Agenda and minutes

Any information received after the agenda has been published, relevant to the applications on the agenda to be considered by the Committee will be published here.

          Apologies for absence were received from Councillor North (Chairman), Councillor Serluca and Councillor Lane.

          Councillor Winslade attended as substitute and Councillor Swift wished for it to be noted that he was unable to attend as substitute.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2010 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The Committee was advised that since the application for Bushfield Academy which had been presented at the previous meeting for approval, there had been changes to the wording of the agreed conditions. These changes were required to be approved by the Committee prior to officers being given delegated authority to deal with the application. Members were advised that the changes did not materially alter the application in any way they were simply to delete repetitions and to add clarity. The changes were highlighted as follows:

         C3 Prior to the commencement of development, or within other such period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, details of all boundary walls/fences, external lighting and CCTV shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  These shall be erected prior to the first occupation of the development, and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Lighting shall be arranged so that no danger or inconvenience is caused to users of the adjoining public highways.

         Reason: In the interests of community safety and to avoid glare/dazzle which could lead to danger to highway users in accordance with policies T1 and DA11 of the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement).

         C4 Notwithstanding the submitted information and prior to the commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include amongst other matters:

         (a) A phasing scheme and schedule of the proposed works;

         (b) Provisions to control construction noise and vibration emanating from the site;

         (c) A scheme for the control of dust arising from building works and site works;

         (d) A scheme of chassis and wheel cleaning for construction and demolition vehicles including contingency measures should these facilities become in-operative and a scheme for the cleaning of affected public highways;

         (e) A scheme of working hours for construction, demolition and other site works

         (f) A scheme for construction access and demolition access from the Parkway system, including measures to ensure that all construction or demolition vehicles can enter the site immediately upon arrival, adequate space within the site to enable vehicles to park, turn, load and unload clear of the public highway and details of any haul routes across the site;        

         (g) The site compound (including site huts) and parking for contractors and other employee vehicles.

         h) A scheme for parking of contractors vehicles;

            i) A scheme for access and deliveries including hours.

         The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved construction management plan.

   Reason: In the interests of highway safety and residential amenity in accordance with policies T1 and DA2 of the Adopted Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement).

            C10 & C15 Delete

         C20 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the visibility splays  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Committee agreed to vary the order of the agenda and to allow agenda item 5.4, Church Street, Northborough, to be the next item of business.

Councillor Hiller left the meeting.

The Committee was advised that the item had been withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning Services and would be brought back to the Committee for consideration in September 2010.

Permission was sought for the construction of one, two bedroom dwelling on land between Southcroft and Pasque Cottage. The proposal was one and a half storeys in height and incorporated a dormer window to Main Street with a single storey wing to the rear.

The application site was located to the core of the Barnack Conservation Area on a parcel of land between Pasque Cottage and Southcroft, Main Street. All the buildings to this part of the street were listed with the exception of Southcroft. The application site previously formed part of Southcroft’s garden area. The land was presently overgrown and flanked by a brick wall of approximately 1.4m high.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and stated that the application was an improvement on a previously approved scheme which had lapsed in February 2009. The previously approved scheme had a slightly higher ridge and eaves height, the current application therefore represented a significant improvement with regards to the proposal tying in to the adjacent terraced buildings.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Additional comments had been received from Councillor Over, one of the key points raised was in relation to the S106 obligation and he questioned how it would be allocated in order to be of benefit to the locality. Members were advised that it would be allocated in accordance with the Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme SPD which was established on Neighbourhood boundaries.

There were no speakers on the item and after debate and questions to the Planning Officer regarding bin storage, the dividing wall between the proposed property and the current property and further questions to the Highways Officer regarding parking, a motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimously) to approve the application, as per officer recommendation subject to:

1.      The prior satisfactory completion of an obligation under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a financial contribution to meet the   development needs of the area

2.      The conditions numbered C1 to C8 as detailed in the committee report

3.      The informatives numbered 1 to 8 as detailed in the committee report

4.      If the S106 had not been completed within 6 months of the date of this resolution without good cause, the Head of Planning Services be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reason R1 as detailed in the committee report

5.      The addition of a note stating ‘Prior to the implementation of this permission please make yourself aware of the provisions of the Party Wall Act’

Reasons for the decision:

Subject to the imposition of the conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighting against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

-   The principle of the development has been established under planning applications 99/00479/FUL and 03/01839/FUL.

