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 North and Sylvester. 

Councillor Lane declared a personal interest in item 5.5 on the agenda as he was acquainted through his employment with the applicant.

Councillor Hiller declared a personal interest in item 5.3 as the application was in his ward.

Councillor Todd declared a personal interest in item 5.2 on the agenda as she was acquainted with Mr Branston.

Councillor Serluca declared a personal interest in item 5.1 on the agenda as she was acquainted with Mr Percival.

No members of the committee declared an intention to speak on any of the items as ward councillor.

The chairman sought permission form the committee for Councillor Scott to speak as ward councillor at item 5.2.  The committee agreed to allow Councillor Scott to speak

The minutes of the meetings held on 10 April 2012 and 24 April 2012 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The Planning Delivery Manager introduced the application that sought planning permission for the construction of a front boundary wall.  It was important to note that the application had been submitted following the unauthorised demolition of the site boundary walls at Nos.51, 53, 55 and 57 Park Road.  Development had already commenced on the replacement wall at all four properties albeit this application related only to the boundary wall at No.51.  The wall had not been completed at present and as such, the application scheme was part-retrospective.  The finished wall was proposed to stand at a maximum height of 1.3 metres (to pier caps) and would comprise a 0.6 metre high red brick wall with black arrowhead and ball railings and red brick piers.  The piers and wall were proposed to include moulded stone copings and caps.  A pedestrian access was proposed to the north east of the front boundary with a 2.5 metre wide opening to the south east. 

Councillor Maqbool spoke as Ward Councillor on behalf of the applicant, highlighting issues including:

·         Previous walls were unstable and unsafe;

·         Wider entrance to ensure disabled access for customers to the property using wheelchairs and mobility vehicles;

·         The vehicle previously parked on the property was due to external events and was not associated with the premises;

·         No dropped kerb was applied for as it was not intended to have vehicular access; and

·         Space at the front of the property to ensure comfortable manoeuvring of mobility vehicles on the site.

Responses to questions from the committee included:

·         The space was need to ensure mobility vehicles did not have to reverse on to the pavement but could turn on the site and continue onto the pavement especially if more than one mobility vehicle was there;

·         Has previously had more than one mobility vehicle at a time;

A photo was passed round of atypical mobility vehicle (electric wheelchair)along with a photo of a car that had previously parked at the premises.

Simon Percival, the agent for the application, addressed the committee highlighting issues including:

·         Extensive refurbishment of the houses from 51-57 Park Road by the applicant which served to enhance the conservation area;

·         Conservation officers had not expressed any concern over the designs;

·         Adjacent commercial property has off street parking at the front;

·         Safe access for customers needed to and from the property;

·         Little impact of the opening size on the street scene; and

·         Not looking to remove the parking bay at the front of the property which obstructs vehicle access.

Responses to questions from the committee included;

·         Could not pave the entire front of the property as trees were located there; and

·         The parked vehicle was a contractors from a nearby site.

Mr Brackenbury, representing a nearby resident, spoke in opposition to the application highlighting issues including:

·         Previous walls were demolished without permission;

·         Evidence of cars parked on the site;

·         The city council should not support new access ways in a conservation area;

·         Had to allow the new wall as the previous  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

The Planning Delivery Manager introduced the application that sought planning permission for a side extension above the existing garage including a rear projection and a front projection.  The front and rear elements would have roofs perpendicular to the main house, so introducing a hipped roof facing the rear garden and a gable facing the street.  The main eaves and ridge line of the extension roof would follow the existing roof lines.

The proposed extension would extend 2.5m from the side of house, in line with the existing garage, and project 1.1m at the front and 2.8m at the rear.  At ground floor the extension will accommodate a kitchen extension, a new play room and a downstairs WC, upstairs it will accommodate two bedrooms, a shower room and a store.

Councillor Scott spoke as Ward Councillor in support of the application highlighting issues including:

·         Many different types of houses existed in the road;

·         Many properties have been extended;

·         More space was needed for the owner’s work with children to increase the bedroom size;

·         No objections were received form neighbours; and

·         Minimal impact on the street scene.

Mr Branston, the agent, and Mrs McLennon, the owner, addressed the committee highlighting issues including:

·         Valid reason why more space in property needed;

·         Would not extend past the existing frontage;

·         The bend of the road would not make the extension impact on the street scene;

·         Need more bedroom space to provide desk space for foster children.

During debate, key points that were raised included:

·         Not a conservation area;

·         No objections from neighbours;

·         Minimal, if any, impact on the street scene;

·         Other home improvements were at ground floor level, not first floor so not in keeping with other home developments in the road;

·         Objections were raised concerning loss of parking space on the driveway;

·         Expansion of other homes might follow but not necessarily detrimental to the street scene;

·         Extension could improve the area;

·         Frontages are currently uniform but rear of the properties were different;

A motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application, contrary to officer recommendation.  The motion was carried (6 in favour, 2 against).

RESOLVED: (6 in favour, 2 against) to approve the application, contrary to officer recommendation, subject to the following conditions:

C 1         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

C 2         The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

Reason: For the Local Authority to ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy DPD.

C 3         Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows shall be inserted into the south west side elevation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

The Planning Delivery Manager introduced the application that sought the conversion of the main threshing barn and attached smaller barns, for the conversion and extension of the barn to the rear of the threshing barn and the conversion and extension of the cart shed adjacent to the access. Permission was also sought for the construction of two new dwellings.

