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 Casey.

          Councillor Winslade attended as a substitute.

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

          The minutes of the meetings were approved as true and accurate records.    

          he Chairman addressed the Committee and stated that a request had been received to allow item six, the Draft National Planning Policy Framework, to be taken as the first item of business. Members agreed to take item six as the first item of business.

The proposal was to develop the site with 138 dwellings, including 129 houses and 9 flats, with associated streets and parking.  The type and character of development, the layout and house styles would be similar to the rest of the South Stanground development.

The South Stanground Urban Extension (SSUE) known as Cardea was situated between Oakdale Avenue to the north and the Stanground Bypass to the south; and the new Horsey Toll roundabout to the east and Peterborough Road to the west.  There was a small length of dual carriageway heading off the new bypass into Cardea, which was referred to as the Entrance Avenue.  At the end of this is a smaller roundabout leading to the various parts of Cardea. The layout would be a predominantly shared surface layout; therefore there would be no footways within the road structure.

Immediately to the east of the Entrance Avenue was an area of land that would be playing fields, to the north of that was the Local Centre site including a supermarket, pub, local shops and, eventually, some other facilities.  There would also be a primary school within the development; the remainder would be housing parcels, with a grid of public open space including a Sustainable Drainage System.

The application site had the bypass and a drainage pond to the south, the Entrance Avenue to the east, and to the south and north would be strips of open space then more housing.

The estate as a whole would be constructed on former agricultural land, with open countryside to the south. There was no open space to be provided on the development due to there being strategic areas of open space provided elsewhere within the development.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were advised that the main issues for consideration were the principle of development on allocated employment land, connections with other developments within South Stanground, the layout and amenity standards of the proposed housing, highway safety and parking and Section 106. The recommendation was one of approval.

The loss of the employment land was considered to be justified given the lack of interest in the site for these purposes. There were high levels of empty, better quality, employment floor space throughout the city and it was therefore considered that there was no justification for its retention. There would still be 2.6 hectares of employment land left in South Stanground following the loss of this land.

There was some outstanding design work to be undertaken on the shared highway design, but this work only incorporated a number of small scale changes. Authority was therefore sought to approve the proposal subject to those minor changes being received and to them being satisfactory.

As well as the application being a departure from planning policy due to the proposed use of the employment land, it was also proposed to depart from the normal Council Planning Obligation and Implementation Strategy (POIS). Given the pressing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

The proposal sought permission to erect seven stock enclosures. The enclosures would each be 2.4 metres high. Whilst each enclosure would not have a traditional roof, wires (with balls affixed to keep birds away) would be strung parallel to each other every 2 metres to form a semi open wire roof. The enclosures would have the capacity to hold 900 rabbits.

The site was comprised of a field situated in open countryside with a width of 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 adjoining Uffington Road.  Currently there were two small access points through the hedged boundary to the road.

The site was situated in excess of 250 metres North-West from the edge of Barnack Village.

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 on landscape character and the impact on neighbour amenity. The recommendation was one of refusal as officers had concerns that the structure would look alien within its setting. Members were further advised that the land could be used for livestock purposes and this did not require any permissions, therefore any issues raised should be in relation to the proposed structure only.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report and it was highlighted that comments had been received from Ward Councillor Over in objection to the application.

Councillor June Woollard, the Chairman of Barnack Parish Council, addressed the Committee on behalf of the Parish Council and local residents. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        This was the third application for this particular piece of land

·        The applicant was not a farmer but a property developer who had purchased the field as part of a land bank for future housing development

·        Some trees had originally been planted on the site and it had been described as a tree stock nursery, yet nothing further had ever come of this

·        Derelict trailers had been dumped in the field

·        The first application had been for a stable, and this had been granted with conditions stating that no housing could be built on site and only one entrance was to be allowed. No stables had been built, but a second entrance had been created on the bend of the road which was dangerous

·        This new second entrance gave the impression that the site was being prepared for housing development

·        The second application was made for a rabbit farm with a barn and was rejected

·        The Parish Council was not opposed to suitable housing within the village envelope, but was strongly opposed to development within greenfield farmland

·        The Parish Council strongly objected to the planning application

·        The field was in open farmland, well outside the village envelope on land marked as best landscape in the Peterborough Local Plan

