Agenda and minutes

No apologies for absence were received.

Councillor Harrington declared an interest in agenda item 5.4 ‘15/00019/FUL – 32 Main Street, Ailsworth, Peterborough, PE5 7AF’ as he was acquainted with a Doctor at the practice.

Councillor Hiller declared his intention to make a representation as Ward Councillor for agenda item 5.2 ‘14/01833/FUL – 21 Castle End Road, Maxey, Peterborough, PE6’.

Councillor North declared his intention to make a representation as Ward Councillor for agenda item 5.3 ‘14.02171/FUL – 490 Oundle Road, Orton Longueville, Peterborough, PE2 7DF’.

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

The planning application was for the proposed demolition of farm buildings on land to the east of Manor Farm, Nene Way, Sutton and the construction of five dwellings with associated works.

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·         Principle of development

·         Minerals Safeguarding Area

·         Residential amenity

·         Access and highway implications

·         Character of the area and impact on the Conservation Area

·         Impact on the Listed Building

·         Trees, landscape and ecology

·         Archaeology

·         Sustainability

·         Permitted Development “fall-back” position

·         Developer contributions

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

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

·         Two of the proposed dwellings would front Nene Way, the remaining dwellings would front the new access road.

·         The proposal fell partway outside the village boundary. The boundary had been recently reviewed by an inspector and it had been concluded that the boundary line remain unchanged.

·         The site was situated in a minerals safeguarding area and adjacent to a conservation area.

·         There were a number of agricultural buildings on site, which it was considered blocked the view of the listed building. The chimney of the listed building was believed to be a key feature.

·         Pre-application advice had been provided by the conservation officer in 2013. It was considered in this advice that the replacement of agriculture buildings with permanent dwellings would be positive. This advice was only binding for one year, which had now passed. However, as there had been no change to policy since this advice, it was felt it important to stand by the comments.

·         It was noted that the listed building was ‘set off’ against the agricultural buildings, however the nature of the agricultural building was not part of the listed building setting.

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

·         The development would extend beyond the village envelope and into the countryside. The proposal was not an essential rural activity and was not appropriate within a mineral safeguarding area.

·         The nearby Manor Farm housed livestock and would result in noise and other impacts on the proposed dwellings due to the farmyard use.

·         There would be a resulting impact on the nearby listed buildings. The scale of the proposed dwellings would be detrimental and visually intrusive.

·         The proposal was contrary to a number of Council policies.

Peter Lee, Vice-Chairman of Sutton Parish Council, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The applicants should adhere to the village envelope. The breach of this boundary was not justified by the removal of the old agricultural buildings, this could be achieved with just a frontage development.

·         The development would have a negative impact on the setting of Manor House and would be visually unattractive.

·         Development in the area should be in keeping with the traditional style of the area. A cul-de-sac development would not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The planning application was for the demolition of the existing garage and outbuilding at 21 Castle End Road, Maxey, and the construction of three detached dwellings and garages.

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·         Principle of development

·         Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

·         Neighbouring Amenity

·         Highway Implications

·         Residential Amenity

·         Landscape Implications

·         Ecology

·         Archaeology

·         Food Risk

·         S106

·         Environment Capital

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to 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 proposed access to the development was pre-existing.

·         Although the site was within a conservation area it was considered by officers that the development would improve the view at the side elevation.

·         Within the context of the site’s pervious use as a coal yard the proposals were considered to be acceptable.

·         The design avoided window placement which were overlooking on neighbouring dwellings.

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

·         The local residents were not in objection to development on this site in principle, however did not feel the proposal put forward was appropriate for the area.

·         The Highways Authority had recommended refusal for this application.

·         The neighbouring residents, as a result of the design of the proposals, would experience a loss of privacy.

·         There were concerns regarding overdevelopment, the safety of the second driveway and the impact the proposal would have on the conservation area.

·         It was considered that there was an issue regarding overlooking windows that could be easily overcome with a more appropriate design, in order to maintain privacy.

·         The proposals were thought to be contrary to the Maxey Conservation Area plan. Within the plan there was a presumption against tandem development and subdivision.

·         There were insufficient visibility splays within the proposed second driveway. The comparison made by the applicant to other driveways in the area were false.

David Dixon addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Dixon was representing a number of local residents who believed that a better thought out and more in keeping development was needed for the application site.

