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.

An apology for absence was received from Councillors Casey, Martin, Serluca and Shabbir.

       Councillor Sylvester attended as a substitute.

Councillor Hiller raised a non-pecuniary interest in item 4.3 he had met with the persons speaking in objection, with regards to another matter.

Councillor Ash raised a non-pecuniary interest in items 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 as he had been lobbied by local residents yesterday, however had passed queries on to his fellow Ward Councillor.

Councillor North raised a non-pecuniary interest in items 4.7 as he had been lobbied by local residents, however had passed queries on to his fellow Ward Councillor.

Councillor Harrington declared that he would be speaking on items 4.2 and 4.3 as Ward Councillor.

The planning application was for the demolition of existing buildings at the former site of the Peterborough District Hospital. The application included remediation and earthworks, removal of trees and redevelopment to provide residential development of up to 350 residential units of up to four storeys with a total gross external area of up to 33,820 square metres, including retention and residential use of The Gables and 60-62 Thorpe Road, means of access, formal and information open space, a new Community Primary School including the retention and use of part of the Memorial Wind building, associated landscaping, footpaths, secondary access roads and drainage works, with access from Thorpe Road, Midland Road and Alderman’s Drive

The key issues to be considered were:

·         The Principle of Development, including demolition and location of the school site;

·         Traffic Impacts;

·         Design and Layout including impact upon Heritage Assets;

·         Landscape Impacts and Open Space Provision;

·         Ecological Implications;

·         Drainage;

·         Contamination;

·         Archaeology;

·         Section 106 Legal Agreement;

·         Air Quality and Construction Management.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to the signing of a legal agreement and conditions.

The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The Committee had before it an outline application only, with further more detailed applications to be submitted at a future date (reserved matters).

·         The Gables, 60 – 62 Thorpe Road and the administrative core of the Memorial Wing building would be retained, as they were important to the heritage of the site. The remaining buildings were to be demolished.

·         The inclusion of a school on the site would help meet local need and would need to be delivered at the earliest point.

·         It was considered the highways impact of the proposal would not be greater than that of the previous hospital use. With regard to the objections received in respect of St John’s Close the access proposals are acceptable and the applicant cannot be required to rectify existing highways issues, only those which the application created.

·         Traffic lights and crossings were included at various points within the application.

·         There were no objections based on landscaping or drainage at this outline application stage.

·         The update report detailed that prior approval had been granted for the demolition of the Memorial Wing building, excluding the administrative core, and that the S106 highway contribution was £393,000.

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

·         A public consultation had been undertaken regarding the proposals in January.

·         350 mixed homes were to be provided alongside a school, which was believed to be of great importance.

·         The proposal would not generate any more traffic than previous use. The applicant had worked with the Council to try and improve the current highway situation.

·         The demolition of 600,000 square feet of buildings would improve the look and feel of the site.

·         Heritage integration was an important part of the proposal.

·         The provision of 600  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Councillor Harrington left the Committee meeting.

The planning application was for a residential development on the land to the west of Williams Close, Newborough comprising 42 dwellings, access, associated works and landscaping.

The main considerations were:

·         The Principle of Development;

·         Highway Implications;

·         Design and Layout;

·         Landscape Implications;

·         Ecological Implications;

·         Flood Risk and Drainage;

·         Section 106 Legal Agreement;

·         Other Matters.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to the signing of a legal agreement and conditions.

The Planning and Development Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following points:

·         The open space outlined in the application was the only part of the site in flood zone 2.

·         A viability assessment had been submitted, suggesting the proposal would not be viable with affordable housing. As such, none was to be provided.

·         Ground works for the proposal would raise the site by one metre.

·         Two letters of support had been received and 24 letters of objection. Most of these highlighted the principle of development, the agricultural nature of the land, the proposed access, loss of privacy and drainage.

·         Highways officers had objected to the access off Soke Road, for seven residences, advising that the road required widening. The applicant had not considered this necessary.

·         The roads within the proposal site had been widened to comply with policy.

·         It was considered that plot 20 would have an overbearing impact on Williams Close, however the significant separation distance meant that that it was acceptable, on balance.

·         The applicant had relocated the footpath on Soke Road. This did not alter the Highways objection, however the proposal was still considered acceptable.

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

·         This was an on balance decision that needed to be made.

·         Plot 20 would have an overbearing impact on Williams Close.

·         A one metre raising of the site was significant and land shrinkage may result.

·         Flooding would be an issue if the land was raised. The land surrounding the site would flood as a result, as has happened before with other, similar sites.

·         Soke Road was a narrow road and caused problems for residents. There had been fatalities and more work needed to be carried out to make access to the site safe.

·         On balance, Councillor Harrington was not happy with the proposal and asked the Committee to refuse it as more detail was needed and it would result in overbearing impact.

Mr Paul Fowler, Parish Councillor, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         A hedgerow had not been included on the site plan and this suggested that the proposals had not been fully considered.

·         It was believed that the attitude the applicant presented towards Soke Road was concerning, as they had ignored suggestions to make the road safer. Seven residences using the accesses off Soke Road was significant.

