall would make the garden very oppressive

·        The inspectors report highlighted that the property was less than 21 metres away from the neighbouring property, this was against planning policy guidance

·        The wall would still be extremely tall

·        A condition should be added stating that suitable materials be used for the wall

·        The inspector had highlighted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

A report was presented to the Committee which sought its comments on the Peterborough District Hospital Site Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) prior to its submission to Cabinet for adoption as formal planning policy for the site.

On 23 March 2010, the Planning Committee considered a draft version of the Hospital Site SPD and made its comments known to Cabinet on 29 March 2010. The draft version had subsequently been subject to public consultation, and the final version had been prepared for consideration and adoption.

            Members were advised that the Peterborough District Hospital site would 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 LDF, the Local Area Agreement and the Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Members were invited to comment on the document and after debate and questions to the Policy and Strategy Manager, the concerns and issues were summarised as follows:

·        The density of the site

·        The lack of schooling available on and surrounding the site

·        The design of the properties on the site and their commercial saleability. People wanted homes for life

·        The disability access across the scheme

·        The protection of the historic buildings on the site

Members were advised that their comments would be reported to Cabinet prior to adoption of the Peterborough District Hospital Site Supplementary Planning Document.  

RESOLVED: to comment on the Peterborough District Hospital Site Supplementary Planning Document before its submission to Cabinet on 14 June 2010, for adoption as formal planning policy for the site.