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 Hiller, Burton, Ash and Harrington.

          Councillor Winslade and Councillor Swift attended as substitutes.

There were no declarations of interest.

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2011 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The committee report covered two planning applications to remove condition 13 attached to 10/00208/FUL (49 dwellings) and condition 20 attached to 04/01978/FUL (35 dwellings) which both required a Local Area for Play (LAPS) to be provided on the site.  The land which was to be occupied by the LAPS would be conveyed to the nearest residential properties and instead of providing these LAPS on site, the developer had entered into a unilateral undertaking which would oblige him to pay a contribution of £43,500 to be used on open space/leisure/sports provision within Eye Parish.

The sites which were subject to these applications form part of the overall “Larkfleet” residential development site off Thorney Road, Eye.  The development was currently under construction.  The site was granted permission in various “parcels” and there had been several amendments to the original schemes most notably permission in the centre of the site for an Extra Care Home (09/01025/FUL) and a re-plan of the “right hand” part of the site (when viewed from Thorney Road) under 10/00208/FUL.  The site was situated in the north east corner of the village and was bordered by the A47 and Easby Rise to the north, an open field to the east, residential development off Thorney Road to the south and Crowland Road (residential development and cemetery) to the East.  The site was an allocated housing site in the Peterborough Local Plan.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were advised that the main issues for consideration were whether or not the development was acceptable without the approved LAPS being provided for on site and whether the alternative proposal of funding of off-site leisure/sports provision in Eye was acceptable. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members were advised that the areas highlighted for play were too small for useful purpose and no provision had been made by the developer or the Council for the long term upkeep of those areas through the legal agreement that was set up when planning permission was granted.

Members were further advised that the areas were proposed to be transferred over the to the householders abutting the site, with a recommended condition that removed permitted development rights so that the areas remained open green space and free from development. The applicant was proposing to make the sum of £43,500 available to the Council and this money would be held and subsequently spent on the improvement of existing sport and leisure facilities in the village of Eye. That process would be undertaken in consultation with the Parish Council. This would ensure a more adequate and useful provision of recreational facilities in the village.

Mr Duncan Smith, Investment Director at Larkfleet Homes and Mr Richard Edwards, Planning Director at Larkfleet Homes, addressed the Committee jointly and stated that they were present to refer Members to the Officers report, which they believed was balanced in terms of its outcomes and if Members had questions they were happy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The proposal was for the erection of a canopy to the front of a retail shop. It was to replace an existing unauthorised smaller canvas style canopy that had been refused planning permission.

The proposed canopy was to the front towards Dogsthorpe Road. It was proposed to cover the majority of the area of hardstanding to the front of the shop to a width of 6.1 metres and a forward projection from the shop front of 3.4 metres. The roof was proposed to be of a shallow 22 degree sloping mono-pitch design with the highest end being 3.6 metres, fixed to the building, and the lower end 2.3 metres. The frontage of the canopy would be set back approximately 1 metre from the back edge of the pavement.

The canopy was to have a glazed roof to be supported by a dark green painted metal framework comprising of 8 metal columns. The canopy would be open on three sides. The character and features of the building would remain unaffected by the canopy addition.

The existing unauthorised canopy was used for the display and sale of fruit and vegetables to the front of the shop.

