Agenda and minutes

No apologies for absence were received.

The Chairman advised that an urgent report had been submitted to the Committee. This report would be heard after agenda item 5.4 ‘14/02145/FUL – 17 Castor Road, Marholm, Peterborough, PE6 7JA’.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of intention to make representations as Ward Councillor.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 2015 were approved as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2015 were approved as a correct record.

The planning applications were for and extension at Guthrie House, Rightwell, East Bretton, Peterborough to create 13 new flats (14/01791/FUL) and the alterations to elevations of existing two story blocks of flats at Guthrie House, Rightwell, East Bretton, Peterborough, and the creation of a lobby (14/02078/FUL).

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·         Principle of development

·         Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area

·         Landscape implications

·         Parking, access and highway implications

·         Neighbour amenity

·         Amenity provision for future occupants

·         Developer contributions

·         Environment Capital

·         The impact of the proposal on the character of the area

·         The impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permissions be granted subject to, in relation to application 14/01791/FUL, the signing of a legal agreement, and the conditions set out in the respective reports.

The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the applications and raised the following key points:

·         The existing blocks were undergoing conversion to residential flats under the Prior Approval process.

·         The proposals were not considered to have an adverse impact on the character of the streetscene, even though the proposed materials would be slightly different from those used in the existing buildings.

·         It was in line with Council policy to encourage residential development within district centres, as sustainable locations.

·         Concern had been raised in relation to the size of the proposal. It was considered by officers that the proposal fitted in with the other buildings in the locality and sufficient separation distances would be in place.

·         16 category A and B trees were to be removed within the development. It was considered that as a gap in the tree cover already existing and there was sufficient number of trees in the surrounding area the landscaping of the proposal was acceptable.

·         The car parking provided in the proposal adhered to Council policy. It was believed that as the site was within a district centre, in a sustainable location and with parking available nearby in public car parks, visitor parking was not required.

·         Objections had been raised in relation to expected increases in traffic from the site. It was considered that the proposal would not present an unacceptable increase in traffic given the original office use.

·         A pedestrian crossing existed further along the road from the development site. As such, no additional crossing point was believed to be necessary.

Councillor David Neville, Bretton Parish Councillor, and Councillor Herdman, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         It was suggested that the height and position of the proposal failed to respect the established character of the area.

·         The loss of trees would cause the development to be unduly dominant.

·         Pedestrian crossing on the road was already thought to be difficult and dangerous. It was believed that the development would exacerbate this.

·         Any residential development should be within the existing building block. Any extension was not necessary.

·         The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

See above.

Councillor Serluca left the meeting.

The planning application was for the erection of up to nine dwellings at the rear of 38 Station Road, Thorney, Peterborough.

The main considerations set out in the report were:

·         Principle of development, including flood risk

·         Density and layout

·         Access and highway implications

·         Impact upon the setting of heritage assets and archaeology

·         Neighbour amenity

·         Amenity provision for future occupants

·         Tree and landscape implications

·         Drainage

·         Developer contributions

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 raised the following key points:

·         The existing vehicular access to the site was proposed to be maintained, which was bounded by properties owned by the applicant.

·         The land to the north of the application site had been granted outline permission for residential dwellings.

·         The application site was designated as flood zone 3A, which was the highest risk level. As residential housing was classed as ‘vulnerable’ use, the sequential test had to be applied. The results of the test undertaken by the agent deemed the location to pass this test. Officers had undertaken their own sequential test, taking into account a wider range of sites, including those that had been previously rejected by the Council in the allocation process. Following this, the application was considered to fail the sequential test.

·         It was considered that up to nine dwellings could be constructed on the site, which would fit in with the surrounding area and have no detrimental impact.

·         No objections had been raised from the North Level Internal Drainage Board (NLIDB), the Environmental Agency (EA), or the Highway Authority.

·         Conditions had been recommended by the by Tree Officers and the Drainage Team.

·         Included in the update report was a letter from the applicant’s agent, disputing the interpretation by officers of the sequential test. Also included was submission of support for the application from Ward Councillor Sanders.

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

·         The Councillor agreed with the comments expressed in the report by the Parish Council and supported the application.

·         Significant investment had been made into the flood barriers at Thorney. It was considered unlikely that the site would flood.

·         The land adjacent to the proposal site had been approved by the Committee for development. The same flood risks applied to that land as to the application site.

·         The site had never been known to flood.

Mr John Dickie, John Dickie Associates, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         On all other matters the proposal was considered acceptable. The only reason given to refuse the application was flooding.

·         No objections had been raised by internal or external consultees.

