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 Harrington and Martin.

          Councillor Ash was in attendance as a substitute from item 5.4 onwards.                 

          Councillor Serluca declared that she would be making representation as Ward Councillor, on behalf of her constituents, on item 5.1, Railworld, Land North of Cubbitt Way, Woodston, Peterborough.

          The minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 2012 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The application originally sought full planning permission for the use of the Railworld exhibition car parks (Land north of Cubitt Way, approximately 1.998ha/4.94 acres) for car boot sales on Thursdays 5.00pm – 9.00pm (April to September) and Sundays and Bank Holidays 6.00am – 4.00pm (all year round). 

Following consultation feedback the proposal had been amended.  The amendments proposed were as follows:

·         The revised opening hours to be 7.30am – 4.00pm Sundays and Bank Holidays, with opening to public at 9.00am (all year round), and Thursdays 4.00pm – 9.00pm, with opening to public at 5.00pm (April to September);

·        The means of access to the site from Oundle Road via the Railway arches only, apart from high sided trading vehicles which are unable to pass under the railway arches.

·        The introduction of buffer zones within the site where no activities would take place on the southern and western boundaries, which were adjacent to residential sites;

·        The marking out of the Public Right of Way route on site, to ensure it remained unobstructed and available for use when markets were being held; and

·         No pedestrian access to the site from Cubitt Way when markets were taking place. 

         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 neighbouring sites, access to the site and highways issues and the impact on the public right of way. The recommendation was one of approval.

The Chairman addressed the Committee and advised that an extension to the speaking times had been requested. The Committee agreed to extend the speaking times to allow 2 ½ minutes per objector, with those speaking in support of the application receiving the same total amount of time , this equating to 7 ½ minutes.

Councillor Lucia Serluca, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee on behalf of her constituents. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·         The original concept of car boot sales had over recent years transformed into more commercial open air markets, attracting antique dealers and eBay traders looking for bargains to sell on for profit;

·         People sold new goods as well as old and tended to use large vans;

·         The traders often outnumbered the genuine car booters;

·         Car boot sales had become a tourist destination in their own right, with bouncy castles and food outlets;

·         The boot sales attract significant numbers of visitors travelling by car;

·         Traders often set up in the early hours of the morning;

·         The existing car boot sale at the football ground had caused issues in the past for local residents in terms of noise, general disturbance and indiscriminate parking in surrounding streets;

·         Local residents had questioned why a car boot sale was needed in this area. many of the items offered for sale could be purchased at the permanent market, where those traders had to pay rent and business rates;

·         It was in the opinion of local residents that the proposal was for a retail use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The proposal was to redevelop the area currently occupied by the parking, tennis courts and marquee, and incorporate a further 2800 square metres or so of adjacent land into the developed area.  The proposal included:

·      Provision of 100 car parking spaces as well as 11 disabled parking spaces,    parking for 3 coaches and allowance for cycles and motorcycles;

·      A new, solid construction, club house set slightly further away from the dwellings, to include changing rooms and support offices, a kitchen, bar and function room, and upstairs a further bar area and lounge;

·      Banked seating along the north elevation of the club house, overlooking the pitches;

·      Floodlighting around the main pitch (the one closest to the clubhouse);

·      A new foul drainage connection;

·      A small grounds maintenance store;

·      A new security fence around the site perimeter; and

·      Reinstatement of four tennis courts (these are currently underneath the temporary marquee club house).

The site was close to the Bretton Centre, and was accessed from Bretton Way along Flaxland to the north of the Local Centre, and then along a narrow unadopted road which led to the park, a scout hut, and the former Bretton Woods School site.  This access road was about 5.5 metres wide.

The area used by the rugby club was the southern part of Bretton Park.  It was leased out by the City Council (although it was understood that there was currently no lease in place) and has been used by the rugby club for several years.  The site currently included a car park with about 64 spaces, an unused area which was laid out as four tennis courts, and a temporary structure, effectively a large marquee, which was laid out over a further four tennis courts and which was used as a club house and for holding functions. Together these areas covered about 5730 square metres.  The pitches were beyond this.  The area was immediately adjacent to a County Wildlife Site and the park was surrounded by a wooded area known as Highlees Spinney.  There were dwellings within 50 metres of the site.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Members were advised that the main issues for consideration were the principles of development, highways impacts, parking, the design, neighbour amenity, landscaping, ecology and the re-instatement of the tennis courts. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members were advised that the application also included improvements to the junction accessing the site where it met Flaxland. It was currently a very tight corner and could not be easily accessed by buses.

There had been an error in the application, in that consultation had not been undertaken with the Forestry Commission and the Woodland Trust, there was therefore a change to the recommendation contained within the update report stating that ‘The Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering be authorised to grant permission subject to; there being no objection from either the Woodland Trust or the Forestry Commission and the conditions as per the printed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Applicant sought consent to demolish the existing 17 garages in a parking court and erect three two-storey terraced affordable dwellings for rent with associated parking. Part of the proposal included the formation of a rear access to No.8 Furze Ride and the removal of an existing access from the garage court to the East-West footpath that runs along the North of the site. A new 1.8 metre metal railing fence would be installed along the Northern boundary.

The dwellings stood at 4.8 metres to eaves and 7.5 metres to ridge. Each dwelling would have its own dedicated rear garden space, two off street parking spaces, garden shed and bin store.

The application site was a garage court consisting of 17 flat roof garages with metal doors, accessed from the South-East and was surrounded by residential gardens to the East, South and West, with a non-adopted footpath running East-West to the immediate North. The site was covered in hard standing; there were no trees within the site however a number surrounded the site. The site boundary was formed by a combination of a 2 metre high brick walling or the rear wall of the garages themselves.

