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 and Lane.

          Councillors Winslade and Ash attended as substitutes.

          Councillor Stokes declared that she would be making representation as Ward Councillor on item 4.4, R and P Meats, 55 Cherry Orton Road.

The proposal sought permission to;

·  Construct an all weather artificial pitch

·  Erect 8 x 15 metre high columns with 28 floodlights, proposed to be conditioned so as not to be used after 21.30 Monday-Friday or after 20.30 Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holidays

·  Erection of surrounding fences standing at 3.06 metres and 4.5 metres; and

·  Accompanying external works

Use would be made of the existing temporary access off Lincoln Road to construct the development. The access had been used in conjunction with recently completed works on the site. Under a proposed condition, the access would be stopped up upon completion of the construction.

The application site formed part of the existing school playing field, which was an area in the region of 2.7ha, screened by mature hedgerows and trees to the North, East, South and West respectively.

The School itself was situated to the immediate East, separated by a dedicated car parking area. To the North were residential properties, and to the South and West circa 90 metres was the A15. 

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, light pollution and highway implications. The recommendation was one of approval. Whilst the development was located in open countryside, it was an existing playing field, it had also been demonstrated that the floodlighting would not be detrimental to residential amenity or highways safety and it would not be detrimental to protected species. The noise would also not be detrimental to residential amenity and the proposed planting of oak trees would help to soften the development into the landscape.

Members were advised that the objections received against the proposal related mainly to the impact that the floodlighting would have on the area in general terms. The area was outside of the village envelope and therefore the floodlighting would introduce a significant amount of lighting into an area that would otherwise be dark. Concerns had also been raised with regards to noise emanating from the proposal, traffic generation due to the pitch being available for public use outside of school hours, and the lack of a carbon reduction/offsetting proposal as part of the development.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Objectors had made reference to the non-application of planning officers of policy CS10 of the Core Strategy, this highlighted that new development should include measures to further the Environment Capital agenda. Members were informed that officers applied the policy by         seeking a 10% improvement against current building regulation requirements. This could not be applied to this development for two reasons, namely the development was not subject to control under building regulations and due to the fact that the development was not a building, there was no ‘target emission rate’ that could be calculated for it, so there was no way of identifying a saving to be achieved.

Members were further advised that a response from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The proposals sought to amend two aspects of a 2010 grant of planning permission and a listed building consent for the erection of a two storey rear extension and two single storey rear/side extensions. The proposal was to bring rearwards an existing recessed two storey rear element of the dwelling by 2.8 metres to be in line with the principle gable to the rear elevation of the dwelling.

Two single storey side extensions were proposed on either side of the existing rear flank walls to the dwelling. The eastern side ground floor extension was to have a depth of 4 metres and a width of 2.5 metres with a mono-pitched roof. The western side single storey ground floor extension was to be accessed off the kitchen and was to have depth of 5 metres with a width of 1.5 metres to form a WC and shower room.

Timber casement windows were proposed in the extensions to replace the originally approved leaded lights fenestration. A window in the rear elevation was to be made independent of a proposed door in that elevation. The rainwater goods were proposed to be of cast iron.

The rear gable wall of the existing dwelling was to have a single ‘brick skin’ added rearwards to provide a layer of insulation whilst also providing a uniform brick finish to the elevation.

There were no alterations in the current applications to the scale, general proportions and footprint of the previously approved extensions.

The application dwelling dated back to the 18^th century and was of brick construction with a pantiled roof throughout. The dwelling previously had a thatched roof. The footprint of the dwelling was ‘T’ shaped and was part two storey to the rear with a prominent gable end, and part one and half storey to the front facing Church Street. The current appearance of the rear and west elevation was poor due to contrasting brick types and poorly maintained rendering.

