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 Burton and Councillor Lane.

          Councillors Winslade and Swift attended as substitutes.

          Councillor Serluca declared that she would be making representation as Ward Councillor for item 5.1 on the agenda.         

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2010 were approved as a true and accurate record.

            Members were advised that item 5.7, Freestanding Barn, Elms Farm, Wittering had been withdrawn from the agenda.

            The Chairman addressed the Committee and stated that Members would be permitted a period of five minutes in order to read through the additional information report.

            Councillor Serluca left the meeting.

The proposed development was a detached 1.5 and 2 storey four bedroom house of standard brick and tile construction. The house proposed was two stories with two front facing gable elements flanking a lower central section. The proposed house would measure approximately 13.8 metres wide by 7 metres deep and would be set 6 metres back from the boundary fronting Springfield, 5.2 metres from the southern boundary and 1 metre from the northern boundary. The height of the dwelling would be approximately 4.2 metres above ground level to the eaves and 6.9 metres to the ridge. Access to the dwelling was unaltered from the existing arrangement.

The application site was known as Birchfield and the current dwelling occupied a generous plot 46 metres deep by 20 metres width. The plot currently contained the bungalow to be demolished and a large 1.5 storey garage/store which was to remain.

Springfield was a street of varied character, a mixture of bungalows and two storey dwellings situated within a variety of differently sized plots. Whilst fairly varied the majority of the dwellings were relatively plain single fronted 1940’s dwellings with little in the way of decorative ornamentation or features. The later dwellings tended to carry on this plain theme.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were advised that the proposed development would be set back 6 metres from the highway and not 7 metres as stated in the committee report. The proposal would also be located 1 metre from the boundary of the adjacent property.

The main issues for consideration in relation to the application were highlighted as being the appearance of the proposed dwelling, the impact of the dwelling on the character of the area and the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. Members were advised that officers considered the design of the property to be too fussy, taking into account the simple nature of the adjacent dwellings in the area, the property was also off set within the frontage of the site and therefore would be located quite close to the bungalow on the right hand side. This was considered by officers to be overbearing on the adjacent property. Members were further advised that the property, being set back 6 metres from the footway, would not be in keeping with the adjacent properties along the road which were sited much further forward. The Committee was advised that officers were recommending refusal.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report and it was highlighted that there had been a statement received from the applicant and there had also been two letters of support from nearby neighbours who were associated with the applicant.

Councillor Matthew Lee, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee in support of officer recommendation and on behalf of local residents, and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        Development on the site was not opposed however, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The proposed dwelling was a three bedroom, three storey detached dwelling of standard brick and tile construction. The dwelling would measure 6 metres wide by 8 metres deep with a dual pitch roof measuring 5.3 metres above ground level at the eaves and 8.8 metres at the apex. The dwelling would be sited 0.8 metres from the southern boundary of the application site and an amenity area of 55 square metres was proposed to the rear of the dwelling and two tandem parking spaces to the side of the dwelling.

The application site was a small extension to the previously approved application 08/00147/FUL – the erection of 4 x 3 bedroom semi detached dwellings and 2 x 2 bedroom semi detached dwellings.

The site was comprised of former garden space of numbers 2 and 4 Wharf Road and was accessed via the turning head of Robins Close and shared its boundaries with properties within Robins Close, Wharf Road and Oundle Road, with allotments lying to the west. The site lay approximately 1 mile west of the city centre.

The surrounding area was of mixed character, the properties of Oundle Road being generally of late C19th/ early C20th, with features such as canted bay windows with stone capping, stone window cill and lintels and decorative brick stringing. The properties of Wharf Road and Robins Close were more modern 1950’s dwellings with very little architectural detailing aside from small porches.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The main issues were also highlighted and included the impact on the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings, the ability of the site to accommodate the development and the character and appearance of the proposed dwelling.