·        The land sloped up and was visible from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.2

The application related to the existing Moys End Stand (East Stand) at Peterborough United Football Club and formed the first phase in the redevelopment of the stadium.  The proposal sought the demolition of the existing stand of a standing capacity of 3,495 which no longer met the demands of the football club, as well as removal of the existing floodlighting column to the north-eastern corner of the site.  Following demolition, the scheme sought the erection of a new 2,500 capacity all seated stand and connected education centre for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.  The education centre would cater for approximately 300 students aged 14 to 19 years and provide laboratories, IT suites, flexible teaching spaces and a refectory.  The stand would result in an overall loss of capacity of 995 albeit the overall floorspace of the building would increase by some 4,000 square metres.  The footprint of the building would be approximately 9 metres deeper however the main bulk would not be sited any closer to the Glebe Road properties.

The Peterborough United Football ground was situated on the corner of London Road and Glebe Road with the main vehicular access taken from London Road along Cripple Sidings Lane.  To the south of the site was a row of residential properties along Glebe Road, with rear gardens bounding the ground site.  To the north and east was situated the area recently approved for the Carbon Challenge Housing Scheme and beyond this to the north was the railway line and to the east, the Frank Perkins Parkway. 

At the current time, parking for 198 cars was provided informally to the north and east on an area of rough hardstanding.  Emergency access was taken to the south eastern corner of the site onto Glebe Road.  The site was affected by contamination 

Associated to this, there was a proposed Renewable Energy Centre which would generate economically viable heat and/or power and be fed by mains gas through Biomass boilers.  The energy generated would feed both the football ground facilities and the adjacent Carbon Challenge housing scheme to the north and east.  The energy centre would consist of one off 220kWe Biofuel CHP unit, one off 200kWe Natural Gas CHP unit, one off 330kW Pellet Boiler, two off 1.0MW Natural Gas Boilers and four off Thermal Storage Vessels.  Also associated with the application were alterations to the access from London Road, and internal changes to the car parking areas.  At present there were 198 car parking spaces on the site, which would be reduced to 168 as a result of the proposal, a loss of 30 spaces.  There would no longer be parking provided on site for football supporters.  The existing Glebe Road access was to be altered so that it was for emergency use only.  A coach turning and drop off area was to be provided using Cripple Sidings Lane as the access. 

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.3

The application related to an existing three bedroom bungalow which had not been built in accordance with the approved plans.  The as-built dwelling differed from the approved scheme (01/01585/FUL) in the following ways:

-        Footprint of dwelling increased;

-        Dwelling built 0.5 metres closer to the southern boundary;

-        Dwelling built one metre closer to northern boundary;

-        Garage built 1.5 metres closer to southern boundary;

-        North-western corner of the dwelling ‘filled out’ and dwelling constructed five metres closer to the southern boundary;

-        Arrangement of rooms internally altered to increase the number of primary habitable rooms facing Nos.46-50 Figtree Walk;

-        2.5 metre boundary breeze block wall;

-        Alterations to front elevation design;

-        Number of windows to the southern elevation increased and size of windows increased also; and

-        Ridge height increased by 0.7 metres.

This application included a series of proposed amendments, which the applicant believed would address the concerns raised by Offices, Members and residents. 

This revised scheme had been submitted following extensive discussion between the applicant, officers, Ward Councillors and local residents of Figtree Walk albeit it was accepted that the proposal may not overcome all concerns raised by local residents.

The revisions to the dwelling included a reduction in the ridge height of the roof to that approved under application reference 01/01585/FUL, construction of a 1.8 metre high close boarded boundary fence, alterations to the glazing of the rear elevation and restriction to the outdoor lighting.  The scheme proposed replacement of all four no. double patio doors with fixed standard glazed windows and insertion of a 400mm strip of obscure glazing. 

There had been several applications submitted to regularise the situation however none had been successful and at the current time, the dwelling had no planning permission. Furthermore, an Enforcement Notice requiring the dwelling to be amended in line with the approved plans under application reference 01/01585/FUL was served upon the owner on 3 August 2010.  This Notice was appealed and upheld, with the period of compliance extended to 6 December 2011. 

The site was previously part of the rear private gardens to Nos. 78 and 80 Welland Road, a pair of semi-detached dwelling houses.  The site was bound to the north east by part of the side wall and the rear garden to No.82 Welland Road and to the south east by the rear gardens of properties along Figtree Walk.