-  The amended design results in an improved composition that is appropriate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Committee was advised that the item had been withdrawn from the agenda by the agent.

The application sought permission for the erection of three 5-bed two storey detached dwellings and associated garages, in a paddock associated with Church Farm. The             application was a resubmission of a previously approved scheme (ref. 05/01772/FUL) and was identical in siting, layout and scale.  House C had a two storey element fronting the west of the site with single storey wings running west to east and attached double garage to                                                                    the west.  House D also had a two storey element fronting to the west with a single storey element to the east and detached double garage to the side/rear (east). House E had a two storey element fronting north with a single storey element to the east and attached double garage to the west. Changes were proposed to the materials to that of the previous scheme which now proposed reconstituted stone to the principle two storey elements and the            number of windows within the elevations fronting the conservation area had been reduced.  The site was accessed via a private gravelled driveway off Church Street which currently served Church Farmhouse and the Barnhouse (formerly used as an office), with extant consent for conversion to dwelling.  A gravelled yard was provided to the front of the dwellings as a turning area. 

The site area was approximately 0.35 ha, currently an area of paddock associated with Church Farm, located within the village settlement boundary of Northborough and just outside the Northborough Conservation Area Boundary to the west.  The site was part of the curtilage of the listed building and adjacent to the site to the north-west is Church Farmhouse a Grade II Listed Building with a stone built double garage and to the south west was a curtilage listed barn formerly used as an office with extant planning consent for conversion to a dwelling and consent for the erection of a stone built garage (05/00468/LBC and 05/00469/FUL) which abutted the application site.  The surrounding area was predominantly residential in character with a two storey modern development abutting the site to the north, Northborough Primary School was located directly to the south, school playing fields to the east and there was a Public Right of Way to the east and south of the site.  The site was bounded to the north with a 1.8m close boarded fence and to the east and in part to the south by post and rail fencing the remainder of the southern boundary formed by 1.8m fencing beyond which was a stone wall with pantile edging.  The site was accessed via a private drive approximately 4m in width leading from Church Street adjacent to St Andrews Church which was enclosed by a 1.6m high wall stone wall.  

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and stated that since the approval of the previous development, numerous improvements to the design had been secured, including a reduction in the number of windows included in the development and the building materials that were proposed to be used.

Members’ attention was drawn to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

A report was submitted to the Committee which highlighted the draft Peterborough Planning Performance (PPA) Charter.

Members were advised that the Planning Service had established a protocol and charging system for dealing with pre-application enquires and this had been running since January 2010. The methods and timescales for dealing with such enquires was set out on the website and the response time for applications for proposals which fell within the ‘major’ category was                     within 30 days.

The current approach was appropriate for the majority of pre-application enquiries but for those projects which were very large scale or complete, a more detailed project management approach was required. The Government advocated that Planning Performance Agreements were an effective tool for enabling collaborative working between local authority planners, other services and developers and ensured that proposals were progressed in a timely manner. The PPA Charter set out how the Planning Service would wish to see this work. It all re-emphasised the importance of early developer engagement with the local community and complimented the Statement of Community Involvement in this regard.

The Charter was produced by the working group, which had been set up earlier in 2010 and           included officers from the main services mostly involved in discussions/consultations on planning applications. Members from each main political group were also invited to attend. Informal consultation had been carried out with neighbouring authorities, internal and external consultees and house builders. Few responses had come in but where possible they had been incorporated.

Members’ endorsement of using the PPA Charter and planning performance agreements generally as a project management tool to enable partnership working on large and complex proposals was sought.

After discussion, Members positively commented on and endorsed the report and it was noted that the changes would lead to a more efficient and user friendly service. 

RESOLVED: to endorse the PPA Charter as the Council’s preferred procedural mechanism for dealing with large/complex planning applications.

          There were no declarations from Members of the Committee to make representation as Ward Councillor on any item within the agenda.