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 Councillor Todd. 

Councillor Winslade was in attendance as substitute.

All Members declared that they had received correspondence from both objectors and supporters in relation to item 4.1.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2012 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The Chairman addressed the Committee and sought clarification from Members as to whether any of them felt that they had been unduly influenced by any of the correspondence which had been circulated to them in relation to item 4.1. All Members confirmed that they had not been unduly influenced.

The application site was located at Maskew Avenue to the north-west of Peterborough City Centre and was ‘brownfield’ in nature. The 3.5 hectare rectangular site was situated immediately to the south of a retail park comprising B & Q, Matalan Argos and eight other retail units and alongside the East Coast Mainline railway corridor which defined its south-west boundary. Maskew Avenue defined the opposite long boundary on the north-eastern side and provided access to the site. Along Maskew Avenue there were a number of relatively small commercial buildings and to the south of the site were a series of redundant rail tracks. The site previously contained the Royal Mail Parcel Force sorting and distribution centre. A cycle/pedestrian route running adjacent to Maskew Avenue linked the townships of Werrington, Walton and Bretton with Millfield and the city centre.

Within the existing Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) 2005 and soon to be adopted Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) the site was allocated as a General Employment Area. In addition the site was adjacent to a proposed Minerals and Waste Transport Zone and it fell within a proposed Minerals and Waste Transport Safeguarding Area (the principles of Transport Zones and Transport Safeguarding Areas had been established through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (CPMWCS) policy CS23, and were supported by Minerals Policy Statement 1 and the emerging National Planning Policy Framework). The site was in an ‘out of centre’ location based on the definition contained in Annex B of Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4).

Outline Planning permission was sought for a Class A1 foodstore of 6,912 square metres gross, 4806 square metres net (the net floor space would comprise 2884 square metres of convenience space and 1922 square metres of comparison floor space) served by 490 parking spaces (including provision for disabled and mother and child facilities) and with associated access and servicing. The scheme also included cycle parking, a wind turbine, solar panels and recycling facilities. The application was in outline, with only siting and means of access submitted for approval at the current stage. The proposals also included a ‘park and cycle’ facility, including a small ancillary retail unit of 275 square metres.

In order to mitigate the impacts of the additional vehicles generated by the proposals the applicant’s consultants had proposed the following:

·           Signalisation of the two Bourges Boulevard north and south approach arms at the Bourges Boulevard/Maskew Avenue roundabout (Junction 42);

·           A new signalised junction on Maskew Avenue where the new site access was to be located; and

·           Adjustments to the existing signals on the Bourges Boulevard/A47 roundabout (Junction 18).

The Local Highway Authority and also the Highways Agency (HA) had requested additions to those proposed above and these were:

·           A queue loop (or ‘hurry call’) on the westbound slip road off the A47 at junction 18 (the purpose of these loops would be to ensure that queuing traffic would not tail back, when the loops were triggered by a queue they would instruct the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

         The application site contained a two storey semi-detached dwelling located on the south western flank ofAlexandra Road and close to the junction with Northfield Road.  The surrounding character was comprised of properties of similar style and age, some of which had been extended to the side.  The property had a single storey element to the rear forming part of the kitchen and which extended approximately 1.5 metres forward of the rear building line.  This design was consistent with that of neighbouring dwellings.  Beyond this projection was a conservatory projecting 2.4 metres.  Directly to the south eastern side was a shed and car port which abutted the shared boundary with no. 98 Alexandra Road.  The property was set back from the highway by 5 metres.

The application sought planning permission for the demolition of a conservatory to the rear of the property and single storey shed to side and the erection of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension.  The two storey side extension would have a width of 2.5 metres, would be positioned 0.4 metres back from the property frontage and would align with the principle rear building line of the property; extending some 6.8 metres in length.  The extension would provide one additional bedroom to the first floor and a dining room and kitchen at ground floor. The single storey rear extension would be comprised of a number of elements resulting in a staggered projection.  The minimum projection at the north western boundary with the adjoining dwelling at 102 Alexandra Road, would project 2.5 metres along the shared boundary.  The single storey element at the south eastern boundary would project 3.8 metres and there would be a central element with a projection of 5 metres from the rear building line of the original dwelling.  This element would be offset from the boundaries with the neighbouring properties at nos. 98 and 102 Alexandra Road by 2.8 metres and 1.5 metres respectively. The single storey extension would provide a bathroom, lounge and kitchen.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and advised that a neighbour objection submitted against the proposal had subsequently been withdrawn. This change in circumstances had arisen on 12 March 2012, after the publication of the Committee agenda.

The main issues for consideration were the design and visual amenity, neighbouring amenity and highways issues. The recommendation was one of approval.

Following a question to the Planning Officer with regards to the lack of rear access at the property, a motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application. The motion was carried unanimously.

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

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

Reasons for the decision:

Subject to the imposition of the condition, the proposal was considered acceptable.

      The proposed extensions were proportionate in scale and design to the existing dwelling and the development would respect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and those surrounding the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.