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 Serluca, Lane and Martin.

Councillors Winslade and Ash were in attendance as substitutes.                    

          Councillor Harrington declared that he would be making representation as Ward Councillor on item 5.1, Land to the North of the Village Hall, Guntons Road, Newborough, Peterborough.

          The minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2011 were approved as a true and accurate record.       

As part of the open space provision contained within the approved Hampton Vale     Development Brief, tranche VG10 was allocated for use as allotments. To date, no detailed application for the layout of the site had been submitted and the site remained undeveloped. Following Peterborough City Council’s Housing Review 2010, in which developers were invited to put forward proposed land for residential development, O&H offered an area of approximately 6.47 hectares for housing. The proposed land was located to the south west of Hampton Vale, adjacent to the Western Peripheral Road and included part of the approved allotment site, VG10. The proposed housing site had been accepted in principle, and allocated as SA3.47 as part of the Site Allocations process and included within the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). Although the Site Allocations DPD had not been formally adopted it had been through the public examination process and it was anticipated that it would be adopted in February 2012, hence it carried significant weight in the decision making process.

Given that part of the approved allotments site was now envisaged for housing land and in recognition that a replacement allotment site was required to serve Hampton Vale, O&H had offered an alternative site, of the same overall size (1.2 hectares), which formed the basis of the planning application. As the application site fell partially outside of the application boundary for the Outline planning approval for the 1993 Hampton Township and the land covered by the approved Hampton Vale Development Brief a Full planning application had been submitted. 

Permission was sought for the use of land adjacent to and north of VG10, and between the approved route of the western peripheral road and tranches VT22, VT24 and VT25 as allotments. The site extended to approximately 1.2 hectares (1.27 hectare including the access road) of previously undeveloped land. The Orton Pit Special Area of Conservation (SAC) was located to the west of the site.

It was proposed that the site would be subdivided into 52 plots. 300mm of topsoil would be bought onto the site. It was proposed that the site boundaries were flanked by a combination of 1.8 metre high railings to the open space to the west and 1.8 metre high feather edged timber fence, where the site adjoined the allocated new housing site (SA3.47).

Access into the site would be via VT25, a partially developed housing tranche to the east of the application site. It was proposed that where the access road crossed the new housing site (SA3.47) it would initially be of a temporary construction and formally laid out in due course as the residential development was completed. 32 car parking spaces were proposed to serve the development.

The proposals would also result in a change to the layout of the approved Surface Water Attenuation (SWA) pond, agreed as part of the planning permission for the Western Peripheral Road. This amendment would need to be agreed as part of a non material/material amendment to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The proposal was to construct 18 dwellings, made up of 6 x 4-bed houses, 2 x 3-bed houses, 9 x 2-bed houses and 1 x 2-bed bungalow.  The houses would be varying 2 and 2-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. Because of the need to secure this closure of the access, a change to the ‘red line’ of the application had been made recently and this was the subject of re-consultation with residents.

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 had been implemented and as such could not expire.  Plots 4-8 and Plot 11 were unchanged from the previously approved scheme. Members were also requested to note that the closure of Harris Close was an integral part of the previously approved development and also of the Harris Close development.

The item had previously been considered by Members of the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee on 8 November 2011.  Members resolved to defer the item until the next committee and for a financial appraisal to be attached for Members as a confidential background paper.

It had also suggested by Members that discussion should take place between the Parish Council and the Developer regarding giving up some of the garden from plots 9-11 for use by the parish hall.  It was considered that this may be a compromise which could be agreed if it was confirmed that no Section 106 could be reasonably secured. 

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, flood risk, highway safety and access, residential amenity, sustainability, the impact on protected and other trees and Section 106 contributions. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members’ attention was drawn to the update report and it was advised that Councillor Harrington had also put forward some alternative development appraisal figures which concluded that the site would be profitable and in his opinion S106 contributions could be made by the developer. The developer had also written in and stated that they had not met with the Parish Council as they did not feel that the proposal to decrease some of the gardens to make more room for the village hall was acceptable for the reasons outlined in the update report.