·         Williams Close would be overlooked by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

The planning application was a part-retrospective application for the change of use of an agricultural paddock at Fen Cottage, Werrington Bridge Road, Milking Nook to parking and storage of vehicles in association with the existing plant hire business.

The key issues to be considered were:

·         Principle of development;

·         Impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area / landscape character;

·         Highway implications;

·         Neighbour amenity;

·         Drainage and flood risk.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

The Planning and Development Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following points:

·         The site was in the open countryside with residential dwellings nearby.

·         Part of the hard core flooring had already been laid, which was why the application was part-retrospective.

·         Nine objections had been received from local residents.

·         The NPPF supported economic growth in connection with an established economic use. A condition had been proposed to ensure that any permission granted was personal to the applicant.

·         There would be no significant increase in traffic, however the front of the building would become less cluttered.

·         A condition had been proposed to restate the hours of operation already in place on the business site.

·         The proposal was in flood zone 3. Following the sequential test, as there was an established business at the site, an alternative location would not be practical.

·         The update report included additional conditions regarding landscaping and it was clarified that sub-letting would not be allowed, as the permission was personal.

·         Any non-compliance of conditions should be reported to the compliance team.

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

·         Development should not be permitted in the open countryside.

·         The applicant could utilise an industrial site elsewhere.

·         No further jobs would be created from the proposals.

·         There was a high amount of traffic movement on Werrington Bridge Road and this was often at high speed.

·         The proposal would result in overdevelopment.

·         The applicants would not be able to mitigate the impact of the proposal.

Mr Paul Fowler, Parish Councillor, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The proposal represented a threat of industrialisation to a small hamlet.

·         The NPPF stated that development in the countryside should be restricted unless through the conversion of existing buildings or well-designed new buildings. The application was neither of these, nor is it essential to the effective operation of local agriculture as set out in the Councils’ 2012 DPD.

·         There are local business which could store the machinery for the applicant with expansion.

·         If the application were approved, a condition requiring the applicant to demonstrate their vehicles were essential to the effective operation of local agriculture was requested.

·         The risk of flooding was significant and more work needed to be undertaken to ensure that conditions regarding flooding were effective.

·         Liaison with the Environment Agency was requested as well as a SUDS test and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

Councillor Harrington re-joined the Committee meeting.

The planning application was for the demolition of an existing garage block on the land to the rear of 55 Figtree Walk, Dogsthorpe and the construction of three two-bed affordable bungalows with associated external works and parking.

The main considerations were:

·         Principle of development;

·         Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area;

·         Parking and highway implications;

·         Neighbourhood amenity;

·         Amenity provision for future occupants;

·         Developer contributions.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to the signing of a legal agreement and conditions.

The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The site was close to existing facilities and, as such, was considered to be sustainable.

·         The development would help meet the affordable housing need.

·         The applicant could demolish the garages currently on the site without planning permission.

·         No objection had been raised by Highways Officers.

·         Although access to the site was narrow, traffic movement would be less that current.

·         There would be an impact on surrounding residences’ amenity, however this was considered to be acceptable given the separation distances between dwellings.

·         Section 106 contributions would total £3,000.

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

·         All three garage site applications were initially objected to, however this particular application was now considered acceptable, with the exception of the concerns as to the existence of asbestos in the garage roofs.

·         It was also requested by residents that the brick wall along the access remained.

The Committee considered that the proposal would constitute overdevelopment and an unacceptable impact on amenity for existing residents. The space was still used by local residents and the proposal would take away a vital facility. The development was believed to be inappropriate for the space.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, against officer recommendation, on the ground of overdevelopment and loss of amenity in accordance with policy CS16 of the adopted Core Strategy. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is REFUSED.

Reasons for the decision

The proposal was unacceptable having regard to planning policy CS16 as it was considered to represent overdevelopment and would result in the loss of residential amenity.

The planning application was for the demolition of an existing garage block on the land to the rear of 30 and 32 Furze Ride, Dogsthorpe and the construction of one two-bed affordable dwellings including external works with parking.

The main considerations were:

·         Principle of development;

·         Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area;

·         Parking and highway implications;

·         Neighbourhood amenity;

·         Amenity provision for future occupants;

·         Developer contributions.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to the signing of a legal agreement and conditions.

The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The site was close to existing facilities and, as such, was considered to be sustainable.

·         The development would help meet the affordable housing need.

·         The applicant could demolish the garages currently on the site without planning permission.

·         No objection had been raised by Highways Officers.

·         Although no other dwellings front this part of the street the proposal was not out of keeping with the general pattern of development in the area. The proposal was also acceptable in terms of design.

·         There would be an impact on surrounding residences’ amenity, however this was considered to be acceptable given the separation distances between dwellings.

·         Section 106 contributions would be £1,000.

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

·         There was a minimal number of other garages in the surrounding and to remove these would result in a significant reduction in parking amenity.

·         If development were to happen, one dwelling on the site was considered acceptable.

The Committee considered that the gain of one dwelling did not outweigh the loss of amenity that would result from the proposed development.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, against officer recommendation, on the ground of overdevelopment and loss of amenity in accordance with policy Cs16 of the adopted Core Strategy. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is REFUSED.