Members were advised that there were to be no windows located on the side elevation looking towards the rear of the houses along Oundle Road apart from a staircase window. The distance of the proposal from the properties along Oundle Road was 20 metres and it was considered by Planning Officers that this distance would provide for minimum overshadowing and was more than generous.

Members were further advised that Highways had identified shortfalls with the parking area as the width of the parking turning area fell below standard by 1 metre. Highways had therefore recommended refusal of the application. Planning Officers however did not consider the difference in size to be unworkable in terms of the revised parking area. 

Councillor Matthew Lee, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        The previous planning application for 6 dwellings had received no serious local opposition and Councillor Lee, as Ward Councillor had not wished to challenge officer recommendation

·        The addition of another dwelling onto the site would be an overdevelopment and would lead to issues with traffic flow and parking. At busy times of the week the street was already congested and people would not be able to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Full planning permission was sought under planning reference 10/01345/FUL for conversion of the existing main building into 4 flats (2 x 1 bedroom, 2 x 2 bedroom), 6 two bedroom houses, 2 three bedroom houses, 1 four bedroom house, and 12 two bedroom flats together with access, car parking and landscaping.  Conservation Area consent was sought under reference 10/01346/CON for partial demolition of the main Thurston House/Gayhurst Victorian villa, and full demolition of all the other buildings on site.

A total of 25 residential properties would be provided on the site, 16 flats and 9 houses.  12 two bed flats would be accommodated within Block A. This was a three storey L-shaped block which fronted onto Lincoln Road and its design reflected the large terrace of former houses opposite.  4 flats would be accommodated within the retained Thurston House, 2 one bedroom and 2 two bedroom flats.  Each flat would have one car parking space. 

Of the 9 houses that would be provided; 3 dwellings were to be accommodated in Blocks D (a two storey high row of terrace properties); 2 dwellings in Block E (a two storey high pair of semi detached properties); and 4 dwellings were to be located in Block C (a terrace of 3 two storey high and 1 two and half storey properties).  Each of the 2 bedroom properties would have one car parking space and the 3 and 4 bedroom properties would each have two car parking spaces.

30% of the residential units would be affordable. A total of 32 secure cycle parking spaces were to be provided for the flats and each of the dwellings would have a cycle storage. The site was to be accessed from Lincoln Road.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were reminded that an application had been refused at Full Council earlier in the year for the redevelopment of the site which included the complete demolition of Thurston House. The proposal had also been for 100% affordable housing. The application now presented to the Committee included the retention of the majority of Thurston House and was no longer for affordable housing only. The mix was expected to be 30% affordable with the remaining being open market.

The main issues were highlighted and included the impact of the development on the Conservation Area and 80 Lincoln Road, the impact of the development on trees and ecology, the proposed design and layout, the impact on neighbouring sites, car parking provision, housing provision and the S106 Planning Obligation.

The Planning Officer reminded Members of the main points of the previously refused scheme and highlighted the main changes. Members were advised that the revised application would make for better views into the site from Lincoln Road and the character and appearance of Thurston House would be retained. Four flats were proposed to be incorporated into Thurston House. The portion of Thurston House which was highlighted for demolition was a relatively new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Outline planning approval for up to 173 residential units on the site, had been granted under planning reference 07/01946/OUT. 

This current application was the associated reserved matters application, for the consideration of all of the reserved matters, which included access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping.  The application was originally submitted to provide 156 dwellings, however due to amendments to the proposed layout, this had been reduced to 150 dwellings.   

45 of the dwellings on site would provide the 30% on site affordable housing provision.  16 would be built to lifetime’s homes standards, which was one more than the 10% required by planning policy.  

A local area of play/green space was to be provided on the eastern boundary of the site.   

The majority of the properties proposed on the site (125) were to be two storeys in height. 25 of the properties proposed were to be 2.5 and 3 storeys, this would account for 17% of the total properties on site.

The access to the site would be from the existing Atherstone Avenue roundabout. A tree lined avenue type spine road would provide the main access across the site to the new residential units, but would also provide access to the adjacent sports pitches (the existing vehicular access to the pitches was to be stopped upon provision of the new access).