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

·        There were no objections in principle to the development

·        Figures had been presented to the Committee detailing the viability of the scheme

·        The developers appraisal was produced with a template and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The application sought outline planning permission for a ‘care village’ comprising a 50-bed care home,  a 40-bed dementia care unit, 22 supported living units, 22 assisted living units and 29 extra care/residential units.  Access and scale were to be considered as part of the proposal; matters of appearance, landscaping and layout were reserved to a later stage.  A general indicative layout as to how the development would be accommodated had been submitted and included 2/3 storey development to the rear (west) of the site, 2 storey development to the east and to the rear of nos. 223 to 237 Peterborough Road and single storey development where units would abut tight to the boundaries of 217, 217a and 223 Peterborough Road.  Access to the site would be gained by the demolition of nos. 219 and 221 Peterborough Road and a new 2 storey unit would front the site.  The site would include landscaped areas and walkways and would include features such as vegetable, water and small sensory gardens.

The proposal would also include an administrative centre including an on site GP and other related medical services including a visiting chiropodist, optical, health care and well being councillors, care assistants, specialist doctors, nurses, and ancillary staff to service the various units.  It was also proposed that within the development there would be a small convenience shop, coffee bar/lounge, hairdressers, laundry service, fitness suite, IT suite and a multi functional room for use solely by residents.  Some accommodation would also be provided for ‘overnight stays’ for relatives or visitors.  A mini bus service would be provided with disabled access for trips and visits and will co-ordinate home shopping.

The application site was approximately 1.46 ha and was located on land to the rear of properties 207-239 on the west side of Peterborough Road. The site formed the central section of an allocated site for residential development within the Peterborough Site Allocations Submission Document DPD (ref.  SA3.40), however part of the site            was currently designated as green wedge under the Adopted Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) 2005.  The site was overgrown and contained grassland, scrub and bramble. Directly to the north of the site were a number of brick built derelict kennels and outbuildings. The western boundary lay adjacent to the former Stanground landfill site and land designated as Green Wedge, beyond which was the new Stanground By-pass (Stanham Way).  To the north and south there was currently open land and this land formed part of the site allocation discussed above. The character along Peterborough Road was comprised of ribbon development mainly detached properties of varied styles including two storey dwellings, chalet bungalows and single storey.  Land opposite the site and on the eastern flank of Peterborough Road formed the Stanground south development.  The site was on a main transport route with a regular bus service to and from the city.  A Grade II listed windmill was situated approximately 50 metres to the south out the site.

The Planning Officer addressed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The proposal was to extend the existing side garage by bringing the front wall forward by an additional 1.65 metres to within 250mm of the front of the main house, and extending the roof upwards.  The proposed new roof would have a pitch the same as that of the main house; the ridge would be set 1.5 metres below that of the main house and to the rear of it. This would then allow for a long roof slope at the front which would terminate in an eaves line just above the lintels of the garage doors, which was at about the same level as the ground floor door and window lintels. There would be two dormers in this roof slope.

The house dated from the 1990s, and was part of a large residential development on former Showground land.  The area was residential with houses of various designs.  No 39 was the northernmost house of a row of detached houses.  The row was laid out so that, although the houses were of varying designs, there was a pattern of houses with gaps between.  These gaps were achieved by using single or one-and-a-half storey garages, and by setting elements back from the main building line.

The dwelling subject of the application was a two storey dwelling with rooms in the roof, with a single storey, shallow roofed garage to the side, separating it from No 37 to the south.  The garage was currently set back from the front wall of the main house.

Dunblane Drive stopped immediately to the north of No 39, however there was a link in place which would be opened once the development area to the north was occupied.  There was a private drive serving the four houses at the top of Dunblane Drive.

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 neighbour amenity, the impact on the street scene and parking issues. The recommendation was one of refusal.

Members were advised that the proposal would have a detrimental effect on sunlight in the neighbouring bathroom window and would also result in a terracing effect, thus having a detrimental impact on the street scene.