Reasons for the decision

The proposal was unacceptable having regard to planning policy CS16 as it was considered to represent overdevelopment and would result in the loss of residential amenity.

The planning application was for the demolition of an existing garage block on the land to the rear of 264 and 266 Eastern Avenue, Dogsthorpe and the construction of two two-bed affordable dwellings including external works with parking.

The main considerations were:

·         Principle of development;

·         Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area;

·         Parking and highway implications;

·         Neighbourhood amenity;

·         Amenity provision for future occupants;

·         Developer contributions.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to the signing of a legal agreement and conditions.

The Planning and Development Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The site was close to existing facilities and, as such, was considered to be a sustainable.

·         The development would help meet the affordable housing need

·         The applicant could demolish the garages currently on the site without planning permission.

·         The dwellings had been reduced from the original submission to be more modest in size.

·         There would be no impact on the street scene.

·         There would be an impact on surrounding residences’ amenity, however this was considered to be acceptable given the separation distances between dwellings.

·         Section 106 contributions would be £2,000.

·         Three comments had been received from residents with regards to overshadowing, the loss of garages and privacy.

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

·         Councillor Saltmarsh and Councillor Miners strongly objected to this application.

·         The site was completely surrounded by residences and parking would be significantly reduced.

·         Rear access would be lost for 109 and 111 Poplar Avenue.

·         Cross Keys Homes had not carried out proper consultation or informed the garage owners of the applications.

·         The proposals would have an overbearing impact on the residences, with the proposed buildings having moved closer to the gardens of existing properties and with additional windows.

Mr Henson addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Cross Keys Homes has specifically told him that no building would take place on this site in the near future.

·         People who were applying for garages were being told that none were available, even though only ten were let on this site.

·         He would have a 20 foot high brick wall at the bottom of his garden.

·         The traffic problem in Eastern Avenue would be exacerbated.

·         It was suggested that bungalows would be more appropriate, as there would be less overlooking.

·         Concern was raised over how ambulances and emergency vehicles would gain access to the properties.

·         Concern was also raised regarding whether the correct procedure would be followed when removing the asbestos roofs.

The Committee raised the point that even if the garages were demolished, the space would still be available to use as parking. It was believed that the proposals plainly resulted in an unacceptable impact on residents. It was noted that such a development should not be shoe-horned into an established community.

In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.6

The planning application was for the erection of a foodstore with associated car parking and landscaping on the land adjacent to Haddon House, Brickburn Close, Hampton Centre.

The main considerations were:

·         Principle of Development;

·         The Sequential Test;

·         The National Planning Policy Framework;

·         Cycle Parking;

·         Car Parking;

·         Impact on nearby residents;

·         Design;

·         Drainage;

·         Sustainability;

·         Air Quality and Contamination;

·         Section 106 Legal Agreement.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused.

The Planning and Development Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         47 letters of support of the application had been received, with many residents supporting the introduction of an alternative to Tesco.

·         There was no objection to the principle of development in Hampton, however national guidance directed such development to local centres.

·         The development needed to pass the sequential test, or it should be refused. It was considered that a more appropriate undeveloped site was ‘available’ in the local centre.

·         The alternative site was included in the Site Allocations DPD, included retail use and was not subject to a current applicant. As such, it was considered available by officers.

·         Many of the reasons for refusal could be overcome by conditions, however the Highways Authority had objected to the design of the access and insufficient parking.

·         The update report included a parking survey carried out by the applicant. The number or car parking spaces to be provided on the site had been increased to 98.

The Senior Engineer advised that the junction proposed to access the site had originally been designed for low key use. The alteration proposed to change the ‘nose’ of the junction would result in HGV’s moving into the next lane to manoeuvre out. It was unclear whether there was a solution to this problem, as such the Highway Authority objected to the proposal.

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

·         He supported the application and believed that it would bring further jobs and income to the city.

·         Residents were clearly in favour of the application.

·         The reasons for refusal were technical, but not practical. The site presented as an alternative by officers was not available, in the sense that the owners of the site would not sell it and would be more appropriate for a town square or cinema development.

·         A development on the alternative site would not be viable because of the competition from Tescos.

·         Within the sequential test, all three categories – availability, suitability and viability – were questionable for the alternative site.

·         The applicants were prepared to offer a local labour agreement within their proposals.

·         It was not anticipated that any congestion problems would result from the proposals and all deliveries would be carried out at night.

·         Any future planning applications for residential dwellings near the proposed site would need to consider any permission granted for a foodstore.

·         Access from the A15 was possible. However, for a development on the alternative site, access through Hampton  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.7

The Committee received a report which outlined the Planning Service’s planning compliance performance and activity, and identified any lessons to be learnt from the actions taken.

The Planning and Development Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following points:

·         Within the cases closed in the past eight weeks 86% were found to have no breach.

·         97% of service requests were acknowledged within three working days, above the target.

·         98% of site inspections were carried out within seven days of acknowledgement, above the target.

·         Enforcement cases to note included a building in a back garden being demolished, the termination of an unauthorised car wash and the reduction of a rear extension.

RESOLVED that the Committee noted the past performance and outcomes.