Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors North, Serluca and Sylvester. Councillor Casey was in attendance as substitute.

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council.

No declarations for interest were received.

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

The planning application was for the provision of an in-vessel composting facility at Eyebury Quarry, Eyebury Road and the retention and extension of the existing recycling facility.

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

The Committee were pleased with the officer’s clear and understandable presentation. Following a question from a Committee Member, it was clarified that all food and organic waste would undergo several stages of sanitisation before being safely composted.

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

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Reasons for the decision

The NPPF stated that there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development - in terms of decision taking this meant approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. 

The proposal represented appropriate waste management development outside an allocated area, which would contribute to moving waste up the waste hierarchy and was therefore supported by both the NPPF and local planning policy. The principle of development was in accordance with the waste spatial strategy, as set out in policies CS2, CS14, CS15 and CS18 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core strategy in relation to the provision of in-vessel composting, and recycling, capacity.

An Environmental Statement accompanied the application which was considered comprehensive and met the requirements set out in the Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011.  Detailed topic areas had been assessed/considered.

Two planning applications were presented to Committee. 15/00229/MMFUL sought the restoration of part of the quarry at Cooks Hole, Leicester Road, Thornhaugh, to the original ground levels using inert materials and consequential amendments to the restoration scheme. 15/00230/MMFUL sought the continuation of landfilling in phases 1 and 2 at the Thornhaugh Landfill Site, Leicester Road, Thornhaugh. This included consequential amendments to the phasing scheme, relocation of the site roads and infrastructure, including the landfill gas flare, minor amendments to the final restoration contours, continued periodic use of the crushing and processing plant and the deferment of the dates of the cessation of landfilling, and final restoration by 6 years.

It was officer’s recommendation that both planning permissions be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report. The Senior Officer Minerals and Waste provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the reports.

Gean Wilson addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Dr Wilson advised that the officer report was accurate.

·         It was clarified that the restoration of the site was progressing and that Councillors were more than welcome to visit the site if they wished.

·         The material intended to infill the hole on the site was to be mineral material, which was already present. The surrounding area would be filled with a mixture of low degradable material, with little odour.

·         There would be no toxic ash at the site.

The Committee were content with the established nature of the site and were pleased that conditions had been proposed to address dust and noise issues. It was considered that the applicant was to be praised for decontaminating the land fully.

15/00229/MMFUL

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

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Reasons for the decision

The NPPF stated that there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development - in terms of decision making this meant approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. The principle of development was clearly in accordance with policy SSP W2 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals DPD which allocated the site for inert landfill, and contributed to the provision of inert landfill capacity as required by Core Strategy policy CS20.

The proposals also enabled the provision of Stable Non-Reactive Hazardous Waste (SNRHW) and non-hazardous wastes at the neighbouring Thornhaugh I landfill, contributing to the aims of Core Strategy policies CS19 and CS21. The proposals also complied with Core Strategy policies CS14 and CS15 in respect of the need and location of waste management facilities.

An Environmental Statement accompanied the application which was comprehensive and met the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Detailed topic areas had been assessed/considered.

The comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

See above.

The planning application was for 6 one-bedroom flats at 1 Grove Street, Woodston, with associated parking and amenity space.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons 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 and update sheet.

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

·         The current use of the site was industrial and residential was considered to be preferable to this.

·         From an historical point of view the surrounding area of the Fletton Towers was better suited to residential development.

·         At the current time the design of the site had windows facing the neighbouring properties. The proposal did not have any windows on that side, so would allow residents greater privacy.

·         It was not considered that overshadowing would be an issue, as the location of the site allowed for a good amount of sunlight.

·         Two of the flats outlined would be set aside for disabled residents and single bedroom flats would not attract families. This was considered to be a good feature for the residential amenity of the area.

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

·         The applicant had retired and wished to convert his business buildings into residential dwellings.

·         Previously a high number of vehicles had utilised the site, this would be reduced within the proposals.

·         The applicant had taken into consideration officer comments and had reduced the development from its 7 x 2 bedroom flat design.

·         There was sufficient space on the site for parking, refuse and gardens.

·         No objections had been received from residents, and response had been positive.

·         It was not considered sensible that the current building was acceptable in terms of amenity, while the proposed dwellings would not be so.

·         The specific design of the development was a topic for a reserved matters application.

The Committee noted that there was potential for overdevelopment on the site, however considered that the proposal was reasonable in size and more appropriate than the current building.