The dwelling itself was situated to the rear of the plot, at its narrowest approximately two metres from the rear boundary wall and at its widest 3.2 metres. The form was roughly ‘L-shaped’ with the main amenity area to the front of the dwelling.  A detached garage was situated close to the boundary on the south-west side and access to the highway was provided via a driveway along side No.78 Welland Road.  The driveway had not been completed. 

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the main issue for consideration, that being the impact of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.4

The application sought planning permission for the change of use of an existing A1 retail shop which currently sold wigs and hair accessories to an A5 hot food takeaway.  According to the applicant this unit was soon to be vacated. No details had been provided of the proposed occupant however it was proposed for the unit to have a kitchen to the rear, a servery and shop area with five seats for waiting customers. 

In addition permission was sought for an extension of the shop front including new shop window and security roller shutters. The proposed extension measured 1.2 metres in width to incorporate an additional door.  The proposed roller shutters were to have perforations of no less than 150mm x 150mm and would extend across the entire of the new shop front.  

The application site was comprised of a two storey mid-terraced Victorian building located along Eastfield Road, close to the junction with Padholme Road and opposite the cemetery.  The site was located within an identified Local Centre within the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) (2005) albeit there was no primary retail frontage. 

The properties either side of the application site were of A1 retail use (specifically a convenience store/off license and a former domestic appliance store that was now vacant). There was also an existing hot food takeaway within the Local Centre.  There was no off road parking provided at the site and Eastfield Road was restricted by double yellow lines preventing parking immediately to the front of the site.  Parking was provided on-road to the south and north of the site albeit this is restricted.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the application. The main issues for consideration were outlined and these included the principle of development, the design and impact upon the character and appearance of the area, the impact of the development on neighbouring amenity (crime and anti social behaviour), noise and fumes from extraction equipment and highways implications. The recommendation was one of refusal.

Members were advised that the police had been consulted for two reasons, the first being due to the issue of crime and disorder in the area. In response, the police advised that the area had a high level of anti social behaviour and it was felt that changing the premises to a late night hot food takeaway would exacerbate this situation further. The police had also been consulted due to the proposal having a metal roller shutter on the shop front. This would only usually be allowed on a premises where there was a history of criminal damage to the property. Whilst there was anti social behaviour in the area, there did not tend to be criminal damage done to properties in the area, therefore fitting external shutters would have a detrimental impact on the streetscene. The Planning Officer further advised that he would be happy for internal mesh rollers to be fitted which did not need planning consent.

A proposal was put  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.5

          The Committee received a report which presented a summary of the draft National Policy Framework (NPPF) which was currently out for consultation.

          The purpose of the report was to provide a summary, highlighting the proposed key changes to the planning system which would arise once the NPPF had been finalised. The Council would be submitting a formal response to the Department for Communities and Local Government following approval by the Cabinet Member for Housing, Neighbourhoods and Planning via a Cabinet Member Decision Notice.

The Committee was informed that as part of Government’s continuing reform of the planning system through the Localism agenda, the NPPF intended to replace all existing national Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), all Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and some Circulars into one single national planning policy document.

It would be important for Members of the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee to be fully aware, and understand the contents of the NPPF because it would be a key material planning consideration in the determination of planning applications.  At the same time, the Council would no longer be able to rely on the existing detailed set of national guidance once this had been superseded by the NPPF.

The publication of the draft NPPF stemmed from the Coalition Agreement, which committed the Government to preparing a clearer, simpler, more coherent national planning policy framework that was intended to be easier to understand and easier to put into practice.

          The Committee was advised that the consultation was ongoing and if Members had any comments they were to relay them to officers.

          Members questioned why they had not received a full copy of the document and in response Members were advised that an email with a pdf version of the document would be circulated in due course.

          The Cabinet Member for Housing, Neighbourhoods and Planning addressed the Committee and positively commented on the clear and concise manner in which the changes had been outlined within the report.

          RESOLVED: the Committee noted the contents of the draft National Planning Policy Framework, its potential use as a material planning consideration and the intention of the Cabinet Member for Housing, Neighbourhoods and Planning to approve a response to the consultation via a Cabinet Member Decision Notice.