Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Martin.

Councillor Casey declared his intention to make a representation as Ward Councillor on agenda item 5.2 14/01631/FUL – Herlington House, Benyon Grove, Orton Malborne, Peterborough.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 October 2014 were approved as a correct record.

The Committee agreed to consider agenda item 5.2 14/01631/FUL – Herlington House, Benyon Grove, Orton Malborne, Peterborough first, as the only item on the agenda with members of the public wishing to speak.

Councillor Casey retired from the Committee.

The planning application was for construction of an office building and associated external works at Herlington House, Benyon Grove. The application also included alterations to windows and doors at Herlington House and associated external works (relating to the change of use to flats).

The main considerations were:

·         Principal of development

·         Site History

·         Access and Parking

·         Design

·         Impact on nearby residents

·         Security

·         Bin Store

·         Sustainability

·         Section 106

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:

·         The existing building had planning permission for the change of use to residential flats. The current application sought permission for the physical changes in relation to this use.

·         Also included in the application was a proposal for a single storey office building within the existing car park, which included a pathway to the existing building.

·         The access to the car park would be narrowed, however would remain wide enough for two vehicles to park. The access was six metres on either side.

·         A bin store was proposed to service the office and flats.

·         High levels of representation had been received in objection to the application. These were namely in relation to the proposed access, which was shared with the church.

·         No objection had been received from Highways and the access width, storage and design of the proposal was considered satisfactory.

·         A letter had been received from the church advising that they would be contacting the application regarding their access rights.

Councillor North declared a non-pecuniary interest in the item, as he was acquainted with parishioners of the church next to the application site. He had not expressed an opinion on this application and did not consider himself to be pre-determined.

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

·         The principal of development was not objected to.

·         The proposal would improve the visual amenity of the area and was expected to aid in reducing the level of crime experience in the locality.

·         Many of the objections raised were non-material planning considerations.

·         The Councillor previous had concerns regarding the appropriateness of the proposals siting, however these had been addressed within the officer’s report.

·         It was considered that the development would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the neighbours, i.e. the church.

·         It was perceived that larger vehicles would no longer be able to access the church, including coaches. It was asked whether Highways officers could confirm if coaches and collection vehicles could access the church and, if not, if the bus stop lay-by could be used for coaches.

·         The access for the coach needed to be addressed, whether this be access through the car park or a nearby drop off area.

·         There were regular coach trips from the church, which departed from the entrance.

Councillor Okonkowski, Ward Councillor, addressed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Councillor Casey re-joined the Committee and Councillor Harrington retired.  

The planning application was for the variation of condition C6 on Planning Permission 12/01154/WCPP – Change of use from builders yard to mixed use builders yard and plant hire at Milton Builders and Groundwork’s, Werrington Bridge Road, Milking Nook. Also included in the application was the removal of five free standing storage containers from the existing building and groundwork’s compound, construction of a steel clad building and the siting of two Portakabins.

The main considerations were:

·         Parking and highway implications

·         Neighbour amenity

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:

·         The site had been previously granted permission by the Committee for the application, and a variation of condition had been sought.

·         The area of the site in question currently had permission for storage of shipping containers and plant and machinery for hire.

·         It was proposed that this area now hold three goods vehicles.

·         The existing items stored in the area in question would be moved elsewhere on site, which already had all the necessary permissions for storage.

·         The proposal was of a small scale and would not result in any harm.

The Committee discussed whether this application should have returned to the Committee, or have been delegated to officers. Several Members of the Committee stated that it was proper for the Committee to consider the application.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.

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:

-       The proposed variation would not result in any undue impact upon the safety of the public highway, in accordance with Policy CS14 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP12 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012); and

-       The proposal would not result in any unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupants, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).

The Committee agreed to consider agenda item 5.3 – Enforcement Action in Stanground Central Ward after agenda item 8 – Planning Compliance Quarterly report on Activity and Performance July to September 2014.

Councillor Harrington re-joined the Committee. 

The Committee received a report which provided information on the report of the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) that investigated a complaint regarding the enforcement of landscaping conditions at the development at 157-161 Fletton Avenue (Palace Gardens).