The property lay at a prominent corner within Church Street at the eastern end of a row of terraced housing and Thorney Library. Immediately to the east of the dwelling was a Pharmacy business within a small building that was formerly a telephone exchange. The Pharmacy had a large forecourt area and was set slightly rearwards of the application dwelling. A curved style 1.8 metre high fence formed the eastern boundary with the Pharmacy. To the rear of the site was a car repair business and to the west a part attached dwelling with a substantial curtilage. To the south of the site lay the grounds of Thorney Abbey.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the main consideration that being the impact of the proposed works upon the appearance of the Grade II listed building and the character of the Thorney Conservation Area.  The recommendation was one of approval.

Following debate, Members commented that the revisions were an improvement to what was already a very pleasant and attractive property.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The application sought permission for residential development comprising 1 x 3 bed, 15 x 4 bed and 18 x 5 bed properties.  The dwellings would be two and two and a half storey set on relatively large plots.  The site would be accessed off Itter Crescent. 

The site area was approximately 1.38 ha and was part of a site allocated for residential development under policy H3 (ref 3.21) of the Adopted Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) (2005).  The site was former allotment land located to the southern end of Itter Crescent and overlooked Itter Park Recreation Ground to the east and was separated from it by a public footpath/right of way.  The site was currently overgrown with scrub, grass and a number of trees.  The site was bounded to the north (Itter Crescent) and west (Fane Road) by established residential properties and allotment land to the south.  The character of Itter Crescent was comprised primarily of detached single storey and two storey properties circa 1950s with large rearward gardens.  Each dwelling along the Crescent was of individual design.  Properties located in Fane Road were primarily two storey terraced properties with rear gardens extending some 22 metres.  The site lay adjacent to Itter Park which had been awarded the Green Flag Status; the national standard for the parks of England and Wales.  It was divided into two sections by a hedge and included a playing field and a small formal garden.

There was no on site provision for open space due to the proposals proximity to Itter Park and in lieu of this, a £10k contribution would be made towards further improvements within Itter Park. The developer was also proposing to make a contribution in line with Peterborough City Council’s Planning Obligation and Implementation Strategy (POIS) at both a strategic level and a local neighbourhood level. 

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the application. The main issues for consideration were outlined and these included the policy context and the principle of development, the design and amenity on site, the impact on neighbouring amenity, residential amenity in general, highways implications, meeting housing needs, open space provision and landscape implications. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members were advised that the proposal was for 34 dwellings and this number had followed feedback received from local residents during previous consultations, where it had been identified that if development was to take place, lower density housing would be preferred. The proposed density of the site was slightly higher than was identified in the Adopted Local Plan, but this did not make the proposal objectionable.

In further response to neighbour feedback, the scheme also excluded any onsite provision of affordable housing. Instead a contribution of £840k was proposed for offsite provision could be made.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. A further neighbour consultation had been undertaken due to minor revisions in the proposals which included the house at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning permission was retrospectively sought for the change of use of an existing store, formerly used by a nearby dwelling, to storage for R & P Meats. Also proposed was the removal of the existing mono pitch roof to the toilets and its replacement with a flat roof and creation of a covered access to the store room. Finally, there was a proposal to extend the existing single toilet, using part of an existing residential garage building.

The application site was located on the southern edge of the Orton Waterville Conservation Area. The site consisted of a dwelling to the front of the site that had been rendered and remodelled over the years and was no longer of historic character. Along the left hand side of the site and to the rear was the meat wholesale premises that had been in operation since the mid 1950’s. Along the left hand side of the site these were relatively narrow, single storey brick built outbuildings that were in commercial use. To the rear of the site was a larger modern structure which was in mixed use of commercial, incorporating residential garaging. To the centre of the site there was a garden space and gravel driveway that was used for the parking and turning of the 4 commercial vehicles stored on site.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the application. The main issues for consideration were outlined and these included the policy context and the principle of development, the design and visual amenity on site, whether the proposal would impact on the Conservation Area and highways implications. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. A further two letters of objection had been received against the application, one of which had been signed by multiple households, and a number of photographs had also been submitted showing the problems local residents suffered in relation to parking and traffic congestion. The Planning Officer advised that given the very small area of floorspace involved in the application, it would be extremely difficult to prove that the application would further worsen the existing congestion and disturbance observed by neighbours.