The site would cover an area of 4.41 hectares. 

The site was located within an established residential area that comprised a mix of post war and modern residential dwellings. The character of the area was predominantly two storey dwellings with some small groups of single storey and three storey dwellings/flats within the immediate and surrounding area. The site itself was bound to the north west by bungalows some of which had accommodation in the roof space (Portman Close) and to the north east by a petrol filling station accessed off Atherstone Avenue, to the west by sports pitches (managed by Netherton Football Association and owned by PCC), to the south by Allotments and to the east by existing residential dwellings on Grange Road and Orme Road.

The loss of allotments had been considered at the time of the outline planning application when they were deemed to be surplus to requirements and planning permission was granted.  The loss of allotments was not therefore an issue that could be re-considered at the reserved matters application stage.  

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The main issues were also highlighted and included the proposed design and layout, the impact on neighbouring sites, the impact of the development on trees, drainage and highways impacts within the site and car parking.

Members were reminded that the application was a reserved matters application and the principle of residential development had already been established and was not up for debate, the application in front of the Committee was to determine what the houses would look like and their relationship within the site.  

The Planning Officer outlined the proposed development and stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The proposal was for the construction of a four bedroom house with three bedrooms on the first floor and one bedroom in the attic, and a tandem double garage at the bottom of the garden.  The house was a skewed L shape, with frontages to both Pudding Bag Lane and the access track that served a number of nearby houses.

The application site was an irregular shaped parcel of land at the end of a terraced row of simple and undistinguished two storey houses.  To the side and rear was an access to other houses and fields, which also provided access to the proposed garage.  At the front of the site was a walnut tree.  There was a stone front boundary wall which linked the site with the adjacent housing.

The site adjoined the Pilsgate conservation area and formed one side of an informal ‘square’ in the centre of the hamlet of Pilsgate.  The ‘square’ was a field paddock with boundary treatments approx 1.5m high to the north, east and south.  Chapel Orchard formed the western boundary. The eastern side of the square was currently open, being constrained only by the gable of 1 Pudding Bag Lane and the walnut tree on the application site.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The main issues were also highlighted and included the amenity with regards to overlooking and overshadowing of the adjacent property, the impact of the proposal on the character of the area, the design and scale of the proposal and the loss of trees.

Members were advised that the application was a revised application and had been submitted following refusal of a previous scheme. Since the refusal of the previous scheme there had been a number of changes to the proposal, these included a simplification of the front elevation with gable detail being removed, a simpler roof line, a reduced chimney stack and revisions to the boundary treatment. Members were further advised that Planning Officers were happy with the revised scheme. It was felt that the property would now fit in much better with the street scene, would be much more in proportion with the adjacent property and would not be over dominant.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report and it was highlighted that Councillor David Over, Ward Councillor, had submitted a written representation against the proposal.

Mrs June Woollard, an objector and a Barnack Parish Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        The Parish Council were strongly opposed to the planning application and had submitted numerous written representations against the proposal

·        The Parish Council were not opposed to development, but were opposed to unsuitable development

·        The plans before the Committee had hardly been changed since the previous refusal

·        Pudding Bag Lane was a narrow village cul de sac that already had substantial parking problems. If further vehicles were to park down the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The proposal sought planning permission for the erection of two static caravans for residential occupation. The application details stated that the lengths of the caravans would be between 6.42 metres and 7.95 metres (depending upon the exact model chosen) and widths of 2.29 metres.  A third caravan within the same length options and width was to be used as a shared family room facility. All three caravans were to be used by one extended family. A foul water treatment plant was also proposed with the surface of the site being of permeable materials. The site area was approximately 0.07 hectares and was ‘L’ shaped in plan form. The vehicular access was proposed directly opposite no.3 Hurn Road and was shown with a width of 8 metres. Entrance gates were to be set approximately 6 metres from the edge of Hurn Road. The two ‘living’ caravans were to be located approximately 27 metres from Hurn Road to the rear of a grass field. They were to be positioned at right angles to each other and immediately adjacent to each other. The family room caravan was to be located at the very rear of the site approximately 50 metres from Hurn Road. An underground water treatment plant was to be located towards the south east corner of the site. The surface water drainage of the site was to be via a soakaway. Parking provision was shown for 4 vehicles and a 6 metre diameter turning circle had been identified within the access road. The ‘living’ caravans were proposed at a distance of approximately 44 metres from the nearest line of the London to Edinburgh mainline railway and the family room would be approximately 36metres away from the same nearest mainline railway track.