·         There was an established presumption against tandem development as per the Maxey appraisal in 2007.

·         It was believed that the proposal would have a negative effect on neighbour amenity. An increase in the number of vehicle movements on the site would create more noise.

·         The proposed driveways were near to neighbouring bedrooms, which was considered to be an unnecessary aspect of the design.

·         It was emphasised that objections had been raised by the Highways Authority.

·         It was suggested that the application would represent overdevelopment of a small site.

The Committee discussed a number of points including what was considered to be a disregard for the village plan and the objection raised by the Highways Authority. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The planning application was for the demolition of existing buildings at 490 Oundle Road, Orton Longueville and the erection of a new convenience food store (Class A1), three detached residential properties, car parking, landscaping and associated works.

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·         Principle of development

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

·         Parking, access and highway safety

·         Neighbour amenity

·         Landscape implications

·         Impact upon heritage assets

·         Contamination

·         Ecology

·         Amenity provision for future occupants

·         Environment Capital contribution

·         Developer contributions

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

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

·         A previous scheme on this site had been submitted and refused. An inspector dismissed the appeal of this decision, as set out in the update report.

·         Issues raised by the inspector in their report were the three separate accesses, the limited space for car movements, overdevelopment, overlooking and the loss of trees under a tree protection order.

·         The application now before the Committee had a smaller site footprint, only two points of access, a reduction in the number of units and greater separation distances.

·         As the inspector was content with the design of the previous submission, it would be difficult to object to this application on design grounds.

·         A condition had been proposed to restrict deliveries on site. It was proposed that heavy goods vehicles would only be permitted to turn left when leaving the site and would only be able to deliver at times avoiding heavy traffic.

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

·         Local views had been sought on this matter and the convenience store was generally opposed in its proposed form, though the housing was not opposed.

·         Concern was raised about the additional traffic which would result.

·         It was suggested that there was insufficient space for delivery vehicles on the site.

·         Oundle Road was a busy road and conditions would be adequate in mitigating the impact of large vehicles nearby the local school.

·         It was considered that the dwellings proposed still constituted overdevelopment and were out of keeping with the surrounding area. It was believed that occupiers of neighbouring properties would suffer from overlooking.

·         It was acknowledged that the site had established use as a garage, which could generate significant amounts of traffic.

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

·         Car parking was considered to be a serious problem. It was a concern that the proposed dwellings only provided sufficient space for one car. One garage space and a space in front of the garage was not practical.

·         It was suggested that reduction in the number of dwellings on the site was the best answer.

Tim Slater addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Councillor Sylvester re-joined the meeting.

The planning application was for a single story flat roof extension to the rear of the doctor’s surgery at 32 Main Street, Ailsworth, Peterborough, PE5 7AF.

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·         Background of Development

·         Character Appearance

·         Area Amenity

·         Highways

·         Trees

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permissions be refused for the reason set out in the report.

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

·         The extension proposed was a single storey rear extension into the garden area.

·         The Highways Authority had objected to the application as there was no parking to be provided on the site. It was believed that the extension would attract extra traffic to the surgery from beyond the village.

·         Ailsworth Parish Council had asked that their representation be considered as in support of the application.

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

·         The proposal was considered to be overdevelopment, out of character and overbearing on Helpston Road residents.

·         Concern was raised on highways grounds as there was no parking on the site, neither currently, nor proposed.

·         If the surgery was aiming to expand and cater to patients outside the village, who would be travelling by car, parking was vital.

·         It was suggested that those supporting the proposal were concerned that without expanding, the funding to the surgery would be lost.

Andrew and Susan Nash addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr and Mrs Nash lived in the property that backed on to the surgery.

·         It was acknowledged that the village benefited from having a medical practice, however the scale and suitability of the proposed extension was called into question.

·         The proposal would extend to 1.5 metres from their boundary and 0.5 metres above the boundary wall.

·         This impact would be increased by the removal of all of the shrubs and trees from the application site.

·         It was not believed that the proposal had been sufficiently thought through and it was suggested that the development was too large for the application site.

The Committee discussed the application and maintained that adequate healthcare provision was important. It was considered, however, that the site was not suitable for the size of extension proposed, which comprised the majority of the existing garden.

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:

R 1           The proposed increase in development and the services offered at Ailsworth Medical Centre as part of this proposed extension were considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The planning application was for ground floor and first floor extension at Rectory House, Castor Road, Marholm, with remodelling.

