Agenda item

The planning application was for the construction of a two storey side extension on the land adjacent to 2 St Martins Street, Millfield, Peterborough, comprising a retail (Class A1) unit on the ground floor and one two-bed residential unit on the first floor.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the report. The Development Management Manager provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report and update sheet.

Iqbal Haiderzada, Resident, Roy Hirons and Sarah Kennedy, Millfield Medical Centre, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Iqbal Haiderzada owned the neighbouring shop and had submitted his concerns regarding unloading and loading of deliveries. The site of the application had previously been used as an off-road delivery area of up to eight pallets at a time. These deliveries could take up to an hour to complete.

·         It was suggested that the development would block Mr Haiderzada’s guttering and fire exit.

·         Sarah Kennedy explained that the area faced real parking problems and that issues had also arisen in respect of bin storage and litter.

·         The Millfield Medical Centre and surrounding building was very busy with entry and exit already a problem for users.

·         Roy Hirons advised that a significant about of litter was present in the area and raised concerns about where the bins for the development would be stored.

·         Mr Haiderzada suggested that, if the application was approved, he would be forced to close his shop. Mr Haiderzada believed that, under land registration, he had the right to park up to one vehicle on the proposal site if it was available.

·         Ms Kennedy believed that an additional shop would have an impact on the current traffic situation.

The Development Management Manager advised that a land registry check had been undertaken and that Mr Haiderzada did not have any right of access over the application site, however did have access to maintain the drainage.

The Committee discussed the application and raised concerns about the busy street adjacent to the application site and how this would be impacted with potential facing bin storage and on road unloading. It was considered that the proposed window provision for the second bedroom was insufficient, and would impact of the amenity of residents.

An alternative view was discussed, that the proposal would positively impact the area. It was commented that parking difficulties were typical of inner city developments. It was noted that the agent had identified the rear of the site for bin storage.

It was suggested that the proposals would cause and already built up, commercial area to become overdeveloped.

The Development Management Manager advised that the there was sufficient space at the rear of the proposal to store the bins. However, due to the size of the commercial bins in use and the narrow nature of the access way, it would not be possible to move the bins from the back of the property to the front for collection.

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

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out below.

Reasons for the decision

The proposal was unacceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and for the specific reasons given in the report.