The established retail unit was a 2 storey Victorian end of terrace with a distinctive and ornate Dutch gable. The property was located within a predominately residential area comprising terraced, semi-detached and detached properties with strong building lines to the north and south. The application property was located at the crossroads junction of Dogsthorpe Road and St Martins Street. There were commercial units on three of the corners of the junction with a residential property at the north east corner. The building had a strong character and appearance. A travel shop adjoined the application property. There was an existing unauthorised lightweight canvas top canopy currently erected to the front of the shop front measuring 5.8 metres wide with a projection of 2.5 metres. This was used to display fruit and vegetables.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were advised that the main issues for consideration were the impact of the proposed canopy upon the character and appearance of the area and the building itself, the impact of the proposed canopy upon residential amenity and the impact of the proposed canopy upon highway safety. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members were advised that a similar scheme had been refused by the Planning Committee, contrary to Officer recommendation. The applicant had subsequently appealed against the refusal and the Local Authority had been successful in the appeal. The scheme before Members today was almost identical to the previously refused scheme, however, the design which had been submitted was almost the same as one detailed in the design guide for canopies. This design guide had previously been approved by the Planning Committee.  Members were advised that they were perfectly entitled to still go against the recommendation of approval, as they had done on the previous scheme, even though  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The proposal involved the construction of a two-way carriageway from Thorpe Lea Road to the western extremity of a public footpath that flanked onto the western boundary of the Railworld site. The road was to extend from between residential properties at numbers.66 to 68 Thorpe Lea Road in a southerly direction for the depth of these two properties and thereafter in a south easterly direction towards the Railworld site. The road width was to be 5 metres initially from Thorpe Lea Road and thereafter 6 metres as the road had been designed with a curved middle stretch. Both sides of the road were to have 2 metre wide pavements. The road had been designed with a turning head to its north side, close to the eastern extent of the road. The overall length of the road was to be approximately 116 metres. A parking area was to be provided for grounds maintenance vehicles off the southern side of the road just past the mid way point. Knee high rail fencing alongside both sides of the carriageway was to be provided other than where existing vegetation was to be retained. From its junction with Thorpe Lea Road, the proposed carriageway would have a width of 5 metres, for the first 21 metres, and it would be 5.5 metres away from boundary of number.66 Thorpe Lea Road and 5.2 metres from the boundary of number 68 Thorpe Lea Road. Thereafter, the road would widen slightly such that at the very rear of the curtilages of these two properties the carriageway would be within 5 metres of their flank boundaries.

To construct the road it would be necessary to remove part of an established area of vegetation to the rear of the open space between numbers 66 and 68 and a further area of vegetation with approximate dimensions 16 metres deep by 10 metres wide immediately to the south. A triangular area of vegetation immediately to the rear of number 68 was to be principally retained between the boundary fence of the property and the road i.e. a maximum depth of 14 metres. The alignment of the road was such that two poplar trees close to the footpath would have to be removed. The road was proposed to drain into a stretch of water to the south. The road was to be lit by 4 lamp columns along its length. An existing lamp column would have to be repositioned to the back of the footway to accommodate the junction of the road to Thorpe Lea Road.

As the road would pass through an area of public open space the proposal would provide for a compensatory provision. This was shown to be located to the south east of the site and contained a number of mature trees, vegetation and part of the southern extent of the existing Railworld site. It should be noted that the area of the land was to be at least equal to the space taken by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Permission was sought for the erection of a new 6 classroom block and plant room, a new entrance canopy, an extension to an existing classroom, construction of a corridor extension and the demolition of two existing classrooms.

The site was situated within Longthorpe, an area 1.5 miles to the east of the city centre. The school itself occupied a site of 2.95 hectares and was surrounded on all sides by residential development. Currently the school was enclosed by 1.8 metre weld mesh fencing and the schools field was unenclosed and available for public use. There was also an area of public open space to the east of the school site.

The school was comprised of predominantly 1970’s buildings of utilitarian design. The majority of the buildings were constructed from red brick with brown concrete roof tiles. The school had a dedicated car park with 21 standard spaces and 1 disabled space.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were advised that the main issues for consideration were the impact of the proposal on occupiers of the nearby dwellings, the impact of the design on the character of the area and the impact on the transportation network. The recommendation was one of approval.

The Committee was advised that when the application was originally received, it included the fencing off of part of dual use open space area. This part of the proposal had subsequently been dropped from the application.

There were patio doors proposed as part of the extension. These had been provided as the designers received bonus points from the Department for Education for allowing children to move straight from the classroom into the outdoors environment. However, given the close proximity of the elevation to the back fences of residents, that being 10 metres, Planning Officers proposed the deletion of the patio doors from the scheme and the implementation of a single door. This had been suggested due to concerns regarding noise affecting local residents during the summer months, when the doors would be open. The Planning Officer advised the Committee that if it did not agree with that condition, it could be removed as part of its decision on the application.

The Committee was advised that Officers were recommending approval as the design of the development was considered to be acceptable, the large classroom block proposed to be constructed would not cause any unacceptable overshadowing or be overbearing to the adjacent dwellings on Bradwell Road and the siting of the new play area adjacent to the classroom block was not materially different to the existing arrangement. In terms of traffic, there would be no increase in pupil numbers over what was there already and therefore there were no reasonable grounds for the suggested inclusion of additional car parking etc.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. There had been a comment received from Councillor Samantha Dalton stating that she acknowledged the removal of the fencing part of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.