A Member of the Committee expressed concern that the two storey nature of part of the proposal would have an impact on neighbouring residence’s outlooks.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, contrary to officer recommendation, and the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration be granted authority to attached appropriate conditions. This was because the proposal was not considered to impact residential amenity and did not constitute overdevelopment. The motion was carried seven voting in favour, one voting against.

RESOLVED: (seven voted in favour and one voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED and the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration be granted authority to attach appropriate conditions.

Reasons for the decision

The Committee did not believe that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The planning application was for the change of use of Caretakers House, 9 The Pentlands, Gunthorpe from a caretakers dwelling to a building for the use of a before and after school care centre and holiday play scheme centre. The application included a single storey side extension.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons 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.

Sharon Bishop, Capital Projects and Assets Officer, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Peterborough City Council was required, under statutory guidance, to provide child places for out of hour’s services as far as reasonably possible.

·         The proposal would cater for children up to the age of 17, however the average age was expected to be between 6 and 8 years old.

·         The current take up within Peterborough of such schemes was high, with increased demand.

·         The scheme would support local parents in maintaining work, which, in turn, would support the city’s economic development.

·         The facility would run before school, after school and during school holidays.

·         The parking arrangements would be similar to those currently in place. It was considered that as the peak hours for traffic in relation to the proposal were different from those of the current school, the impact would not be significantly worse.

·         The proposal could cater for up to 44 children, though in practice this number would be less.

·         The applicants understood the concerns of residents, however it was commented that the current sound of the school would carry to those areas.

Linda Parrish-Smith addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         As a resident of one of the properties that backed onto the application site, the area was currently quiet, regardless of the nearby school. The additional noise the proposal would create would be a disadvantage.

·         The proposed change of use had the potential to house up to 44 children. That amount of children playing would be disruptive.

·         The traffic that would result from the development would increase existing problems with parking and residents being blocked into their driveways.

·         The hours of operation were beyond normal school times, which was unfair on residents who live immediately next to the site.

·         It was agreed that the facilities were needed, however there were other sites that would be more appropriate nearer current school amenities. The proposed site was too small and too near residences.

The Committee sympathised with the concerns of local residents. It was considered that the noise created from the proposal would be significantly greater than background noise and would be unacceptable. It was suggested that, although the provision of out of school hour’s child places was important, this did not outweigh the importance of residential amenity.

While the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The planning application was for a two storey and a single storey rear extensions to 80 Ledbury Road, Netherton and a new 2 metre high boundary wall.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons 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 and update sheet.

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

·         The planning history of this development was set out in the report and had been ongoing for a significant length of time.

·         Councillor Fitzgerald was speaking on behalf of Stewart Jackson and fellow Ward Councillor, Councillor Maqbool, who had all received complaints in relation to the development.

·         It was considered that the proposals reflected an overdevelopment of the site and were not acceptable.

·         The applicant had housed a large amount of rubble on the front of the sight, which continued to sour relations with neighbours.

·         The Councillor fully supported the reasons given by officers in the report for the refusal of planning permission.

·         There was concern that the applicant would continue with work regardless of the success of the application.

·         The extension of the boundary face infringed on land owned by the City Council. The applicant had not originally served notice on the Council, though had done so now.

·         It was considered that the expansion was to cater for a driveway, which the Councillor would object to.

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

·         The increased footprint of the ground floor was going through the prior approvals process.

·         The two storey element of the proposal would not impinge upon neighbours and fitted within the scheme of the building. As such, there would be no additional visual impact.

·         The extension of the boundary fence would still leave a wide space beyond. It was accepted that the applicant did not own this land and progress on this aspect would be investigated.

·         The applicant intended to live in the development with his family. As a developer it was felt more economical to tailor the dwelling to his requirements.

·         It was believed that the extension of the boundary was in order to gain access down the side of the property.

The Planning and Highways Lawyer advised Committee that Members were not permitted to speculate on the applicant’s future actions and that the ownership of land was not relevant to the application. This was addressed through private law and was not for Committee to consider.

The Committee agreed with the officer recommendations, considering that the application would have a detrimental impact on neighbours and that the extension was bulky and incongruous.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The planning application was for the construction of a new community primary school at the Memorial Wing, Peterborough District Hospital, Thorpe Road. The application included the retention of the Midland Road façade of the Memorial Hall building, and all associated landscaping, car parking and boundaries.

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

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

·         When the outline proposals were first granted, it was intended to retain as much of the heritage asset on site as possible. The fabric of the building, however, was in poor condition.

·         The application was a matter of balance and the proposals were considered appropriate.

·         The Council’s Heritage Team recognised the proposal as the best option.

·         In relation to the traffic measures proposed, concerns had been addressed and solutions proposed. It was not expected that traffic would increase a significant amount.

