Agenda and minutes

No apologies for absence were received.

Councillor Harrington, in relation to agenda item 5.2 ‘15/01624/FUL – Peakirk Cum Glinton Voluntary Aided Primary School, School Lane, Glinton, Peterborough’, declared that his granddaughter attended the school. He advised that he was not, however, predetermined.

No Member declarations of intention to make representations as Ward Councillor were received.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2015 were approved as a correct record.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

The planning application was for the demolition of the existing temporary mobile unit at Peakirk Cum Glinton Voluntary Aided Primary School, School Lane, Glinton, and to replace it with a new permanent nursery facility.

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:

·         The previous application on this site had been refused on the grounds of poor design.

·         Discussions had been had with the school, who did not have sufficient funding to place the development in an alternative location, as preferred by Ward Councillors and the Parish Council.

·         The views from the neighbouring residences were not considered acceptable.

·         Councillor Holdich suggested that the Committee defer the application in order for discussions to be had with the project officer in terms of budget, materials and location. It was believed that this would allow for a proposals that could be supported.

·         Councillor Johnson suggested that the new proposal was larger and closer to neighbouring residences than the previously refused scheme.

·         It was noted that the Parish Council would support a design that fit in to the character of the area. It was believed that this design went against the village design statement, and granting permission would set a dangerous precedent.

Leigh Titman, 3 School Lane, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Titman claimed that the proposed development would sit 6 metres away from his house, and 1 metre away from his boundary.

·         It was believed that the height differences between the development site Mr Titman’s land, which was 0.5 metres lower, would affect the acceptable distances.

·         No approach had been made by the applicant to discuss the proposals.

·         It was believed that the design was inappropriate and that permission should not be granted purely because the applicant was a school.

·         It was suggested that a lack of funding did not mean that inappropriate materials should be used.

John Rowlatt and Rob Diamond, Agents, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         In response to previous comments, it was advised that Mr Titman had not been approached in relation to the new designs because of the sensitive nature of the application.

·         The development was of a single storey design. As such, the footprint of the proposal had increased in comparison to the previous application.

·         The lowest possible roof pitch had been used. The materials used, in order to keep in character with the area, meant that there was a limit on how low the pitch of the roof could go.

·         Mr Diamond advised that the facility was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Councillor Lane left the Committee at this point.

The planning application was for the removal of condition C1 (Permitted Use) of Planning Permission 14/02238/WCPP and the change of use to a dog grooming business.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and update report. The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report.

Councillor Thacker and John Dadge, Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Councillor Thacker advised the Committee that there was sufficient parking at the site and room available for vehicles to turn.

·         The applicant ensured that dogs were dropped off and that there was a fifteen minute break between each appointment.

·         No complaints had been made since the introduction of the temporary permission.

·         Mr Dadge advised the Committee that the applicant’s business was operated meticulously and professionally.

·         CCTV footage was available and animals were logged in and out. Notification was provided to clients in relation to the business procedure and expectations.

·         It was considered that the applicants wished to secure the business as soon as possible, as such were applying for a permanent permission with considerable time left on their previous temporary permission. 

The Committee discussed whether the proposed permission was personal to the applicant was in relation to the site. The Head of Development and Construction advised that the current proposal was site related.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation, with the amendment of condition 1 to make the permission personal to the applicant. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report and update report, and the amendment of condition 1 to make the permission personal to the applicant.

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 granting of a permanent planning permission subject to all other restrictive conditions would not result in an unacceptable level of harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupants and as such, the proposal was in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012); and

·         Adequate parking provision was provided for the use and a permanent planning permission would not result in an unacceptable risk to highway safety, in accordance with Policy CS14 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policies PP12 and PP13 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).