Councillor June Stokes, Ward Councillor and Member of Orton Waterville Parish Council, addressed the Committee and prior to her own submission, read a letter which had been submitted by Councillor Sue Allen, Ward Councillor. Councillor Stokes responded to questions from Members and in summary the issues highlighted to the Committee included:

·        The residents of Cherry Orton Road and adjoining roads, had had enough of the large lorries parking along the road

·        The area was a Conservation Area and a beautiful village and it was being spoilt by having large lorries travelling up and down a narrow road

·        Where the business was placed, it was causing a detrimental impact on the residents quality of life

·        Residents had been blocked into their own driveways on occasions and had been told that they would have to wait  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Retrospective planning permission was sought for the construction of a first floor extension to the rear of the residential property. The extension had been built above an existing single storey rear extension and was of the following dimensions – 3300mm deep x 3500 mm wide. The proposal incorporated a gable roof with a ridge height of 5500 mm above ground level. The eaves were 500 mm above ground level.

The application dwelling was a detached two storey property situated to the north side of Berkeley Road. The property had a gable roof and was constructed from brick and tile with render to the front. The dwelling had an existing two storey rear extension. The property had a detached single garage located to the north side of the main house. A hard paved driveway was located to the front and side of the dwelling that provided on plot parking for two vehicles. The property had an existing dropped kerb. The front curtilage was flanked by a low rise brick wall. 

The application site was located within a mature residential street scene characterised by two storey semi detached dwellings of a uniform character to the north side of the highway and bungalows to the south side.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. 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 approval.

Following debate, Members commented that the extension was impressive and the match of brick was good. A motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously) to approve the application, as per officer recommendation subject to:

1.      The condition numbered C1 as detailed in the committee report

Reasons for the decision:

Subject to the imposition of the conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

- The extension by reason of its design, siting, scale and height will not result in a significantly detrimental impact on the character of the area or the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings

The proposal was therefore in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Adopted Peterborough Core Strategy DPD.

The Committee received a report for information which outlined the changes to the Local Validation List, which had to be submitted with planning applications. The provision of a ‘One Stop Shop’ web based application checklist and guidance was also presented to the Committee for information purposes.

            Members were advised that planning applications had to be accompanied by “standard” information set out in a National List of requirements and by any further information set out in the Council’s Local List of requirements.  Peterborough City Council had a Local List of requirements published on its website.  It had been noted that the presentation of what was required to be submitted could be improved upon and that further clarification on specific requirements for each application type was needed.  These improvements were required both for applicants and agents submitting applications and for the Council’s own technical support staff who were responsible for validation of applications.  To this end a bespoke “One Stop Shop” web based checklist had been created which provided further detail and clarity on the requirements. 

            Many of the improvements made to the current Local List of requirements merely provided further clarification to items that appeared on the list.  However, the review of the current list and preparation of the new lists to be provided in the “One Stop Shop” had highlighted a need in some areas to update the current Local List of Requirements.  These updates were detailed in the committee report.

            A demonstration of the ‘One Stop Shop’ was presented to the Committee and the benefits it could bring to the Council were highlighted. Members positively commented on the changes and stated that it would be of benefit to revisit the list in around six months in order to check on progress.

            RESOLVED: to note the proposed changes to the Local Validation List (which was to be the subject of public consultation) and to note the provisions of the ‘One Stop Shop’.

The Committee received a report which outlined Planning Services’ performance at appeals over the past six months.

Members were advised that it was useful for the Committee to have sight of these outcomes in order to identify whether there were any lessons to be learnt in terms of appeal outcomes. This would help to inform future decisions and to potentially reduce costs.

Members were further advised that during January to June 2011, the Council had won 60% of the appeals lodged which was in line with previous targets set by the Government, and there had been no awards of cost made against the Council.

RESOLVED: that the Committee note past performance and outcomes, as attached at Appendix A to the committee report.