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.

There were no apologies for absence received.

Councillor Harrington declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in item 5.2, in that he was acquainted with the Applicant, but this would in no way affect his decision. Councillor Harrington further declared that he was the Ward Councillor for items 5.3 and 5.6.

Councillor Todd declared a personal, prejudicial interest in item 5.4 due to her connections with the City of Peterborough Academy.

Councillor Shabbir declared that he was the Ward Councillor for item 5.4, but this would in no way affect his decision.

Councillor Harrington declared that he would be speaking on behalf of residents in relation to item 5.3 on the agenda.

Councillor Todd declared that she would be speaking on behalf of residents in relation to item 5.4 on the agenda.

Councillor Hiller declared that he would be speaking on behalf of residents in relation to item 5.2 on the agenda.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2012 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The application site was approximately 0.75 hectares and was bound to the east by Bourges Boulevard and to the south, west and north by Station Road.  The site lay within the city centre boundary and the Railway Station Opportunity Area and on the edge, but outside, the Central Retail Area as defined in the Adopted Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) 2005.  The site contained a hotel building with 33 rooms, a large area of surface car parking to the east and a small garden area to the south and was accessed via Station Road.  The site was generally flat and enclosed by mature trees along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries.  The surrounding context was comprised of a mixture of uses and was dominated by hard infrastructure including the railway line to the west and the Bourges Boulevard dual carriageway/public transport corridor and main transport link to the city to the east; beyond which was a 4/5 storey car park associated with the Queensgate shopping centre.  The site was situated directly north of the station surface car park and multi storey Perkins car park and lay directly opposite the railway station building to the west.  To the north of the site was the former Royal Mail Sorting Office, which was currently in use as a temporary surface car park and Outline planning permission had recently been granted for ‘Redevelopment to provide office (B1) and retailing (A1, A3 and A4)’ (ref. 10/01461/OUT).  The site was also in close proximity to the North Westgate Opportunity Area.

          The application sought outline planning permission to establish;

·           The principle of development;

·           The quantum of development on the site; and 

·           Access to the site.

All matters relating to layout, scale, appearance and landscaping were to be reserved to a later stage.  Indicative plans of the layout, floor plans and elevations showing the heights, widths and depths of the proposed scheme had been provided.  The proposal included demolition of an extension to the east of the hotel building that contained the largest function room and outbuildings to the north. A new extension to the hotel would be built to the north (rear) of the hotel and a new office development was proposed on the eastern side, to be accommodated over six storeys stepped up in stages from the existing hotel building.  The ground floor would provide café/retail uses with active frontages. Six residential apartments would be provided on the top floor of the office building.  The development would provide two concealed parking areas, both of which would be accessed off Station Road to the north.  Twenty no. spaces would serve the hotel and 31 no. spaces would serve the office/commercial/residential uses.  A large public realm area would be located to the south of the site. The proposal would provide:

·           13,010m² Gross Internal Area (GIA) B1 (office accommodation);

·           801m² GIA A1 (retail) and 801m² A3 (restaurant/café);

·           1,735m GIA C1 (hotel) extension to provide 47 additional bedrooms;

·           6 no. residential apartments (3 x 3-bed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

The site was a detached 1960's chalet style dwelling of brick and tile construction, located within the Etton Conservation Area, adjacent to the edge of the village envelope. The dwelling was one of three similar chalets; the other two had been altered by, in one case the insertion of a dormer window, and the other a porch. The site was enclosed by a large conifer hedge at the southern boundary and a mix of fencing and shrubbery for other site boundaries. The dwelling sat within a generous plot and there was parking for at least two vehicles to the front of the property.

Permission was sought for the erection of two storey side and rear extensions and a single storey extension. The two storey side extension would measure 4.25 metres wide by 8.4 metres deep, with a dual pitch roof measuring 2.5 metres above ground level at the eaves and 6.3 metres at the apex. The two storey rear extension would project beyond the rear wall of the existing dwelling by 3.75 metres, matching the 7 metre height of the existing dwelling. The single storey rear extension would measure 4.05 metres deep by 2.5 metres wide and would be located to the side of the proposed two storey rear extension.

