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 Councillors Burton, Thacker and Lane.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

Councillor Hiller declared that he would be making representation as Ward Councillor in respect of item 5.6 on the agenda, 45 High Street, Maxey.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2011 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The application sought planning permission for the installation of flood lighting to existing tennis courts at Longthorpe Tennis Club.  The installation was comprised of nine 6.7 metre high lighting columns around the courts.  It was proposed that three of the columns that were to be sited between the pitches would have double luminaires with the remaining six having single luminaires.  Each lamp was proposed to be angled at the horizontal and fitted with side and rear baffle plates in order to reduce the level of light spillage and glare as far as was practicable.  The applicant proposed the lights to be in use until 20.30 Monday to Saturday with a maximum of two evenings per week until 21.30 and up to 18.00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 

The application courts were situated within the Longthorpe Memorial Hall grounds, which was comprised of a community centre, car park, four tennis courts, a bowls green, play area and playing fields.  This complex was situated at the heart of the urban village of Longthorpe, a predominantly residential area of varied character and form.  The properties surrounding the site were predominantly large detached 2 storey dwellings with rear gardens facing on to the site, albeit there were terraced properties facing on to Thorpe Road.  The shortest distance from the edge of the tennis courts to the back wall of the residential properties was highlighted as being 33 metres in relation to number 4 Longthorpe Green and in the case of number 6, it was highlighted as being 41 metres, therefore the distance of separation was substantial. This had been an important factor with regards to the lighting impact assessment of the scheme. The site was located within the identified Longthorpe Conservation Area. 

Parking was provided to the front of the site, in an area of car park accessed from Thorpe Road, adjacent to the Post Office. This was a shared facility between the Tennis Club, the Memorial Hall and bowls green.  A public footpath ran to the south of the site. 

Planning permission had recently been granted for the installation of all weather surfacing on Courts 1 and 2 (retrospectively) and Courts 3 and 4 to allow usage of the courts throughout the year.  Members were advised that none of the courts were currently floodlit.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were advised that the main issue for consideration was whether the light spill from the floodlights would be to the detriment of the nearby residents. Members were further advised that an ecological assessment had been undertaken and it was highlighted that the scheme would not be detrimental to bats in the area and also the proposal would not be detrimental to the trees on the site.              

Two photograph slides were presented to the Committee showing a similar location with its floodlights in action. These photographs highlighted to Members the extent of the lighting on the courts, the amount of light spill  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Full planning permission was sought for 294 residential units, an A1 foodstore (278 square metres / 3000 square feet) together with access, open space, car parking and landscaping.  The 294 residential units consisted of 220 residential houses (64 x 2 bed, 82 x 3 bed, and 74 x 4 bed) and 74 apartments (all 2 bed). 

The apartments were all located within a single 7 storey high apartment block at the entrance to the site fronting on to London Road. This block contained undercroft parking, cycle parking, and the A1 retail foodstore at ground floor level, the 74 apartments and roof gardens. If looking down London Road towards the city centre, the apartment block would obscure a very small amount of the views to the cathedral, however it was largely protected. It was therefore the Planning Officer’s opinion that the views of the cathedral would not be compromised by the development.

All of the units in the apartment block were to be two bedroom units. The residential houses were a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terrace properties, and were 2, 2 1/2 and 3 storeys high. 

40% of the residential units, the total being 120, would be affordable, 48 apartments and 72 houses.  This was an additional 10% provision above the normal 30% policy standard.    

All of the dwellings were to be designed to meet Code Level 6, of the Code for Sustainable Homes.  This was the highest possible design standard available, and this was to ensure that the houses located on the site were thermally efficient.

The site would be accessed from London Road, via Cripple Sidings Lane and a new access from Glebe Road. The layout of the site had been specifically designed to allow continued access into the Peterborough United football ground and future provision for pedestrian and cycle links into the adjoining residential area had also be provided.

A green wall was to be erected to reduce the impact of noise from the railway on the houses proposed adjacent the height of the green wall would vary between 2 ½ and 3 ½ metres in height in order to provide a sufficient noise barrier. Space was being provided for the future provision of a pedestrian/ cycle bridge over the railway. 

The site covered an area of approximately 6.9 hectares (17 acres).  It was located to the south of the River Nene and city centre, and fell within the city centre boundary and South Bank opportunity area.  

