Agenda item

The planning application was for 8 dwellings at 30B Lincoln Road, Glinton, Peterborough.

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 highlighted a number of key issues within the report.

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

·         Glinton’s population was steadily increasing. It was suggested that the last development plan had allocated 50 dwellings to the area as a whole, now there would only be 20.

·         It was not believed that the proposed gates were necessary, as they were not in line with the idea of Glinton being a ‘cohesive village’.

·         It was suggested that the boundary of the site needed to be strengthened in order to preserve neighbouring amenity.

·         Concerns were raised in relation to the ability of refuse vehicles to access the site. If not, vehicles would have to park on Lincoln Road.

·         Councillor Johnson advised that the field was prone to poor drainage.

·         The Parish Council did not wish to have a community within a community.

·         It was noted that Glinton had limited space available to building houses. As such, as much development as possible needed to take place on the land that was available.

Geoffrey Baxter, Applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The proposals were believed to be in line with Glinton Village Design Statement.

·         Mr Baxter had worked with officers to ensure the designed were appropriate.

·         Vehicle access had been previously agreed in the outline permission. The walls and railings were included as a positive feature to improve the visual appearance of the site. Similarly, the gate had been included to break up the long access road and add character.

·         The gate would only be closed during night time hours and would be control through an intercom system within each house.

·         It was not considered that any views of the church would be adversely affected.

·         The neighbouring residences had been approached with regard to boundary treatment. It has been agreed that fencing would be erected to protect privacy and prevent noise.

·         In terms of bin collection, Mr Baxter advised that a management committee would be put in place, involving residents, to oversee such matters. It was understood that officers were happy with arrangements to pick up refuse from the end of the drive.

The Committee discussed the application and raised concerns in relation to bin collection, particularly in light of the potential for further development in the future that would utilise the same access. The Head of Development and Construction advised that the applicants were not obliged to have the drive adopted and that the inability of refuse vehicles to enter the driveway would be considered insufficient grounds on which to refuse the application.

The matter of the proposed gates at the entrance of the site was discussed and the Committee considered that, as the gates were primarily for aesthetic value, there was not resulting detriment. It was further discussed that it was not always possible for developments to deliver the maximum level of dwellings set out in the site allocations and that this was not ground for refusal.

The Committee highlighted the significance of the proposed condition 7, and requested that officers ensure that the boundary treatments proposed were accepted by the neighbouring residents.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation, subject to the conditions set out in the report and update report. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to 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:

·         The application site formed part of a wider allocation under Policy SA6.9 of the Peterborough Site Allocations DPD (2012) and accordingly, the principle of residential development was acceptable;

·         The submitted site layout afforded provision for access to the remaining allocation and as such, would not prejudice future residential development, in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy SA6 of the Peterborough Site Allocations DPD (2012);

·         The demolition of No.30B would not result in any unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance along Lincoln Road in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP2 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

·         The site was of a sufficient size to accommodate the scale of development proposed without resulting in unacceptable harm to the character, appearance or significance of the Glinton Conservation Area and surrounding locality in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), policies CS16 and CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and policies PP2 and PP17 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

·         The desirable number of dwellings allocated for the site was only an indicative figure. As set out in the Site Allocations DPD – developers were encouraged to produce the most appropriate design led solutions and need not be constrained by the indicative dwellings figure. The development was in accordance with policies CS1 and CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy and policy CS8 of the Peterborough Site Allocations DPD

·         The proposed vehicular access would provide safe access into/out of the site and would not result in any unacceptable impact upon 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);

·         The use of a gated access to residential properties was of a feature than a barrier preventing the general public from accessing the site. The gate was to remain open for daylight hours.

·         The use of the proposed vehicular access would not result in any unacceptable impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of the close by residential properties in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy  DPD (2011) and policy PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

·         The site had been surveyed by qualified wildlife specialists and it was found that the site does not contain any protected species. Bat and bird boxes were to be installed around the site in accordance with policy CS21 of the Peterborough Core Strategy and policy PP16 of the Peterborough Planning

·         Policies DPD

·         Adequate surface water and foul drainage would be provided so as to not result in any unacceptable risk of flooding in the locality, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy CS22 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011);

·         Archaeological evaluation would be undertaken to ensure no harm resulted to unidentified buried archaeology, in accordance with 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 development would make a contribution towards the City Council's Environmental Capital Agenda, in accordance with policy CS10 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011); and

The development would make a financial contribution towards the infrastructure demands that the development will generate, in accordance with policies CS12 and CS13 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011)