·         The memorial plaques were to be reinstated within the new building.

John Dadge, on behalf of Hunt and Coombs Solicitors, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Reservations had been held in relation to the highways issues, however this issues had been addressed by the applicant and an acceptable scheme was reached. As such, previous objections had been withdrawn.

·         The Thorpe Road / Thorpe Lea Road still needed designing. The applicant should be mindful that provision should be made to accommodate a right turn, with hatching or a ‘keep clear’ section.

·         It was suggested that if the right turn was extended, this would also be able to serve the Register Office.

Councillor Murphy and Dan Windwood addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Councillor Murphy suggested that to rely on the issue of structural integrity in case of a vehicle collision, when the building was set so far back from the road, was not relevant.

·         It was thought that, considering the air quality of the area, Thorpe Road was not the right place for a school.

·         It was believed that providing space for children to play was more important than car parking provision on the site.

·         The crossing points outlined in the report were mentioned and it was subsequently questioned where the proposed playing fields for the school would be located.

·         It was suggested that the proposal should be reworked and funding be used instead to increase the size of the playing fields. 

·         Councillor Murphy believed that traffic would increase.

·         Dan Windwood raised concerns following those set out by the 20^th Century Society. It was suggested that public benefit would be achieved by the retention and strengthening of the Memorial Wing.

·         It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The planning application was for the change of use of part of the ground floor of 126 Lincoln Road, to A1 (retail). The application was retrospective in part.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons 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 Nadeem, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The Councillor supported the application, which was made under an exceptional set of circumstances.

·         The applicant was a widow and her daughter hoped to support the family through a home sari-making business.

·         The business would take up a single room within the family home and would be small in scale compared to the commercial premises opposite.

·         It was not considered that the proposal would detract from the street scene and no highways access was proposed.

·         It was suggested that the application was a reasonable solution to a delicate situation.

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

·         The proposal would maintain the character of the area and would exist in a small scale only.

·         The applicant’s daughter had limited options and required planning permission for a change of use to set up her business.

·         The commercial buildings on either side of the application site fell outside of local commercial centres, therefore the proposal was not uncharacteristic.

·         Though the option to use the current front door as a front door for the business was available, the applicant wished to maintain their privacy. The alteration proposed was not a significant one.

The Committee discussed the application and whether a permission could be identified as for the lifetime of the current owners, not subsequent owners. It was noted that although the proposal was small, the fact that it fell outside of any retail area was a problem.

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 reason set out in the report.

Both planning applications were for a proposed two storey side extension at 21 Grange Road, West Town, and a ground floor rear extension. The applications also included a veranda and loft conversion including a dormer window, increasing in roof height. Application 15/00768/HHFUL proposed a 9.15 metre ridge height for the main house and an 8.85m ridge height for the side extension, and application 15/00769/HHFUL proposed a ridge height of 8.85 metres for both the main house and the side extension.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission 15/00768/HHFUL be refused, for the reasons set out in the report, and that planning permission 15/00769/HHFUL be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report. The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the applications and highlighted a number of key issues within the report and update sheet.

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

·         Councillor Murphy believed a decision needed to be made on this, as building work had currently stopped.

·         There had been no material objections and residents were not concerned about the proposals.

·         The split roof height proposal was favoured as a flat, terraced design was not the nature of the street.

Phil Branston, Agent, and Yasir Qureshi, Applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the applications and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Branston advised that the applicant would like to retain an increased roof height, to keep the development in keeping with the rest of the street.

·         Mr Qureshi drew the Committee’s attention to examples of staggered roof heights within single dwellings in the surrounding area.

·         He wanted the proposal to impact positively on the area.

·         There was a dwelling, 45 Grange Road, which had a roof height the same as that proposed in 15/00758/HHFUL.

·         As the dwelling was situated with a gap between it and the neighbouring property, the effect of the proposal was not as significant.

·         The extension minimised the massing affect.

·         Mr Qureshi explained that part way through the build he had realised there was not sufficient room in the loft. After discussing his options with planning officers, he decided to take a calculated risk and raise the roof height. He appreciated that this risk was a mistake. His builders increased the roof to a greater degree than requested. As such, new builders were now being used.

The Committee discussed the applications and considered that the varied roof height, although high was not unacceptable. It was suggested that a completely flat roof would look out of place within the street and that a varied roof would add to the area.

15/00768/HHFUL

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, contrary to officer recommendation, and the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration be granted authority to attached appropriate conditions. This was because the application was not considered to be unacceptable, but would add to the street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

See above.