It was officer’s recommendation that the Committee note the Ombudsman’s report and the actions proposed to address the Ombudsman’s report.

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

·          A complaint was received regarding the absence of soft landscaping on the 157-161 Fletton Avenue development.

·         The response from the Council highlighted that the layout plan showed low level planting, however the wording of the condition required, not that soft landscaping must be provided, but that any soft landscaping on the site should be submitted to the Council.

·         The complaint was referred to the Local Government Ombudsman, who concluded that a breach of condition had occurred and that the condition in question was poorly worded.

·         This conclusion had been accepted by the Council and action was being taken to ensure that conditions attached to planning permission were fit for purpose, only used if the application would otherwise be unacceptable and that consideration was given to the expected success of prosecution if a condition was not complied with.

·         It would be made clear in any decision notice that, if landscaping was not considered critical, it would not be required. This would prevent any mismatch between conditions and lay out plans.

The Committee discussed the report and suggested that the issue should have been brought back to Committee sooner. The Committee were reassured that officers had learnt a lesson from this experience and appropriate action was now being taken.

RESOLVED that:

1.    the Ombudsman’s report be noted; and

2.    the actions proposed to address Ombudsman’s report be noted.

Reasons for the decision

The development had a history of legal challenges and complains and therefore it was appropriate for the matter to be brought to the notice of the Committee.

The Committee received a report which provided a Model Code to ensure best practice in the conduct of decision making by members of the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee, and to assist all members in dealing with planning matters.

It was officer’s recommendation that the Model Council Members Planning Code or Protocol be adopted by the Committee.

The Planning and Highways Lawyer provided an overview of the report and emphasised that the Model Code was a national code and was considered to be the best practice approach.

RESOLVED: that the Committee adopted the Model Council Members Planning Code or Protocol and thereby replaced the relevant paragraphs in the Constitution, which shall be renumbered accordingly.

Reasons for the decision

The Model Code provided best practice for members at all times when involving themselves in the planning process.

The Committee received a report which provided an overview of the Planning Service’s planning compliance performance and activity, and identified if there were any lesson to be learnt from the actions taken.

It was officer’s recommendation that the Committee note past performance and outcomes.

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

·          The number of complaints received, 156, was not considered out of the ordinary.

·         The balance of complaints resolved, 140, was considered appropriate.

·         Five enforcement notices had been served and four of these had been complied with.

·         One prosecution, in relation to R & P Meats, was to be heard by the courts on 19 November. The Committee would receive an update as to the result of this.

In response to a question, the Head of Development and Construction explained that the 10% decrease in cases closed within 8 weeks if no breach was found, was due to several high profile cases demanding officer time and was not expected to be a long term trend.

A Member of the Committee suggested that the Cumulative Compliance Performance target should be set at 90% rather than 80%, which was noted by the Head of Development and Construction.

RESOLVED: that past performance and outcomes be noted.

Reasons for the decision

To help inform future decisions and potentially reduce costs.

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee, the Planning and Highways Lawyer advised that the agenda item 5.3 - Enforcement Action in Stanground Central Ward report contained information that could later be used in court.

RESOLVED: that agenda item 5.3 - Enforcement Action in Stanground Central Ward, which contained exempt information like to identify an individual or company where prosecution was being considered, as defined by Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 12A of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1972, should be exempt and the press and public excluded from the meeting when this item was discussed and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information.

As agreed the meeting moved into exempt session.

The Committee was asked to consider enforcement action in relation to development that had not taken place in accordance with planning conditions, under Part 3 Section 2.5.4.3 of the Constitution.

It was officer’s recommendation that no enforcement action be taken. The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the report.

The Committee discussed the report and future use of planning conditions.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that no enforcement action be taken, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that no enforcement action be taken.

Councillor Harrington declared his intention to withdraw from the Committee during agenda item 5.1 14/01558/WCPP – Milton Builders and Groundworks, Werrington Bridge Road, Milking Nook, Peterborough, as he considered himself to be pre-determined.