The agent had provided evidence to demonstrate that the intended occupiers met the definition of Gypsies and Travellers.  

The original application for the development ref:- 10/00412/FUL had been withdrawn by the applicant as a result of a refusal recommendation to Committee by the Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services. It was considered that the occupation of the site, in very close proximity to the mainline London to Edinburgh railway, would not provide for a satisfactory living environment for occupiers of the site given the exposure to high noise levels from the passing trains. No measures had been proposed in that application to mitigate against the noise from the trains.

The proposal had been revised since its submission to include three possible noise mitigation barrier options to be located between the proposed caravans and the mainline railway.

A plan had been submitted that showed how the landscaping of the site could evolve over time to soften the appearance / mask the acoustic fence and bund. However, it was noted that this had not been based on any detailed landscaping plan that had been submitted to the Council.

The sole vehicular approach to the site was via Hurn Road which was of a single carriageway width.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The Committee was reminded that the item had been withdrawn from the agenda and would be considered at a future meeting. 

The application was for a rear outbuilding, which was to have a square footprint with each side measuring 3.65 metres. It was to have a very shallow 15 degree pitched roof with a ridge height of 2.92 metres. The ridge was to be orientated in a near north-south alignment. The eastern and southern elevations were to be set in by 1 metre from the southern and eastern property boundaries. The west facing elevation was to be 2.35 metres from the western boundary of the garden. The north elevation was to be 6.5 metres from the rear elevation of the existing dwelling. The outbuilding was to be set 0.3 metres lower than the existing ground level of the rear garden area of the property. There were door and window openings in the north elevation and two rooflights were proposed in each of the two roof slopes. The elevations of the outbuilding were to be of a reclaimed red brick with the roof to be of an orange clay tile.

The property was located on the southern side of Church Street in the heart of Werrington Village. The property was grade II listed and located within the Werrington Conservation Area. The building dated from the 18^th Century. It was a very small cottage, possibly the smallest dwelling in the village. It was based on a narrow plan of approximately 6 metres in depth, painted stone rubble with a steeply pitched pantile roof, and low eaves.  The building had an unattractive single storey flat roofed rear extension, providing bathroom and kitchen facilities. The principle building had a single room at ground floor and a landing and small eaves bedroom at first floor. The building was very much in keeping with traditional buildings in the village and a rare surviving example of a simple vernacular cottage. 

The rear garden of the property had a depth of 11 metres with a general width of 7 metres. There was a mature apple tree located in the south west corner of the garden, the trunk of which was located 2 metres from the rear boundary and approximately 0.6 metres from the western boundary. A narrower spreading more upright apple tree was located centrally in the rear garden. The boundaries to the rear garden of the property were varied in height and form. The boundary with the dwelling to the east of the property (no.90 Church Street) comprised a 1.8 metre tall close boarded fence closest to the rear elevation of that dwelling and thereafter a short length of a brick wall to 1.8 metre height, followed by a 2.2 metre high stone wall that was, up until relatively recently, the rear wall of a former outbuilding. There was then, to just short of the southern boundary wall, a 1.35 metre high stone wall with vertical glazing on top that formed a part of the neighbour’s greenhouse. The rear garden of no.90 was at a lower level than the applicant’s rear garden. The remaining 1.7 metre  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.