Agenda item

The planning application was for the erection of 14 dwellings to the south of Constantine Drive, Stanground South, Peterborough.

The main considerations set out in the report were:

·         Principle of Development

·         Connections to other developments within the urban extensions

·         Layout, design and amenity provision

·         Highway safety and parking

·         Contamination

·         Archaeology

·         Drainage

·         Development contributions

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, for the reasons set out in the report and update report.

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

·         The application before the Committee was outline in nature, the only detail provided was the access point. This access was identical to the access of a scheme already provided with planning permission.

·         The land had initially been allocated for a Local Centre, specifically a nursery and health centre. No development of this nature had been attracted despite comprehensive advertisement. As such, it was considered that release of the land for residential use was appropriate.

·         No access to the site was planning for directly opposite the nearby school.

·         With the reserved matters application the site would need to adhere to parking standards.

·         Several amendments to conditions were set out in the update report.

·         The Highways Authority had suggested a condition in relation to parking restrictions, however the area in questions was not within the application site, so could not be addressed via condition.

Tim Slater, 3D Planning Ltd, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Slater thanked the planning officers for their excellent service during the application process.

·         It was advised that the manner by which the gate would operate was something that would be considered in the reserved matters stage of the application.

·         A noise consultant had considered the proposals. It was considered that deliveries to local business entered mainly from the south, away from the site.

·         The traffic levels generated from a residential development would be much less than the previously proposed nursery and health centre.

·         A single access had been proposed so that no conflict arose with school traffic.

·         The design and access to dwellings would be determined at the reserved matters stage.

·         Pedestrian access was available around the site to the nearby supermarket.

The Committee considered that many of the matters that caused concern were relevant to the reserved matters stage of the application, not the outline stage. Several members of the Committee expressed concern that traffic with the school may present a problem. It was further noted that a health centre was an important service.

The Head of Development and Construction advised that sufficient work had gone into promoting the site as a health centre and nursery, and no interest had been forthcoming. It was advised that once the road adjacent to the site was adopted, parking restrictions could be put in place.

The Committee suggested that the site would benefit from development, rather than being left empty.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried by eight votes, with two voting against.

RESOLVED: (eight voted in favour, two voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the signing of a LEGAL AGREEMENT and the conditions set out in the report and update 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:

-          whilst the proposal would result in the loss of a portion of the allocated Local Centre, it was not considered that the loss of the land would result in any unacceptable impact to the provision of services and facilities of residents of the Urban Extension;

-          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 CS1 and CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011);

-          the overall density of the proposal would mirror the existing wider development of Cardea, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP2 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

-          the proposal would afford an acceptable level of amenity for future occupants, in accordance with Policy PP4 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

-          the proposal would provide safe access for all users, in accordance with Policy CS14 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP12 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

-          subject to appropriate remediation, the site would not pose any unacceptable risk to human health, in accordance with paragraph 121 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy PP20 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

-          the site had already been subject to archaeological evaluation and it was considered that there was little potential for undiscovered remains, in accordance with paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP17 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

-          the proposal would not result in unacceptable flood risk elsewhere, in accordance with Policy CS22 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011); and

-          the Applicant had agreed to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards the infrastructure demands generated by the proposal, in accordance with Policies CS12 and CS13 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and the Peterborough Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme SPD (2010).