The site was bounded to the north by the Birmingham to Norwich railway line, and to the south by the Peterborough United football ground and residential housing.  The Frank Perkins Parkway was located to the east of the site and London Road to the west.  The residential housing that bounded the site was a mixture of 2 storey housing and 3 storey residential apartments.      

The site had been cleared of the former factory buildings on site.  The site was currently vacant and was a mixture of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

     The Planning Committee, at its meeting on 23 November 2010, resolved to approve the two applications subject to the signing of a Section 106 Legal Agreement in order to secure a contribution (of £213,550) to assist in covering the social and physical infrastructure impact of the development. At that time, the proposal was for a mix of private and affordable housing, with 30% of the units being affordable.

     Since November 2010, the applicant had been busy securing the funding for the development and had been fortunate enough to be able to secure enough funding to enable all of the units to be affordable rather than just 30%. Whilst this was good news in respect of helping to meet the unmet demand for affordable housing, the consequence was that the scale of the contribution towards meeting the social and physical infrastructure impact of the development was much reduced. The applicant had put forward an economic appraisal of the revised scheme and the Council’s Development Implementation Manager had evaluated it and confirmed that a reduced Section 106 contribution of £21,000 was acceptable. It was typically the case that 100% affordable schemes were unable to meet the normal Section 106 requirements and the Council had previously been content to accept contributions in or around the £1000 per dwelling mark given the pressing need for affordable housing and the finance restrictions of such developments.

     These two changes to the scheme had been the subject of public consultation. The consultation period closed on 21 January 2011.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal including the background to the previously refused schemes. Members were advised that when the application was first submitted to the Council it included a health facility, this application was turned down by the Committee on design grounds. The scheme had subsequently been reworked and the medical element had been removed, and at the time was for 100% affordable housing and involved the loss of Thurston House as part of the scheme. The Planning Committee resolved to approve the scheme, however the decision was challenged and called in to be considered by the Full Council. Full Council overturned the Planning Committee decision and the application was refused on two grounds, those being ‘the loss of Thurston House’ and secondly it was felt that the proposal was too remote from key social infrastructure. The applicant had re-looked at the scheme and resubmitted proposals, this time for a development incorporating the main part of Thurston House. This proposal was for 30% affordable housing and the remainder being private. The Planning Committee resolved to approve the development, however the planning permission was not issued at the time owing to the involvement of the drawing up of the S106 legal agreement which had to be completed prior to the issue of planning permission. The HCA had subsequently approached the applicant with the offer of additional funding.  The applicant had contacted the Planning Department and sought advice on how to progress the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

This was a revised application for a residential development of 8 dwellings following the refusal of the previous application (10/00738/FUL) for 8 dwellings on the site. The scheme had been submitted following the refusal of the previous scheme which consisted of 12 dwellings on the site. The refused application had included three 3 storey units on the back part of the site and this had been a key area of concern for the Planning Committee with regards to overlooking, and also the height of the building in relation to the development which surrounded it. There had been two other reasons for refusals by the Committee and these were the lack of a Phase 1 contamination report having been completed and that no S106 legal agreement had been entered into at that time.

The revised application was proposed as an entirely 2 storey development of one 2 storey terrace comprising three two bedroom properties and one 2 storey pair of three bedroom properties fronting onto North Street. A 2 storey terrace of three, two bedroom properties was proposed to the rear of the frontage development. The block was orientated so that the frontage faced east and overlooked the communal car parking court. All six units were proposed as affordable housing.

The proposed vehicular access was off North Street. A private shared driveway was situated between the frontage blocks, and provided access through to the rear houses, and shared car parking court. It was proposed that a pair of manually operated access gates was provided to the access in order to create a defensible space.

The site was currently owned by the City Council.

The application site was comprised of 0.214 hectare of unallocated brownfield land. To the north the site abutted the ‘Back River’, with the Nene Washes located beyond. The Washes, including the Back River, were designated as the Nene Washes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsay site. The character of the area was predominantly residential with dwellings located to the east, south and west of the site, although it was noted that there was an active boat yard to the north-west of the site. 

The area was characterised by frontage developments situated within long thin plots. Many of the properties had outbuildings/boat storage located within the rear curtilage. The street scene comprised a varied design, scale and age of properties.