Councillor Sue Allen, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant, and responded to questions from Members. In summary, the issues highlighted to the Committee included:

·        A meeting had been held of the Parish Council to discuss this application. Three objecting residents of the road behind Dunblane Drive had been present and they felt that the house would be overdeveloped, there would be problems with traffic and that the kitchen would be made into a preparation kitchen, leading to overpowering smells of Indian food. The Parish Council had decided to object to the proposal on these grounds

·        The applicant had accommodated the objections, firstly by removing the kitchen extension , the height of the extension to the garage had also been reduced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The proposal sought planning permission for the erection of two static caravans for residential occupation. The application details had stated that the lengths of the caravans would be between 8.6 metres and 9.8 metres (depending upon exact model chosen) and a width of 3.8 metres.  A third caravan, 6.5 metres by 2.29 metres, was to be used as a shared family room facility.  All three caravans were to be used by one extended family. A foul water treatment plant was also proposed. The site area was approximately 0.07 hectares and was ‘L’ shaped in plan form. The vehicular access was proposed directly opposite no.3 Hurn Road and was shown with a width of 8 metres. Entrance gates were to be set approximately 6 metres from the edge of Hurn Road. The two ‘living’ caravans were to be located approximately 26 metres and 32 metres from Hurn Road. They were to be positioned at right angles to each other and immediately adjacent to each other. The family room caravan was to be located at the very rear of the site approximately 50 metres from Hurn Road. Parking provision was shown for five vehicles and a 6 metre diameter turning circle was identified within the access road. The ‘living’ caravans were proposed at a distance of approximately 43 metres from the nearest line of the London to Edinburgh mainline railway and the family room would be approximately 40 metres.

The agent had provided evidence to demonstrate that the intended occupiers met the definition of Gypsies and Travellers.  

The original application for the development ref: 10/00412/FUL had been withdrawn by the applicant as a result of a refusal recommendation to Committee by the Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services. It was considered that the occupation of the site, in very close proximity to the mainline London to Edinburgh railway, would not provide for a satisfactory living environment for occupiers of the site given the exposure to high noise levels from the passing trains. No measures had been proposed in that application to mitigate against the noise from the trains.

Since that application there had been two further planning applications. Planning applications ref: 10/01065/FUL and 11/01320/FUL both proposed two noise barriers to protect the living environment for occupiers. Both applications were refused as it was considered initially by Members on 23 November 2010 (application ref: 10/01065/FUL) and then by Officers on 13 October 2011 (application ref: 11/01320/FUL) that the proposed acoustic noise barriers, due to their height, length and siting, would stand out as incongruous, dominant and alien features within the immediate rural setting to the detriment of the character and appearance of the countryside.

The applicant had deleted both noise barriers. As an alternative to the barriers the applicant proposed to: -

         1 –   Clad the mobile homes to improve their sound resistance

2 – Re-site the amenity space 6 metres further away – the static caravans along side 1.8 metre high fence surrounding the amenity space  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Permission was sought for a first floor front extension. The proposal was to enclose the existing first floor balcony to create an internal room, proposed for use as a lounge. It was proposed that the extension would have a hipped style roof and would incorporate three large first floor windows to the front elevation and one large first floor window to the north side elevation. It was proposed that the extension would be clad with white PVC.

The application dwelling was a large detached two storey property situated in a prominent position within the street scene to the corner of Thomas Close and Huntsman Gate. The property had been significantly extended, with the creation of a first floor extension above the original garage and a front porch extension with a first floor balcony above. The dwelling had a hipped roof and was constructed from brick and tile. A hard paved driveway was located to the front of the dwelling that provided two in-curtilage car parking spaces. The property had an open front curtilage, with grassed front lawn flanked by trees to the north and west site boundaries. 

The application site was located within a modern residential development comprising of large detached two storey properties. The design of the nearby properties varied but there were a number of dwellings that were the same design as the application dwelling, prior to its earlier extension.

An earlier application (ref: 11/01434/FUL) for the same development was withdrawn on 27 October 2011 following discussions with the applicant regarding amending the design of the extension in order to address Officer concerns about the likely adverse impact of the extension on the character of the area. There had been no change to the resubmitted application.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were advised that the main issues for consideration were the design and impact on the character of the area and the impact of the development on neighbour amenity. The recommendation was one of refusal. Members were advised that the recommendation of refusal was due to the out of character windows proposed.

Following questions to the Planning Officer in relation to the windows, a motion was put forward and seconded to refuse the application. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously) to refuse the application, as per officer recommendation and:

1. The reason for refusal as detailed in the committee report

Reasons for the decision:

The proposal was unacceptable as the development by reason of the proposed materials, design, size and location of the proposed fenestration would appear out of keeping with the character of the host dwelling and result in a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.