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 Cllr Thacker and Cereste. Cllr Benton attended as a substitute.  Members were advised of the resignation from the committee of Cllr Thacker, and noted that Cllr Nawaz had been appointed as her replacement.

07/01769/R4OUT & 07/01807/FUL

Cllr Burton declared that his late wife lived near the development, but that this would not affect his decision.

Cllr Todd declared that she was one of the Ward Councillors for the area, but that this would not affect her decision.

            N/A

The minutes of the meeting held 18^th November 2008 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The application sought outline planning permission for residential development comprising up to 230 dwellings with an associated access road, car parking, amenity space and landscaping. The Committee noted that all matters were reserved for detailed consideration at a later stage.

The Committee was advised that the access to the site would be via the former Community College access road off Reeves Way.

The amended indicative layout indicated that the proposed number of housing units could be achieved via a mix of three/four bedroom properties in the form of 2 to 3 storey houses and one/two bedroom flats in blocks between three and four storeys in height

The Committee noted that the application site is circa 4.64 hectares in extent and comprises the northern part of the former school site. It was noted that all units on the site would be available as market housing with the affordable need being met via the proposed development by Extra Care Charitable Trust.

Resolved:(9 for, 0 against, 1 did not vote) to authorise the Head of Planning Services to grant planning permission subject to;

a)     A scheme of mitigation measures to compensate for the loss of playing field being agreed with Sport England;

b)     A scheme of off site highway works to increase the capacity of the Reeves Way/Eastfield Road junction;

c)      The prior completion of a Planning Obligation under the provision of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of life time homes (if not addressed via a condition), a fall back position for the delivery of affordable housing, off site highway works (if not addressed via conditions), education, primary care, off site highway works, bereavement, waste management, open space including improvement to the former school playing fields, travel plan and associated works, police and S106 monitoring fee;

d)     The conditions as outlined in the committee report, incorporating any necessary additions or modifications including those that may arise during negotiations on the proposed planning obligation; subject to the following changes;

·        The Committee resolved to alter condition 5 to include demolition;

·        The Committee resolved to authorise the Chairman to determine the application via the Chairman’s Delegation list if the objection from Sports England was withdrawn before the submission to Go-East.

Reasons for the Decision:

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

1.                  The proposal would result in a loss of open space in a ward where there is a deficiency. Mitigation measures are, however, proposed. Subject to these being accepted by Sport England the proposal is considered to be acceptable in the context of policies LT3 and H7 of the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement)

2.                  The open space needs arising from the development can be addressed via a mixed on/off site provision in accordance with policies LT1 and LT2 of the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement).

3.                  Subject to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5a

Planning permission was sought for the construction of a retirement complex comprising 260 one and two bedroom apartments, with associated communal facilities, car parking, amenity space, and landscaping.

The committee was advised that the proposed development would be a mixture of three and four storeys elements (9m and 12m to eaves respectively).  The development would include an affordable housing element (in the form of rented/shared equity) with the remaining apartments available for owner occupation.  Communal facilities are proposed in the form of a ‘village centre’ and would comprise a village hall, small convenience shop, hairdresser, gym, restaurant, café, bar, library etc.  Whilst these facilities would predominantly be for residents, ExtraCare would also operates a ‘Friends’ scheme under which people aged 55 and over, and living within the surrounding community (1 mile radius), can access these facilities. 

Access to the development was proposed to be from the recently approved extension to Park Lane (planning application 07/01683/R4FUL refers) which will also serve the refurbished St John Fisher & St Thomas More Schools. 

170 car parking spaces are proposed, within three car parks.  Provision is also made for motorcycle and cycle parking.  The proposed amenity spaces include a bowling green, winter garden, and galleria, together with external landscaping, including a nature area.       

The application site is some 3 hectares (7.4 acres) in extent and comprises the southern part of the former Hereward Community College site.  It is proposed that all the units on the northern part of the site would be available as market housing with the affordable housing need being met via the development subject of this application (please see further assessment under section 7a below).  

Resolved: (9 for and 1 did not vote) to authorise the Head of Planning Services to grant planning permission subject to;-

1.                  A scheme of mitigation measures to compensate for the loss of playing field being agreed with Sport England;

2.                  The prior completion of a Planning Obligation under the provision of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of the delivery mechanism for affordable housing, life time homes (if not addressed via a condition), primary care, bereavement,waste management, travel plan and associated works, police, the ‘friends’ scheme and S106 monitoring fee;

3.                  The following conditions, incorporating any necessary additions or modifications including those that may arise during negotiations on the proposed planning obligation;

4.                  The conditions as outlined in the committee report, incorporating any necessary additions or modifications including those that may arise during negotiations on the proposed planning obligation; subject to the following changes;

·       The Committee resolved to alter condition 15 to include demolition;

·       The Committee resolved to authorise the Chairman to determine the application via the Chairman’s Delegation list if the objection from Sports England was withdrawn before the submission to Go-East.

Reasons for the Decision:

Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal is acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighting against relevant policies of the development plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5b

Retrospective permission was sought for a bungalow, which is structurally complete and situated at the rear of the plot, close to the boundary on two sides.  The development also includes a detached garage close to the boundary on the south-west side.  The committee noted that access to the site is via a drive alongside 78 Welland Road.

Two Ward Councillors (Saltmarsh and Miners) addressed the committee and raised a number of concerns in relation to the development.  Issues in relation to adverse effect on residential amenity; contravention of previous plans and lack of privacy were raised. The applicant addressed the committee and explained the reasons for proceeding with the development not in accordance with the agreed plans.

Resolved: (8 for, 1 against, 1 did not vote) to refuse permission for the development.

Reasons for the Decision: The application was rejected for being contrary to planning policies DA2 and DA6.

The committee received a proposal to revise a permission approved in July 2007 (07/01150/FUL) to increase the size of the extension to the side and rear of the dwelling. The committee noted that the extension and garage had been substantially completed.

Resolved: (5 for, 3 against and 2 did not vote) to approve the application subject to the condition included in the update report requiring the garage to be used solely as a garage.

The committee further resolved that the applicant should be sent a letter regarding his conduct in relation to this matter.

Reasons for the Decision: The extension can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site, and would not adversely affect the character of the area and would have no adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties and therefore comply with policy DA2 of the Peterborough Local Plan 2005 (First Replacement).

Retrospective permission was sought for a bungalow, which is structurally complete and situated at the rear of the plot, close to the boundary on two sides.  The development also includes a detached garage close to the boundary on the south-west side.  The committee noted that access to the site is via a drive alongside 78 Welland Road.

Two Ward Councillors (Saltmarsh and Miners) addressed the committee and raised a number of concerns in relation to the development.  Issues in relation to adverse effect on residential amenity; contravention of previous plans and lack of privacy were raised. The applicant addressed the committee and explained the reasons for proceeding with the development not in accordance with the agreed plans.

Resolved: (8 for, 1 against, 1 did not vote) to refuse permission for the development.

Reasons for the Decision: The application was rejected for being contrary to planning policies DA2 and DA6.

The committee received report seeking permission to begin consultation on a revision to the local list for validation. The committee accepted the recommendation without discussion.