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.

No apologies were received at the meeting. 

Cllr Simons’ apologies were subsequently received after the meeting.

          Councillor Lane declared an interest in item 4.1 as he was acquainted with a member of the tennis club but declared that this would not affect his decision.

         The minutes from the meetings held on 24 May and 7 June 2011 were approved as accurate records of the meetings.

Planning permission was sought for two floodlit covered hard surfaced tennis courts at the Peterborough Town Sports Club.  The tennis courts were to be contained (in the winter months) under a single skin transparent polythene removable dome cover, which measured approximately 36.5m x 33.5m x 9m in height.  10m high floodlights were proposed around the outside of the dome to allow for night time play.  The proposed opening hours of the courts were 8am to 10pm Monday to Sunday, including bank/public holidays.  

The location of the tennis courts on site had been amended during the course of the application. When the application was first submitted the courts were located at the south eastern corner of the site adjacent to the Westwood Farm industrial area and Wentworth Croft residential area. Following consultation, the proposed courts have been relocated to the north east part of the club site adjacent to the existing floodlit tennis courts and Bretton Gate Road. 

The Planning Officer addressed the committee and advised Members that although this item was related to another planning development item on the agenda, it should be treated as a separate application.  Officers had recommended the application for approval as the floodlights were next to existing floodlit areas and the nearest property, although 46 metres away, was separated from the site by a road and bands of trees.

Mr John Dadge, the agent for the developer, along with two of the applicants, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the issues highlighted to the committee included:

·        Joint planning application from both the Lawn Tennis club and Peterborough Sports Club;

·        The application was supported by the landowner;

·        The application was supported by Sport England and the Lawn Tennis Association.

During debate, concern was raised regarding the proximity of the development to the existing cricket boundary and noted the concern of Sport England who had stated that 2.74 metres should be maintained between a cricket boundary and any structure or obstruction, for safety reasons.

Following debate, a motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application subject to an additional condition being added to ensure the structure is at least 2.74 metres from the cricket boundary and where the boundary might be realigned the minimum standards contained within Sport England’s ‘Natural Turf for Sport’ (2011) with regard to minimum distances from stumps to boundary can still be met (as contained in the additional information provided).

RESOLVED: (9 for, 0 against) to approve the application, as per officer recommendation subject to:

1.      Conditions 1 and 4 as detailed in the Committee report;

2.      Insert new condition:

Prior to work commencing on site a further plan to scale of not less than 1:500 should be submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority, which indicates a minimum safety margin of 2.74 metres (3 yards) between the proposed floodlit tennis courts and the adjoining cricket boundary. This approved plan shall thereafter be implemented and maintained as such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

         Planning permission was sought for the construction of three detached properties on the site.  Two properties would be positioned at the front of the site these would be two storey high 4 bedroom houses and the property positioned at the rear of the site would be a two storey high 3 bedroom coach house. 

            Two car parking spaces were proposed for each property, all car parking spaces were positioned at the rear of the site behind plots 1 and 2.  One central combined vehicle and pedestrian access was proposed to serve the three properties from Park Crescent.   

            The site was the last remnants of a tennis club that has been on site for about 100 years.  Part of the site was developed for housing in the 1970’s, leaving a wooden clubhouse and four grass tennis courts which were the subject of this application.  The courts were not currently in use, and had not been in use for a number of years.  The site was currently laid grass, with the wooden clubhouse still in position, and was screened from Park Crescent by an approximately 2m high hedge and 1m high diaper work wooden fence.      

            The site fell within the Park Conservation Area and lay opposite Central Park.  The adjoining houses were modern (having been built around 1970), although the overall character of the area reflected its history as an Arcadian Victorian/Edwardian residential area.  The character of the surrounding area was generally one of large residential properties set within large plots, screened from the road with mature trees and hedges. 

The Planning Officer addressed the committee and members were advised that the application was only refused previously due to the lack of adequate replacement tennis court provision.  This application had slightly changed regarding the access points to the site and the size of some of the windows in the design.  The planning officer advised that condition 14 should have stated that the driveway would continue at a 5m width for its length, not reduce to 4.5m wide after 10m.  Both previous Inspector reports were tabled for members for the committee to see.

Councillor Shearman and Councillor Peach spoke as ward councillors, addressed the Committee jointly and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        that it was against the ethos of and policies for the conservation area;

·        there was a shortage of open space in the ward;

·        replacement facilities too far away;

·        went against character of Park Crescent housing plots; and

·        local views had been ignored when they should be considered more.

Mrs Anne Brosnan, Mr David Jervis and Mr Newell local residents addressed the Committee jointly and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the committee included:

·        no tree survey had been conducted;

·        replacement facilities were not accessible;

·        negative impact on neighbouring properties; and

·        frontage and colour of bricks would be out of character for the Crescent.

Mr John Dadge, the agent for the developer, addressed the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.2

Planning permission was sought for a change of use from a former day centre/night shelter for the homeless to an Undertakers (A1).  The site would provide services associated with the direction of funeral and would include areas within the building for the arrangement/organisation of funerals, display area for funeral furniture/memorials, two chapels of rest, a memorial area, a preparation/storage area and a service room.  The building would provide facilities for humanist/civil services or small gatherings of mourners where the deceased or their family do not wish to use conventional church, chapel or other religious based premises.  The service room was approximately 63m² and could accommodate up to 35 people.  No changes were proposed to the external appearance of the building other than general repair and redecoration.  The building would be open to visiting members of the public Monday to Friday 8.00 a.m. – 5.30 p.m. and Saturday 8.00 a.m. – 12.30 p.m.  Funerals would take place primarily on weekdays, although some religious denominations may require a Saturday or Sunday funeral.  The building would be available for use by the undertakers on a 24 hour basis, dependent on the needs of the business i.e. the receiving of the recently deceased.

The Planning Officer addressed the committee and members were advised that the main considerations in the application were the impact on residents and the impact on the conservation area.  Members were further advised that all parking on Manor House Street was restricted.

Mrs Janet Tasker and Mrs Margaret Randall, residents of Manor House Street, addressed the Committee jointly and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the committee included:

·        Distress to residents seeing coffins and funeral processions on a regular basis;

·        Parking concerns in the area would be exacerbated and therefore needed addressing;

·        Night time arrivals with bodies;

·        Double parking in the street would obstruct the hearses; and

·        Homeless centre was preferable.

Mr G H Taylor, the agent for the developer, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the issues highlighted to the committee included:

·        Undertakers would be discreet and keep the premises well maintained;

·        Other non-residential properties already on the street;

·        Only two funerals per day could be managed;

·        Funerals would not start form that site;

·        Could use soundproofing materials for the service rooms if required;

·        A screen could be erected at the rear of the premises to better cover the deliver of bodies; and

·        There was no audible reverse indicator on the hearse or service vans.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee in response to points raised by the speakers and stated that sound proofing could be conditioned into the application and condition 3 in the report could be amended to include a canopy in addition to a screen.

Following debate, a motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application subject to an additional condition to ensure soundproofing materials were used for the two internal chapels and condition 3 in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.3