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 Lane and Martin.

Councillor Ash was in attendance as a substitute.                   

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 meetings were approved as true and accurate records subject to the following amendment:

The minutes from 6 December 2011, page 20 should read:

          RESOLVED: (6 for, 3 against) to refuse the application, as per officer recommendation.

            Councillor Harrington left the meeting.

         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 two and two and a half storey, and a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced. The access road would be directly off Gunton’s 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 and a further period of neighbour consultation undertaken.

         The proposal was a redesign of an original 13 unit scheme and it was noted that 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. It was also noted 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 been considered by Members of the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee on 8 November and 6 December 2011.  Members had resolved to defer the item at the 8 November Committee in order to consider the financial appraisal submitted to the Local Planning Authority by the Developer. It had also been suggested by Members that discussions 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.  This, it was considered, could be a compromise that could be agreed if it was confirmed that no Section 106 could be reasonably secured.  However, no such discussion had been entered into. The matter had been deferred again at the 6 December 2011 meeting. This was as a result of Members careful consideration of the financial appraisal. Members considered that the Developer was in a financial position to make a contribution towards the application site and therefore once again deferred the item to allow Planning Officers the opportunity to discuss this further with the Developer directly.

A meeting had been held between the Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering and the Developer’s Agent.  At the meeting the Agent had agreed to make a contribution of £15k towards the provision of new or improved community facilities (to be defined in agreement with the Parish Council) within the village. It was proposed that the sum would be payable on first occupation of the 15^th dwelling and that any money unspent after 36 months should be returned. The contribution was to be made by the Applicant on the basis of a goodwill gesture to the community, as the submitted financial appraisal had made it clear that the site was not profitable to develop.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The recommendation was one of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The application sought permission to use part of the dwelling house as a teaching establishment for Arabic and religious instruction on weekdays only.  This was a retrospective application as the use commenced in May 2010.  The use operated Monday (including Bank Holidays) to Friday providing two sessions between 4.00 pm and 5.00 pm and 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm.  The maximum number of children attending each session would be ten.

The application site contained a two storey detached dwelling which had been extended with a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension.  To the rear was an enclosed garden which abutted the rear gardens to properties in Cecil Road and Dogsthorpe Road.  The site was close to the entrance of the street on the north side of Exeter Road and the immediate vicinity was comprised of an established residential character comprising predominantly two storey detached and semi detached properties with in curtilage parking provision.  There was space to the front of the property for two vehicles to park clear of the public highway.

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 the character of the area and the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties and the highway implications. The recommendation was one of refusal as it was considered that the nature and scale of the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the predominantly residential character of the area. The proposal would also result in a number of people waiting to pick up and drop off their children, this in turn would cause a highway hazard. 

Members were advised that the application followed on from the refusal of a similar scheme where the proposal had been for 15 children to be in attendance at the property at any one time.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. An additional letter of representation had been received from Councillor Nadeem in support of the application and amended reasons for refusal R1 and R2 were detailed.

The Planning Officer further advised that an additional letter of representation had been received immediately prior to the commencement of the meeting from the occupiers at number 45 Exeter Road. The letter was in support of the application and stated that their daughter attended the school and they travelled to and from on foot, not by car.

Councillor John Shearman, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·         There had been a great deal of confusion on the part of the Applicant and his wife following the refusal of the first application;

·         The application was supported by Councillor Nadeem, Ward Councillor;

·         The previous application had failed on a number of grounds, including numbers attending and traffic volumes created;

·         At the Applicant’s request, and on his behalf, Councillor Shearman had contacted the Planning Department;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.