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·         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 conditions set out in the report.

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

·         The application aimed to be a more energy efficient development, utilising ‘green’ energy.

·         The proposal included raising the roof of the existing dwelling.

·         It was considered that the proposed development would improve shadow of the property in some areas and would mean very little difference in others.

Councillor Holdich, Ward Councillor, and Tim Hawkins, Chairman of Marholm Parish Council, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The Ward Councillor asked for this application to be heard by Committee as the applicants wife was a Parish Councillor. It was considered that this was the best way for the objectors to feel they had a fair opportunity to have their say.

·         Marholm Parish Council were trying to modernise their approach to planning applications and become more transparent. As such, applicats were invited to attend Parish Council meetings to support their application.

·         The Parish Council were pleased with the proposal and were impressed with the ecological credentials of the design.

·         It was confirmed that the wife of the applicant had been excluded from voting on this matter.

·         The Parish Council believed that the shadowing of the development would not be worse than current.

·         The Parish Council considered the application submitted. It was noted that interior could be updated at the same time, the applicant desired, but this was not relevant for the application.

Mr Plant addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The first floor of the proposal ran parallel to Mr Plant’s boundary. It was considered that this would block out areas of light and have an overbearing impact. The application site was higher that the neighbouring land, which would increase the effect.

·         The proposals ran for 14 metres of Mr Plant’s boundary, out of a total of 23 metres. It was believed that the proposals could be sited elsewhere on the property, where they would have less of an effect on neighbour amenity.

·         It was believed that the property could be extended and modernised without having such a detrimental impact on neighbours’ amenity.

David Shaw, Agent, and Jan Maciag, Architect, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The applicants wanted to establish their family home on the application site. The proposal would house a wood burner and other equipment at the rear of the garage.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The planning application was for limestone extraction and restoration on land at Leicester Road, Wansford, Peterborough.

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·         Suitability of the proposal (mineral extraction and infilling with inert material)

·         Noise and dust

·         Landscape and visual impact

·         Biodiversity and Geodiversity

·         Flood risk

·         Archaeology

·         Traffic and Highways

·         Other Issues

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

The Senior Officer Minerals and Waste provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The application added to the eastern series of quarries, with access off A47. The closest residences were Sibberton Lodge and Old Pump House.

·         The proposed extraction of limestone would take place over a five year period and would operate between 7am and 6pm, Monday to Friday and 7am to 1pm, Saturday.

·         It was expected that the development would attract a maximum of 156 vehicle movements a day.

·         It was intended that the land would be restored to agricultural purposes and that the conditions were to be imposed in relation to the environmental impact of the proposal.

·         Conditions were proposed in order to limit and manage the level of noise and dust resulting from the scheme.

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

·         Quarry work had recently been undertaken in the area to the west of the application site. This work had resulted in a number of complaints regarding dust and noise.

·         It was believed that a hydraulic drill would be required to carry out the proposed work.

·         It was suggested that the calculations put forward by the applicant in relation to noise and dust were not factual.

·         Questions were raised as to why work was not scheduled to commence until 2021.

·         The noise levels given in the report were claimed to be unreliable. The noise predicted at the Old Pump House was 46db, equivalent to a library setting, which was not believed to be realistic.

·         Previous quarries at Thornhaugh had registered noise levels of 64 or 65db.

·         It was suggested that noise mitigation measures would only take effect after a year, as it would take this long to dig down far enough to dampen the works noise.

·         Limestone, once extracted, would dry and carry on the wind. It was believed that this would reach residential areas.

·         The number of objections were low, it was suggested, because residents were confident that the Parish Council would sufficiently represent the concerns of the village.

Liam Toland, Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The officer report was commended to the Committee as a reflection of the careful consideration taken in the application.

·         The principle of mineral extraction had been established on the site.

·         An independent review had been undertaken to assess the noise levels and this was accepted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The Committee received a report which outlined the Planning Service’s planning compliance performance and activity which identified if there were any lessons to be learned from the actions taken. The aim was for the Committee to be kept informed of future decisions and potential to reduce costs.

Following questions raised by the Committee the Head of Development and Construction advised that there had been no costs awarded in the Council’s favour, however prosecution was commencing regarding 15 Serlby Gardens.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted past performance and outcomes.