Historically the site was used as a boat builder’s yard, but it had been vacant for a significant period of time and was primarily comprised of overgrown scrub land. There were a number of mature trees located within the site, however their individual form was poor and it was proposed that the majority of these were removed and replacement planting secured. However, a sycamore tree on the site was to be retained.  The site levels sloped significantly (approximately 1.6m) from the highway down to the northern boundary with the Back River. 

Approximately 70% of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The proposal was to erect one polytunnel, for horticultural use, and one barn for the raising of meat rabbits and for the hydroponic production (growing of plants without the use of soil) of their feed.  The site would also be used for the raising of plants.

The polytunnel would be almost 27 metres long and 8 metres wide, set about 27 metres back from the roadway.  The barn would be 27 metres long and almost 9 metres wide, about 6 metres to the eaves and 8 metres to the ridge, and set back from the roadway by about 10 metres.

It was also proposed to alter/widen the existing access points, and add a third access point, from Uffington Road into the field.

An area of hardstanding would be created adjacent to the barn for the parking and turning of vehicles.

The site was comprised of a field with a width of about 100 metres and depth of 350 metres.  The field was set at the beginning of a rise in the landscape, with the lowest part of the field along Uffington Road.  Currently there were two small access points through the hedged boundary to the road.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were advised that the main issues for consideration were whether the use of the site was acceptable in the open countryside and the visual impact of the proposal on the area of best landscape. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members were advised that the application originally submitted had three access points, two of which were established agricultural access points not requiring consent and the third potentially requiring consent. This point had been highlighted to the applicant, particularly in relation to the access point being located on a bend in the road, which would mean that the necessary visibility splays would be difficult to achieve. The applicant had therefore agreed to remove this particular access from the proposal leaving just the two existing farm accesses. The Committee was advised that if it was minded to approve the application, an additional condition would need to be added to delete the third access point.

The Planning Officer highlighted that there were very few standalone agricultural buildings located in the urban countryside area.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Councillor David Over, Ward Councillor, had submitted additional comments in relation to the application stating that the development was not essential for the needs of agriculture, it would result in the loss of agricultural land and that it would have a detrimental impact on the area of best landscape. There had also been an additional neighbour objection submitted highlighting concerns that a dwelling to support the operation might come forward in the future, that the applicant had undertaken similar developments in other parts of the country, the small scale of the business proposal made it unviable and if the scheme was allowed it may set a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The proposal was to erect 3 dwellings; two 4 bed and one 3 bed dwellings. Each dwelling had 2 off street parking spaces. Each of the dwellings had its own dedicated rear amenity spaces.

Vehicular access to the rear of Plots 1 & 2 had an oversail/bridge unit above it which formed part of the upstairs accommodation to Plot 1.

The application originally submitted had a shared driveway and parking for Plots 1 & 2 which fronted onto and were accessed from the High Street. Plot 3 was accessed separately from Woodgate Lane. Highways had raised objections to the shared driveway for Plots 1 & 2 on the grounds of highway safety and inadequate access dimensions, not meeting National Highway standards. Revised plans had been submitted to address this issue, the revised plans showed Plot 1 as having its own dedicated driveway from High Street, and Plots 2 and 3 would utilise tandem parking off Woodgate Lane.

The site had been subject to several applications for residential redevelopment over the past 5 years. In 2006 the site was host to a 1960’s bungalow, now demolished. Planning permission had previously been granted for a 2 dwelling scheme on the site and permission had lapsed. Footings had been constructed on site, however these were not in accordance with a previous approved scheme and work had since stopped. The site was cordoned off by security fencing and was effectively rough ground.

The site was within Maxey’s conservation area and was a key feature in the village street scene. The surrounding land uses were residential with a bus depot/workshop (Shaws of Maxey) to the West.

The Barn on Woodgate Lane and 26 & 28 High Street situated to the immediate North and East were Grade 2 listed buildings.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were advised that the main issues for consideration were the policy context and principle of the development, its impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, its impact on the historic environment given its location and the highways implications. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Comments had been received from Highways Officers stating that they were broadly happy with the application as it stood and an additional condition was requested in relation to a topographical survey. There had also been a representation received from Councillor Peter Hiller, this representation included images highlighting what the proposal would look when built.

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

·        Development on the site was not objected to in principle. A sensible one or two house development that was designed to be sympathetic with the plot and with its position. It would have to have adequate off road parking facilities for its residents and visitors

·        Residents often requested Ward Councillors to protect their Wards from potential developments that were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.