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 to neighbouring residents, the amenity of future occupiers and highway implications. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Additional representations had been received from Mr Chris Brammall, a local resident and from Councillor Adrian Miners, Ward Councillor, both in objection to the application.

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

·         There had been extensive comments received from residents in relation to the application;

·         The boundary wall was well established and if it was to change, this would have an adverse effect on neighbours amenity;

·         The proposed dwellings were to be slightly angled from the properties on Welland Road, however the nearest point was still very close and would make the gardens claustrophobic;

·         There would be light loss to the neighbours;

·         The garages were reasonably well looked after and a lot of them were in use;

·         It was a heavy residential area and there were concerns with regards to construction, this needed to be monitored carefully and there should be no building during unsocial hours namely not on a Sunday or a Saturday afternoon and 8.00am to 6.00pm on weekdays and 8.00pm to 2.00pm on a Saturday.

Mr Chris Brammall, a local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        Mr Brammall was permitted by the Committee to circulate a photograph highlighting the view from the back of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Permission was sought to demolish the existing four blocks of 22 garages located on the site and to construct four two storey dwellings. It is proposed that the dwellings are constructed as one pair of two bedroom semi detached dwellings and one pair of three bedroom semi detached dwellings. The dwellings were offered for affordable rent by Cross key Homes.

It was proposed that the dwellings were constructed of brick and tile with a gable roof occupying a footprint of approximately 10.5 metres (w) x 8 metres (l) and rising to a height of approximately 7.9 metres. Two tandem style on plot parking spaces were proposed to serve each dwelling. Each dwelling would be provided with an enclosed area of rear amenity space. A bin collection point to serve all four dwellings would be provided adjacent to the north side of the access road.

The application site was presently occupied by four blocks of 22 garages. The site was hard surfaced and level. Existing vehicular access was off Hallfields Lane.

The character to the north, south and west of the site was residential and was comprised of a two storey semi detached development of a uniform pattern and scale. Gunthorpe Primary School and associated playing fields were located to the north east of the site. There was an existing tree located to the south east corner of the site.

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, the design and impact of the development on the character of the area, residential amenity, the impact of the development on neighbour amenity, highway implications and a number of other issues. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Additional representations had been received from Councillor Sue Day, Ward Councillor, and Ms Barbara King on behalf of her mother, a local resident, both in objection to the application.

Mr Michael Beeken and Mrs Susan Heffron, local residents, addressed the Committee jointly in objection to the application. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·         Mr Beeken had lived in his home for some 46 years without being overlooked;

·         The property had been improved to the rear and it had been enjoyed over the years, especially the garden area;

·         The proposed houses would overlook Mr Beeken’s property;

·         The committee report stated that the properties would be 22 metres away at the nearest point, this was still far too close;

·         Mr Beeken and his wife were both retired and their house had given them a lot of pleasure over the years. They did not have the funds to move, or wish to move;

·         Bungalows would provide a good option as there were older single people living on the estate who could move into these, in turn freeing up their three bedroom properties for families;

·         If the Committee were minded to approve the application, could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The City Council had been consulted by Augean PLC with regard to applications they intended to submit to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in respect of East Northants Resource Management Facility (ENRMF) at Kings Cliffe, Northamptonshire.  The proposals were at a pre-application stage but all of the information about the proposals was in the public realm and was available for inspection on the Augean website at www.augeanplc.com. The proposals were to be determined by the IPC because they would constitute national significant infrastructure projects for hazardous waste facilities.

The site currently had permission to landfill with hazardous waste and low level radioactive waste.  Both waste streams were strictly controlled through permits issued by the Environment Agency.  The permit for the low level waste allowed acceptance of solid wastes of not more than 200Bq/g.  This meant that the waste contained very small levels of radioactivity and in this case it was the bottom 5% of the range of low level radioactive wastes.  The waste that would be disposed of would come from the clean up of decommissioned nuclear industry sites such as building rubble and from non-nuclear sources such as hospitals. There was also permission for a soil recycling facility which could take 100,000 tonnes per annum of imported contaminated soil enabling the clean up of this soil on site through washing or treating with chemicals.  This facility was not for low level radioactive waste (LLW).  The cleaned up soil would be put into the landfill area.  The total current permitted imports to the site were 250,000 tonnes of waste per annum. 

On 20 January 2012, a meeting organised by the IPC was held and attended by the Local Authorities directly affected by the proposal (named ‘B’ authorities), namely Northamptonshire County Council and East Northamptonshire, and representatives of neighbouring authorities (named ‘A’ authorities) including Peterborough. Officers together with Councillor Peter Hiller and Councillor John Holdich attended on behalf of Peterborough.  The purpose of the meeting was to explain the application process and not to discuss the merits of the scheme. 

In summary, Augean intended to submit applications for the following development:

·        A time extension of approximately 3 years to complete landfilling of the consented landfill by the end of December 2016 with an associated time extension to the end of December 2016 for the life of the soil treatment and recycling facility and an increase in the throughput of the soil treatment and recycling facility to 150,000tpa;

·         The extension of the life of the soil treatment and recycling facility located in the north west of the site to December 2026;

·         The construction of a new landfill void to the west of the current landfill which would provide approximately 10 years of life for a period up to 2026.  The new void was to be within the boundary of the extant planning consent.  This would be created by removing top and sub soil, overburden and clays, storing some of this for re-use in restoration of the site, exporting some to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.