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 Casey, Stokes and Martin.

Councillor Winslade attended as a substitute.                  

Councillor Harrington declared that he would be making representation as Ward Councillor on item 6.1, Land to the North of the Village Hall, Guntons Road, Newborough, Peterborough.

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

The Committee received a report which followed recent and forthcoming changes in legislation around flood and water management, the adoption of the Core Strategy and the preparation of the proposed submission version of the Planning Policies Development Plan document.

          The purpose of the report was to obtain the Committee’s views and comments on the document, which was due to be presented to Cabinet on 12 December 2011, for approval for the purposes of public consultation. The Committee was advised that its comments and views would be taken into account and reported to Cabinet.

          Officers were preparing a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that would provide guidance to developers on flood and water management in Peterborough. It would expand on overarching headline policy contained in the Council’s adopted Core Strategy. Officers had proposed to consult with the public and stakeholders on a draft of the SPD in January / February 2012.

          The Committee was informed that the SPD formed part of a package of work arising following the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA) 2010, which made Peterborough City Council a ‘Lead Local Flood Authority’. The Council was responsible for co-ordinating surface water management.

          Flood risk management was high on the agenda in Peterborough. Ensuring that the drainage network and watercourses were managed well, that sites were designed and constructed to drain well and that development was located in a safe environment were all key to reducing the likelihood and consequences of flooding in Peterborough.

          The objective of the SPD was to provide guidance to applicants and decision makers on:

·        How to assess whether or not a site was suitable for development based on flood risk grounds. This element supported the main river flood risk requirements of policy CS22 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD);

·        The use of different sustainable drainage measures within Peterborough.  This element supported the surface water requirements of policy CS22 in the Core Strategy DPD; and

·        How development could ensure it protected aquatic environments. This element supported policy PP14 of the Planning Policies DPD.

          Members were invited to comment on the document and the following issues and observations were highlighted:

·        A brief overview of the different types of drainage system was requested and Members’ attention was drawn to the latter sections of the SPD and a verbal overview was provided. Members were requested to note that Peterborough had a clay soil, so as compared to other places in the country, there was less potential for infiltration into the ground.

·        Members sought clarification as to how many rivers there were located in Peterborough. In response, it was advised that there were 18 main rivers located in Peterborough. There were many other water courses, and the classification was not straightforward and was based on flood risk.

·        It was highlighted that there was no mention of the possibility of springs being a problem. In response, Members were advised that the authority would be looking into this going forward, especially around the Orton  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The proposal was to construct 18 dwellings, made up of 6 x 4 bedroom houses, 2 x 3  bedroom houses, 9 x 2 bedroom houses and 1 x 2 bedroom bungalow.  The houses would be two and two and a half storey, and a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced.

The access road would be directly off Guntons Road and would run to the south of the existing development on Harris Close. The access into Harris Close would be closed and a connection put in from the new access road.

The proposal was a redesign of an original 13 unit scheme and Members were requested to note that as the scheme had commenced, the permission could not expire. Plots four to eight and Plot 11 were unchanged from the previously approved scheme.

The site was on the east side of Guntons Road, to the north and east of the village hall.  To the immediate north was Harris Close, and to the east was open countryside. 

         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, highways safety and access, residential amenity in terms of the proposal in relation to the adjoining properties and the issue of S106 contributions. The recommendation was one of approval.

         The original application site had been amended slightly to include a section of road to Harris Close. Under the original permission there was a legal agreement in place that required the adjacent access to Harris Close, at its junction with Guntons Road, to be closed off.

         The key issue surrounding the application was the matter of the S106 agreement. Members were advised that under the adopted Council Planning Obligation Implementation Scheme Policy (POIS), a contribution of some £90k would be sought for such a development and five affordable housing units, under the Council’s Affordable Housing Policy. It had been indicated that these contributions were unaffordable for the development and the applicant had undertaken a financial appraisal of the development. This appraisal had demonstrated that the development was making a loss and would take a 19% increase in values to become profitable. In conclusion, there was sufficient justification for an S106 contribution and affordable housing to not be required on the site.