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The main issues for consideration were highlighted, these included the impact of the development upon the character of Etton Conservation Area, the impact upon the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings and the impact upon wildlife. The recommendation was to grant the application subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

The conifer hedge enclosing the site was proposed for removal and this point was of main concern to the objectors. It was highlighted that permission was not required for its removal. If the hedge was to be removed, the Applicant had indicated that they would be happy to accept a condition requesting a more traditional hedge to be planted in its place.

Councillor Peter Hiller, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee on behalf of a local resident and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·         The extensions were clearly two storey extensions and would more than double the size of the current property;

·         The application would be detrimental to the local resident’s quality of life and also to the village of Etton’s Conservation Area and the adjacent listed cottage;

·         The properties either side were modest, one being similar to the property in question and one a small, listed cottage;

·         The Conservation Officer’s report was clear and stated that the property would be extremely dominant once it had been more than doubled in size. The Conservation Officer also had reservations with regards to the removal of the hedge;

·         The property would dwarf its neighbours and alter the street scene irrevocably;

·         The properties together would have far more impact on the street scene than had been suggested within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

The application site was located within the limited growth village of Newborough.  Williams Close was a residential cul-de-sac consisting of a mixture of single storey and two storey residential properties.  The application site was formerly part of the garden of No.9, which was a single storey detached dwelling.  The application site was located at the end of the street set back from the road in a corner position.  

The properties on Hawthorn Close to the east of the application site were chalet bungalow style residential properties.  

Planning permission had been refused under planning reference 06/01257/FUL for a single storey dwelling and detached single garage on the site.  This decision had been overturned at appeal and planning permission had been allowed.   

A non material amendment was being sought to planning permission 06/01257/FUL to position the bungalow closer to the eastern boundary of the site.  The foundations had been installed on site and it had been found that the distance between the bungalow and the boundary varied between 1.5 metres and 1.9 metres due to the irregularity of the boundary line. The approved position under planning permission 06/01257/FUL was 2.4 metres, the plans did not show the irregular nature of the boundary correctly.  Therefore the property had moved between 0.5 metres and 0.9 metres closer to the eastern boundary.

The application was therefore to consider the change to the building position on site only and if approved by the Committee, all of the conditions and drawings would remain as they were previously. 

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. It was advised that due to the irregularity of the boundary, the property being positioned slightly closer than originally approved would not be of detrimental impact to the neighbour, it was therefore advised that the recommendation was for the amendment to be considered as a non-material amendment to 06/01257/FUL.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. A number of objector’s comments had been received, a number of which were in relation to the piles being placed in different positions.

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

·         The application had been going on for a long time and had originally been refused due to it being overbearing on the neighbouring properties;

·         Many objections had been raised against the application previously, however the application had been granted at appeal;

·         It was to be noted that the Planning Inspector had granted the application at appeal after having been provided the dimensions which had since been proven to be incorrect;

·         The incorrect dimensions made the proposal site smaller and therefore the original objections were still relevant;

·         Peterborough currently had no statutory criteria as to what a non-material amendment was, however guidance from other Local Authorities stated that any change to the red line outline of a site would not be considered under  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

The application site was the former Hereward Community College site.  The site had not been used as a school since 2007; however Peterborough City Council had recently been using the buildings on a small scale informal basis for meetings, training space etc. 

The site covered an area of 6.32 hectares, and was comprised of a mainly flat site, with school buildings, playing fields, car parking and landscaped areas. 

The surrounding land uses were residential to the north and west, St John Fisher School to the south and Frank Perkins Parkway dual carriageway to the east. 