·         A flood risk assessment had been undertaken and approved by the EA and the NLIDB.

·         Appropriate measures could be put in place to mitigate the risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The planning application was for a proposed three bedroom detached dwelling with associated driveway at 17 Castor Road, Marholm, Peterborough, PE6 7JA.

The main considerations set out in the report were:

·         Principle of residential development

·         Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area and heritage assets

·         Neighbour amenity

·         Access, parking and highway implications

·         Tree implications

·         Archaeology

·         Development contributions

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

The Development Management Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The development site was located in a prominent position on the edge of a conservation area.

·         The proposed dwelling would be in the same building line as the existing dwellings.

·         The proposal would be set at an angle away from the neighbouring property on Walton Road and would share the existing vehicular access with the host property.

·         The neighbouring property on Walton Road would be 5 metres away, with a 1.2 metre boundary fence. The residents of neighbouring property had objected on the grounds that they would lose the use of their kitchen window.

·         The host property would be 5.4 metres away and would lose some natural light during the morning time.

·         Officers considered that the design of the proposal would positively enhance the immediate environment and fill an existing gap.

·         It was considered that the proposed dwelling’s siting within the plot would provide sufficient space and avoid any overbearing impact.

·         It was not considered that an increase of one dwelling would cause a significant intensification of use of the proposed access point.

The Committee generally approved of the design and access to the proposal. However, the Committee expressed concern regarding the impact the proposal would have on the neighbouring property on Walton Road. It was considered that the impact would be significant and that any privacy afforded to the property would be lost. The Committee believed the level of impact to be unacceptable.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, contrary to officer recommendation, for the reasons of overbearing impact and loss of privacy. 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 considered to have an overbearing impact and resulted in the loss of privacy of neighbouring properties. As such, the proposal was in contravention of policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy (DPD) 2011 and policy PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies (DPD) 2012.

Councillor Serluca re-joined the meeting.

The Committee received an urgent report which outlined an application for a notice pursuant to Section 211 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for works to a tree in a conservation area. The work proposed was to reduce the branches of a holly tree at 333 Thorpe Road, Peterborough to provide 0.5 metres clearance on a property.

Section 211 provided that the work would be deemed as authorised and work may be carried out after the expiry of six weeks from the date of the notice, if no decision was made by the Local Planning Authority. The period of six weeks from the submission of the notice would come to an end prior to the next meeting of the Committee. Therefore, the matter required consideration by the Committee as an urgent item.

It was officer’s recommendation that no objections be raised to the application. The Tree Officer provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The application related to minor pruning of a holly tree within a conservation area.

·         The tree in question was next to the property window and almost reached the guttering.

·         The tree was not considered to be worthy of a Tree Protection Order.

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

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that no objections are raised to the application.

Reasons for the decision

       The proposal was in accordance with sound arboricultural practice.

The Committee received a report which set out the proposals of Network Rail to close a number of level crossings on the East Coast Main Line (ECML) between London and Doncaster as part of a programme to make the line more efficient and reliable. The report sought the Committee’s views on the comments made in relation to each proposal and any further comments the Committee wished to make. Planning permission would not be required from Peterborough City Council and, as such, the Council would not be the determining authority. The Council would be a consultee, alongside other organisations such as English Heritage and the Environmental Agency.

Within Peterborough, the closure of the following level crossings was proposed;

·         Woodcroft (Woodcroft Road to the southeast of Helpston)

·         Helpston (Glinton Road, Helpston)

·         Maxey (Maxey Road, Helpston)

·         Lolham Bridges and Helpston Footpath (north of B1443 and NE of Bainton)

It was officer’s recommendation that Committee note the contents of the report and offer any additional comments it would like to make to Network Rail at this stage.

The Development Manager provided an overview of the report and outlined the comments that officers were able to make at the current time.

The Chairman invited representatives of Network Rail to respond to questions from the Committee. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         National Rail had tried to engage with as many groups as possible in their consultation process. This included cycle forums and walking groups.

·         Consultation was still on going.

·         The review was not driven by an increase in line speed. The alterations set out in the consultation would be able to facilitate increased speed, however such a proposal would require its own consultation process.

·         Traffic modelling was currently being undertaken. It was suggested that mitigation measures may be required to ensure that traffic is diverted away from villages.

·         More information would be provided in due course.

The Committee commented that traffic modelling would be vital to ensure that any diverted traffic would not cause congestion in the surrounding villages. It was suggested that consideration should be given to the access Lolham Bridges, to ensure that the site did not become a ‘dumping ground’.

RESOLVED that the contents of the report and comments of the Committee are noted.