         The Parish Council had been consulted on the matter and in response, had indicated that a claw-back arrangement should be implemented in the event that property prices should rise. The Planning Officers did not believe that this request was feasible.

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

·        Newborough had had no major growth during the previous ten years and was designated as a Limited Growth Village in the Local Development Framework

·        The development represented approximately a third of what was allocated in the Core Strategy. This was a significant amount

·        Newborough was unique as it had no footpaths linking it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

         Outline planning permission was sought for 2 x 2 bedroom properties, each with a parking space, and garden area. The proposal also involved the creation of a vehicle access from Reeves Way. This application was for the principal of two dwellings on this site, all other matters were reserved.

         The site was within a residential area of Peterborough.  No.44 Ashcroft Gardens was a two storey residential property that occupied a corner plot between Ashcroft Gardens and Reeves Way.  The application site was currently part of the rear garden of this property and faced on to Reeves Way. The site covered an area of 270 square metres, and presently there was no direct vehicle access to it. 

The surrounding area was characterised with large detached and semi-detached residential properties with side garages, and large rear gardens. The site was in relatively close proximity to existing bus stops on either side of Reeves Way.   

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were advised that the main issues for consideration were the site capacity and impact on the character of the surrounding area, the impact on neighbouring sites, the access to the site and highway issues, the impact of the development on trees and the S106 planning obligation. The recommendation was one of refusal.

Members were advised that the application was a resubmission following a recent refusal under delegated powers. Technically the application was the same apart from the inclusion of indicative streetscene plans. These plans demonstrated how the development may appear in the streetscene and in relation to the existing neighbouring properties.

The recommendation was one of refusal and this was due to the development representing overdevelopment, resulting in a cramped form of construction uncharacteristic with the area, the dwellings would overshadow adjacent developments and be overbearing in nature. There had also been no S106 entered into at the current time.

Members’ attention was drawn to the update report and it was advised that Councillor Nabil Shabbir, Ward Councillor, had submitted a letter of support for the application. The Agent had also submitted a statement which sought to justify the proposal in the context of previous decisions made by the authority.

The Committee was advised that Councillor Nabil Shabbir, a provisional speaker, was not in attendance.

Mr and Mrs Skerritt, local residents, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        Mr and Mrs Skerritt were the residents of number 42 Ashcroft Gardens

·        The application was a reconstruction of a previous planning application which had been heard

·        The objections raised had not been addressed

·        The development would be inappropriate for the existing area, being very intrusive and invasive to the neighbouring properties

·        The intrusion would impact on the right of light on the neighbouring properties which had been enjoyed for over 30 years

·        The development would be overbearing and would overshadow the neighbouring properties

·        The size of the site was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The proposal was to erect a two storey, two bedroom detached dwelling with a dedicated rear amenity space of 55 square metres. The site would be accessed off Woodfield Road and would create dedicated parking spaces for both the existing and proposed dwelling.

The site was used to form part of the garden of No. 171 Mayors Walk. There was a two metre high brick wall abutting Woodfield Road, with a single detached garage situated at the Southern most point with a space for a single vehicle to front.

The area was predominantly residential. To the North was 171 Mayors Walk, to the East was 169 Mayors Walk and to the South was 2 Woodfield Road, all of which were two storey brick buildings. To the East was 1A Woodfield Road, a triple garage with flat above which was granted planning permission in 2006.

There were no trees on site that contributed to the street scene.

         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 the principle of development, the design and visual amenity, the impact on neighbouring residents, the amenity of future occupiers and the highways implications. The recommendation was one of approval.

The site had a long case history, which was outlined to the Committee. The revised proposal had reduced the property in size from a three bedroom to a two bedroom property, it had a reduced footprint and this had in turn increased the amount of garden space. A hipped roof design had also been implemented. The design mirrored typical development in the area and addressed all of the previous concerns highlighted.

         Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Further objections relating to the parking in the area and the alterations proposed to the first floor rear window leading to a featureless blank wall, had been received. Further to the receipt of a petition, an additional signatory had also been received from 9 Woodfield Road and a letter had been received from Mr Rolfe, a local resident, adding numerous points to the submitted petition. 

         Councillor Nick Arculus, Ward Councillor speaking on behalf of local residents, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        The application, just by its title, was misleading as the development would take place on Woodfield Road

·        The Committee was requested to note that the Officer’s recommendation was ‘on balance’ and could therefore have easily tipped in the favour of refusal

·        In a case where the decision was 50/50, the default position of the Committee should be one of refusal unless there was adequate grounds for the contrary

·        With regards to design and visual amenity of the land, there had been a very high proportion of objections

·        Woodfield Road was a small street and the number of objection letters demonstrated the high level of opposition

·        The design was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Full planning permission was sought for:-

·       Construction of a new main three-storey school building containing most of the teaching, support and administration facilities; 

·        The new building would be constructed before most of the existing buildings were demolished, to allow for continuous use of the site without having to provide temporary accommodation;

·        The building would be set to the south and east sides of the current building cluster, facing out over a new pitch area to be laid when the existing buildings were demolished.  The building would have a central entrance feature with glazing giving views through to the library, two long wings coming out to the north and the west (the front of the building), and two shorter wings to the east (towards Oakdale Primary) and south (the back of the building).  The two long wings would enclose two sides of the new front pitch area, and would be the public face of the building;

·        The existing sports halls would be retained, and incorporated into an extended/new building including activity suite, swimming pool, studio, and new changing, office and reception areas. The main assembly/dining hall would also be part of this building;

·        The existing playing field area would be retained;

·        Two small buildings to the south of the site would also be retained, these were the bungalows used for vocational studies;

·        There would be some minor changes to the parking and access layout, and a new service vehicle access from Peterborough Road would be created along the south of the site;

·        The existing informal pedestrian link between Peterborough Road and Oakdale Avenue would be improved and slightly realigned;

·        To improve the overall security of the site, a fenced secure line would be established behind the car parking, to enclose the main school areas.  The existing Powerleague area would be outside the line, as would the car parking and public entrance to the sports facilities and main hall; and 

·        The new buildings would be constructed to minimise energy consumption and increase efficiency, to achieve higher standards that are required under current building regulations, equivalent to Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) Very Good rating.  

The College site covered an area of about 13.1 hectares, with the main site frontage onto Peterborough Road to the west.  The north of the site was to Whittlesey Road, although this boundary was enclosed with mature planting, and the east of the site was bounded by domestic gardens for most of its length, with Oakdale Primary School to the south-east.

To the south of the site was mainly former agricultural land, which was to be developed as part of the South Stanground Urban Extensions, and Glebe Farmhouse, which also had permission for residential development.

Currently, the school building faced Peterborough Road, with a strip of car parking in front of the building.  The existing three storey main building was set about 40 metres back from Peterborough Road.  There were a variety of other buildings, built over the years in various styles and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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 1 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 5 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;

·        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.

The Committee had previously refused permission for the bungalow that incorporated the following changes to the above described development:

·        Reduction of 0.75m in the ridge height to 4.75 metres;

·        The restriction to the outdoor lighting; and

·        The replacement of all four no. double patio doors on the rear elevation with fixed standard glazed windows and insertion of a 400mm strip of obscure glazing  

The Committee had felt that:

·        The reduced ridge height did not compensate enough for the fact that the bungalow was closer to adjacent dwellings than had been previously approved; and

·        As a consequence the bungalow had an overbearing appearance

The latest application included all of the previously applied for changes plus the following additional change:

·        The repositioning of the rear elevation, one metre back from its current position.

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 bounded 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 proposal. The main issue for consideration was the impact of the development on neighbour amenity. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members were advised that the repositioning of the rear elevation would leave an exposed floor slab and under the proposed recommendation there was a condition stating that this slab would have to be removed. It was also recommended that permitted development rights be removed in order to prevent any future overlooking issues. It was proposed that the windows, currently french doors, would be reduced in size by obscuring the top section of the glass. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.