          The proposal was:

·       To construct a new single storey Special Educational Needs School (SEN) of 2,414 square metres to accommodate 90 pupils;

·       To refurbish and re-open the existing school buildings for the new City of Peterborough Academy;

·       Three extensions to the main school building:

1.      undercroft classrooms (200 square metres gross internal area (g.i.a)) extension in Block 1;

2.      a two storey link block between existing buildings (687 square metres g.i.a); and

3.      an extension to the sports changing rooms (19 square metres g.i.a)

·       New internal vehicle access road, car parking and cycle parking.  A total of 143 car parking spaces were proposed and 136 cycle spaces with room for future expansion of the cycle parking facilities;

·       Resurfacing of the existing tennis courts;

·       Improvements to the existing grass pitches on the site;

·       Replacement of the existing disused multi use games area (MUGA) with a third generation (3G) surface;

·       Refurbishment of the existing pavilion changing block for school and community use;

·       Re-location of wildlife area;

·       New elevation screen structures to the east and west elevations;

·       New pedestrian and cycle access to site from Viney Close;

·       Widening of the access road from Reeves Way to school;

·       Upgrading of two nearest bus stops to the site; and

·       Landscaping

The Principal Development Management Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The main issues for consideration were the siting, design and layout of the new development, the impact on neighbours, ecology, trees, Sport England issues in relation to the loss of the former playing field, energy efficiency and drainage. The recommendation was to grant the application subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

The Committee was advised that the access from Viney Close would be for emergency and maintenance vehicles only and the imposition of a pedestrian access into the site was also proposed. Residents had expressed concern at this aspect of the proposal stating that they believed that Viney Close would be used as a drop off point, however it was a narrow road and the turning capabilities at the end of the road were poor, it was therefore in Officer’s opinion that the road would not be used as a drop off point.

The issue of surface water drainage was an issue that was yet to be resolved. The Environment Agency had looked at the Floodrisk Assessment and had advised that a different data source should have been used for the basis of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.4

In line with Section 211 of the Town & Country Planning Act, a Notice to fell Norway Spruce trees protected by Thornhaugh Conservation Area had been submitted.

The main considerations were:

·    Were the works arboriculturally appropriate, and if not, were the trees worthy of protection by way of inclusion into a TPO?

There were in excess of 20 Norway Spruce trees located within the garden of 14 Russell Hill, Thornhaugh on the eastern strip between the side of the house and the neighbouring garden of Montagu House. This strip was approximately 10 metres wide by 30 metres long. Although the house was built in a cul-de-sac, the trees could be seen from both Russell Hill in Thornhuagh and the A47 heading west. It was advised that the recommendation was to raise no objection to the works.

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. As the trees fell within the Conservation Area, this meant that consent was required to fell or undertake works on the trees. If the works were rejected, a Tree Preservation Order needed to be served for which supporting reasons would need to be provided for by the Committee. The trees were in extremely poor condition and it was in the opinion of Officers that the trees did not warrant preservation.

A motion was put forward and seconded to raise no objections to the Section 211 Notice and therefore to allow the trees to be felled. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) to raise no objections to the Section 211 Notice and therefore allow the trees to be felled, as per Officer recommendation.

Reasons for the decision:

It was the opinion of the Case Officer that no objections should be raised to the Section 211 Notice for the following reasons:-

-    The trees were not worthy of a TPO due to their poor condition and the fact that they had an estimated life expectancy of less than 20 years;

-    If a TPO was served and the owner thereafter applied to fell, and the application was duly refused, it was the Case Officer’s opinion that due to the condition of the trees; the Planning Service would lose on appeal; and

-    The trees were too close to the building and could not remain in that location without pruning works, which would reduce their visual amenity value.

A provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 7_11 at 34 School Road, Newborough had been served following concerns from a member of the public that the tree was about to be felled. The provisional TPO had been the subject of public consultation and as an objection was received, the Committee was required to determine the application in accordance with paragraph 2.6.2.1 of the Council’s Constitution.

The main considerations were:

·      Were the trees worthy of inclusion into a TPO in terms of public visual amenity value?; and

·      Were the proposals reasonable and justified having regard to the letters of objections raised?

