Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Harper. Councillor Rush was in attendance as a substitute.

Councillor Hiller declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 6 as he would be involved in later decision making, and would not be voting on the item.

Councillor Rush declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5.2 as Ward Councillor, however he had not been involved in the application and his position would not impact upon his decision.

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2014 were approved as a correct record.

The planning application was for the erection of a two bed dwelling and associated parking on the land to the rear of 26 to 30 Vergette Street, Eastfield. The application was part retrospective.

The main considerations were:

·         The principle of the proposed dwelling

·         The impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the immediate locality

·         Highway safety implications

·         The impact of the proposals upon the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         A previous incarnation of the application, for two flats over three floors, had been refused on the grounds of design, access, highways and neighbour amenity.

·         The proposal now before Committee included windows, sills and brickworks that tied in with the surrounding area. The development also provided nine car parking spaces.

·         The site had approved planning permission for three car parking spaces off the street, which required cars to reverse directly into the road. It was considered that the proposed access would be an improvement on this situation and, as such, a five metre wide access was believed to be sufficient.

·         Highways were concerned about visibility surrounding the site access and had put forward several conditions in the update report. Officers were happy to include these conditions in the recommendation.

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

·         The site in question was previously a garage and garden space. There was no other open space on the street.

·         The parking provided would be insufficient for existing properties.

·         Large trees had already been removed from the site.

·         The proposal would have been classed as a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) if it had not been restricted to two stories.

·         The surrounding area was largely rented with prevalent anti-social behaviour and recent violence.

·         The road was one of the narrowest in the Peterborough district.

·         Many residents objected, as did the MP. Councillor Peach was sure that the police and fire departments had concerns too.

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

·         The proposal before Committee was vastly different to the application previously refused.

·         The development would provide for a modest family home and was a sensitive and consistent in-fill.

·         A single house would complement the surrounding area and would provide off street parking. The development did not constitute an HMO.

·         The upgrades proposed for the car park would reduce noise and allow cars to leave the site in forward gear.

·         Residents had spoken to Councillor Shearman is support of the application, however questioned whether conditions could be added in relation to ensuring residents used the rear car park and not an on street permit, and whether it was possible to restrict the alteration of the property into  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The planning application was for the erection of 33 dwellings and the associated access on the land to the south of Oakdale Avenue, Stanground.

The main considerations were:

·         Principle of development

·         Connections to other developments within the urban design

·         Layout, design and amenity provision

·         Highway safety and parking

·         Contamination

·         Archaeology

·         Drainage

·         Developer contributions

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

The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The proposal was contrary to policy in three ways.

·         The development site was allocated for employment use. It was considered acceptable for residential development as the site comprised less that 0.5% of the employment use allocation and, as such, its loss would not be of significant detriment.

·         The proposal would not provide any affordable housing contribution. £200,000 of the Section 106 funding would instead contribute to the building of a sports pavilion, which had been identified as a high priority. The entire of the Cardea scheme had already provided 251 units of affordable housing.

·         The site did not make provision for any open space, however the site was adjacent to a play area. It was considered that there was no merit in requesting further additional open space be provided.

The Committee discussed their concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing. The Head of Development and Construction clarified that £200,000 that would have been allocated by the Council to affordable housing provision, would now be allocated to the provision of a sports pavilion. As such, the same level of contribution would be made by the applicant, however the priorities for its use had been differently evaluated.

The Committee were satisfied with the development proposals and were content that where departures from Council policy occurred, it was not to significant detriment.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried, nine voting in favour, one abstaining from voting.

RESOLVED: (nine voted in favour, one abstained from voting) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the signing of a LEGAL AGREEMENT and the conditions set out in the reports.

Reasons for the decision

Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

?       whilst the proposal would result in the loss of an allocated employment site, as set out in Policy SA9.2 of the Peterborough Site Allocations DPD (2012), the most up-to-date monitoring report identifies that the loss of 1.2 hectares would still ensure an adequate supply of land to meet the plan-period, in accordance with Policy CS3 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011);

?       the application site was considered an appropriate location for residential development which would provide good connections to the wider South Stanground Urban Extension, in accordance with Policies  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Committee received a report which informed them of an application received to register land at Longthorpe playing field as a town or village green.

It was officer’s recommendation that the Committee approve the appointment of an Independent Inspector to advise the Council in respect of the application to register Longthorpe field as a town and village green, to hold a public inquiry into the application and to make recommendations to the Council as to its determination.

The Planning and Highways Lawyer provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         Copies of the application received to register land as a town or village green were available, as it had not been included in the agenda. A summary of the application had been provided in the report.

·         Council was required to determine the application. As the Council was the land owner, it was considered more appropriate for an Independent Investigator to consider the application.

·         Two additional representations had been received, including an email from the applicant supporting the appointment of an Independent Investigator however suggesting a proviso for relevant parties to undertake discussion prior to any formal process commencing.

·         It was advised that such discussions had already been held and had been unsuccessful.

·         If an Independent Investigator was appointed, the process could be halted if a compromise was reached between parties at any time.

Keith Markham, Peter Larke and Brian White, Headteacher, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         There were disputes of fact between the parties involved which could only be resolved by an Independent Inspector. The appointment of such a person was supported.

·         A compromise could be reached, however it was not believed a proviso as suggested by the applicant was appropriate.

·         Public safety was a significant issue within the application. Children playing on an open field were at risk from dogs. The current situation was not safe, but tolerated.

·         The fencing proposed by the school was sensible and would include a gate so use by the community could continue out of school hours.

·         Splitting the field in half, as had been suggested, was not a practical solution.

·         The application was not reflective of the neighbourhood, as such significant objection had been registered.

·         The field was not known as Longthorpe Field, but as Longthorpe Primary School Field.

David Leeham and Darren Elding, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·          A petition against the erection of fencing on the field had been signed by 150 residents and the field was used by children within the local community.

·         Statements had been gathered establishing the use of the field as a common for the past 20 years.

·         The objections submitted did not address the evidence within the application.

·         The 2013 Ofsted report had concluded that the safety of the school was acceptable.

·         While the appointment of an Independent Inspector was not objected to in principle, there was not considered to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.