Mr Gibbison (agent) and Mr Dalgleish (applicant) addressed the committee highlighting issues including:

·         The application attempts to improve the current consent for five properties;

·         Support from the local parish council and residents;

·         Worked with the local authority on the design of the scheme;

·         Increase of trees could cover views of the garage which could not be moved in order to keep the design of the site;

·         Improved scheme from previously approved application;

·         Will generate S106 monies in this revised scheme ;

·         Can condition restrictions to height for future purchases; and

·         Changes proposed for Barn D would be incorporated into the scheme.

During debate key points that were raised included:

·         It is an attractive scheme;

·         Height condition would alleviate concerns;

·         Improved design from previous submission; and

·         Ward councillor supports the scheme along with neighbours.

A motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application, contrary to officer recommendation, subject to: revisions to the number of roof lights in plot C; revisions to roof lights and treatment of window openings; and signing of Section 106 Agreement.  The motion was carried (7 in favour, 1 against).

RESOLVED: to approve the application, contrary to officer recommendation, subject to the following conditions:

C 1         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

C 2         No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the external surfaces of the dwelling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The details submitted for approval shall include the name of the manufacturer, the product type, colour (using BS4800) and reference number. The development shall not be carried out except in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: For the Local Authority to ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy DPD.

C 3                     No development shall commence until details of the type, design and external finish of all windows; external doors and rainwater goods have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: For the Local Authority to ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy (DPD) 2011.

C 4                     The development shall not commence until details of all boundary walls and fences have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  These shall be erected prior to the first occupation of the development, in accordance with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

The Principal Development Management Officer introduced the application that sought to demolish Outbuildings 1 and 2 and replace them with new outbuildings with approximately the same footprint areas. A new third outbuilding was also proposed.

A motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application as per officer recommendation.  The motion was carried (unanimous).

RESOLVED: to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Reasons:

The proposal is acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighting against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

The proposed new and reconstructed outbuildings would not adversely impact upon the amenities of the Thorney Village Conservation Area or the setting of the Listed Buildings in accordance with policy CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD.

The proposed new and reconstructed outbuildings would not adversely impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining properties in accordance with policy CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD.

The Planning Delivery Manager introduced the application that was presented to the Committee on 7 February 2012, the proposal being to redevelop the area currently occupied by the parking, tennis courts and marquee, and incorporate a further 2800sq m 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

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

It came to light that some consultations had not been carried out early in the application process, and Members resolved to grant consent subject to there being no objection from the Woodland Trust and the Forestry Commission.  The concern mainly related to the impact of the new foul drainage connection, which was proposed to be installed through the woodland.

The Woodland Trust objected to the proposed woodland route of the foul drainage connection and therefore the application was brought back to Committee.  An alternative route had been identified which was along an access road to the site.

Councillor Matthew Clements, representing Bretton Parish Council, addressed the committee and spoke against the application highlighting issues including:

·         Located next to an ancient woodland site;

·         Boundary fence too expansive and playing pitches too close to woodland;

·         Flood lighting could have impact on woodland;

·         Drainage pipe through woodland would be damaging especially if maintenance was needed;

·         Suggest moving the fence back around 1.5m.

During debate key points that were raised included:

·         Woodland Trust objected but council officers approved the drainage route;

·         Should consider Woodland Trust concerns;

·         Alternative route would alleviate all concerns posed regarding the damage to the ancient woodland; and

·         The Legal Officer confirmed that the committee was only considering the consultation response regarding the drainage connection route.

A motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application with a condition to locate the foul drainage connection to be alongside the access road.  The motion was carried (5 for, 1 against).

RESOLVED: to approve the application as per officer recommendation but with the following condition replacing C15 in the report:

Foul water from the development shall only be disposed of by way of a connection to the adopted mains sewer via new sewer pipe which shall follow the route of the access road to the development. The details of this new sewer pipe shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development (or by an alternative date agreed with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.5

The Legal Officer advised the committee of the exempt information contained with this report and advised that if the committee wished to discuss it, the committee should consider whether it should excluded the press and public before discussing it.

The Planning Delivery Manager introduced the application that sought authority to revise the existing Section 106 agreement from that agreed in April 2006 to the following:

a)      6 No affordable housing units (4 units being for rent, 2 units being for shared equity)

b)      £85,000 towards the provision of primary and secondary school places

c)      £15,000 towards the provision of new or improved, sport, recreation, play or social facilities within Helpston Parish and

d)      retain the provision of a bus stop as per the existing agreement. 

Although no-one had registered to speak against the application, a recent parish council meeting stated that they were opposed to any changes to the S106 concerning the impact of the 42 dwellings.

During debate, key points raised included:

·         Linden Homes will make a loss on this development, the change will lessen this loss;

·         Education provision still high as it is a priority for the council;

·         Helpston would miss out on community funding if agree the revision;

·         Concern over prices for house sales in the report could be made higher to increase S106;

·         Asking price and sale prices can differ;

·         Values of housing would have to increase to make a profit on the scheme;

·         More information on the type of properties planned was needed to better judge the price claim in the exempt report; and

·         Need to compare predicted sales prices with similar schemes nearby.

A motion was put forward and seconded to defer the application until additional information was received to support or otherwise the sales values assumed in the applicant’s viability appraisal.  The motion was carried (unanimously).

RESOLVED:  Report to be brought back to committee which includes additional information to support or otherwise the sales values assumed in the applicant’s viability appraisal.

Reasons:

To enable the committee to make an informed decision regarding the requested reduction in S106 contribution.