The tree was a mature Ash (Fraxinus Excelsior) growing within the front garden of 34 School Road, Newborough, and the property was a brick built semi. The tree was approximately 20 metres high and had a crown spread of approximately 5 metres from centre point.  The main trunk of the tree was located approximately 8 metres north west of the property and was growing within a gravel driveway adjacent to the neighbour’s boundary and the adopted footway to the front of the dwelling.

The tree was one of only a handful of mature trees within the street and was visible when approached from both the east and west.

It was considered that the tree provided positive landscape value along School Road which was an area largely lacking in trees.

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. Historically, extensive pruning works had been undertaken on the tree and at the time the tree had not met the criteria for it to be considered worthy of a TPO. The tree had since recovered well and it contributed considerably to the streetscene. The owner of the tree had objected to the TPO for a number of reasons including the risk to persons and property, drainage damage and the lifting of pavements and driveways. These points had all been responded to by Officers. There were no objections to pruning or deadwooding of the tree.  The recommendation was that the TPO be confirmed.

Following debate, Members highlighted that the loss of the tree would be detrimental to both the streetscene and the area. Local residents were in objection to the loss and there was a lack of mature trees in the area.  A motion was put forward and seconded to confirm the TPO. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) to confirm the TPO, as per Officer recommendation.

Reasons for the decision:

It was the opinion of the Case Officer that the TPO should be confirmed for the following reasons:-

-    The tree offered public visual amenity value and it was considered that the loss would be of detriment to the greater public and the landscape in this location; and

-    It was the opinion of the Case Officer that tree appeared to be in good health and could provide 20 years plus visual amenity value based on its current condition.

The Legal Officer addressed the Committee and advised that the report contained exempt appendices and if the Committee wished to discuss any information contained within these appendices, it should be considered whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting.

At its meeting in June 2012, the Committee resolved to defer the consideration of a proposed revision of the S106 agreement to allow for further information that supported the sales values that formed a key part of the viability assessment to be submitted in order to evidence the need to reduce the S106 burden.

Outline planning permission had been granted in April 2006 for residential dwellings and associated development (with approval of reserve matters 07/01462/REM being given for 42 dwellings in January 2008). The outline permission was subject to a S106 planning agreement which required the development to make provision for the following:

·         A bus stop;

·         13 affordable dwellings;

·         £105,511.98 contribution towards school places;

·         £189,511.98 contribution towards community facilities; and

·      £20,000.00 contribution towards the Clare Trust

A start had been made on the development, however no dwellings had been completed or sold. With the change in the housing economy, the developer had found that the development was uneconomic to build with all the S106 provisions in place.  The developer had therefore come to the City Council to renegotiate the S106 agreement. Policy CS10 of the adopted Peterborough City Council Core Strategy recognised that S106 agreements should be negotiated on a site by site basis and Government had issued statements to the effect that Council’s should renegotiate S106 agreements where developments had been found to be unviable as a result of changing market conditions.

Initially, the developer had requested that due to the poor viability of the scheme, there should be no S106 obligations at all. To support this request, an economic appraisal of the development costs had been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Officers of the Council had looked at the appraisal and were satisfied that the costs and returns were representative. The conclusion of the appraisal was that even with there being no S106 agreement in place, the development would make a loss for the developer.

The Parish Council had been asked for its view on there being no S106 obligation agreement in 2011, and it responded by saying that this would be unacceptable.

Since this time, the City Council had considered a similar case at Newborough (Guntons Road). In that case, the PEP Committee had rejected a proposal to reduce the development’s S106 contributions to zero and secured a contribution of £5000 towards Parish facilities. Using the principle that the PEP Committee would not accept a zero S106 contribution, Officers had re-entered into negotiations with Linden Homes. The results of these negotiations were:

a) 6 No affordable housing units;

b) £105,511.98 towards the provision of primary and secondary school places; and

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

          The bus stop provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.7