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 Serluca and Lane.

Councillor Kreling was in attendance as a substitute. 

         There were no declarations of interest.

         Councillor Todd declared that she would be making representation as Ward Councillor on item 5.1, David Harrison Metals, 13-14 Astore Park, Peterborough.

         4.1          10 July 2012

         4.2          24 July 2012

         4.3          14 August 2012

         The minutes of the meetings were approved as a true and accurate record subject to the following amendments:

         4.1          10 July 2012 - Page 7, first bullet point. Change ‘would almost double the size of the current property’ to ‘would more than double the size’ and likewise within the fourth bullet point.

         4.2          24 July 2012 - Page 25, 3.2 under resolved should read 5 For and 3 Against, not Abstentions.

The site was located within Fengate at the eastern end of Astore Park within the Eastern General Employment Area (SA11 GEA3). The site was set back from Padholme Road East to the south and was accessed by a private road. Industrial units in Leofric Square lay to the north, the rear of the site, and a Builders merchant lay directly to the east with separate access. The character of the area was of an industrial nature. The 14 units comprising ‘Astore Park’ were granted permission under application P0546/87 and were of a consistent and uniform design with a one way system designed to ease traffic movements through the ‘park’. Units 13-14 had since been subject to two temporary permissions for the current use.

The proposal was for a permanent change of use to a metal recycling yard following two temporary permissions for this usage.

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. It was advised that the application was retrospective, due to the last temporary consent having expired in January 2012. The development previously given temporary consent had only two parking spaces and it was proposed to increase this in order to address concerns that had been highlighted in relation to parking on the site and on the street. The recommendation was one of approval.

Councillor Marion Todd, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee on behalf of Astore Park Businesses and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·         The unsuitability of the site for the location;

·         The congestion along the road outside the site;

·         Vehicles struggled to use the entrance and exit to Astore Park due to the congestion;

·         The development was too large for the site;

·         The business had been operating without permission since January 2012;

·         Managers of businesses across Astore Park would like to see the activities cease altogether on the site;

·         The recommendations which had been made by Officers would have little impact on the day to day operating of the site.

Mr Hoppe, addressed the Committee on behalf of Astore Park Residents Association and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·         When originally built, the road was one way and parking was required at the front of the units. This had worked well for twenty years until the Applicant had moved into the premises and started to trade as a scrapyard, without any permission;

·         Scrap metal was stored on the site where the vehicle parking would normally have been located, so there was no room for visiting vehicles;

·         The road had become congested and it had encouraged on road parking;

·         The fence around the building was put up only for storage, this had been erected without permission;

·         It was strongly advised that the fence be removed, even if the scrap yard was no longer in situ.

Following comments and questions to the speakers, Members expressed concern in relation to the proposal. It was commented  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The site was located within the open countryside 1km to the east of Newborough Village and 270 metres to the west of a roundabout junction of the recently opened realigned A1078 road. The site lay immediately to the south of the B1443 Thorney Road and very close to White Post Road that flanked the western flank boundary of land in the ownership of the Applicant. The latter road was bisected by the realigned A1078 road such that Whitepost Road was no longer a through route for traffic. The site itself would occupy an area of 0.43 hectares, the depth of the site being 80 metres and the width 50 metres. The site area was located centrally within a group of four fields that internally were marked out with substantially sized native hedgerows with heights being in excess of 4-5 metres and widths of up to 8 metres. The two fields either side of the application field also had external boundaries defined by mature hedging of similar substantially sized hedgerows as did the northern boundary of the application immediately beyond through which ran a ditch separating Thorney Road from the application site. The fields had an entirely grassed coverage and could not be viewed from anywhere other than within the site.

There was a detached dwelling known as Whitepost Cottage on the eastern side of Whitepost Road approximately 160 metres from the junction of Whitepost Road and Thorney Road. This was served by a 5 metre wide vehicular access immediately to the south. This access also served an established car repairs business to the east of the dwelling and also the aforementioned fields beyond. The car repair business was comprised of a detached barn and parking areas which were not visible from outside of the site. The field immediately to the south east of the application field was being used as a certified touring caravan site for up to five caravans. The two larger fields had been used for many years for caravan rallies. The application field and the field immediately to the east had on occasion been used for caravan rallies comprising up to 50 caravans at a time. There was a hamlet of four dwellings within Speechly Drove to the north of its junction with Thorney Road.

To the north of the dwelling there was small florists shop with a small accompanying tea room.

The application sought planning permission for the use of part of the land for the open storage of up to 150 caravans all year round.  However, based on the site area and the requirements of each storage pitch it was likely that no more than 100 caravans could be sited within the application field. The site was to be accessed via the existing 5 metre wide vehicular access shared access with the dwelling house, the car repair business and the fields. The access had an entrance width of 5 metres with visibility splays. The proposal was to retain all of the mature hedgerows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The site consisted of a two storey detached property, built circa late 1990's on a modern estate in Newborough. The dwelling had light red brick elevations, white upvc windows and doors and a terracotta coloured pantile roof.

         Planning permission was sought for the construction of a two storey side extension, the conversion of the existing garage into habitable space and a single storey extension to link the proposed side extension with the converted garage. The two storey side extension measured 2.6 metres (Width) x 8.5 metres (Depth) with a ridge and eaves height the same as the existing dwelling. The single storey link element measured 3 metres (width) x 1.8 metres (depth) with an eaves height of 2.3 metres and a ridge height of 3.3 metres, matching that of the existing garage.

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The recommendation was one of refusal as per the reasons outlined in the committee report.

Councillor Stokes declared that she knew one of the speakers present but this would in no way affect her decision.

Mr Simons, an objector and local resident, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·      Mr Simons had lived in the neighbouring property for a number of years;

·      The proposal was opposed due to it being overpowering, overbearing, overshadowing front and back, and the loss of daylight;

·      The extension would exceed the front of Mr Simons’ bungalow causing extensive overshadowing in his bedroom;

·      At the rear, it would overshadow the conservatory, this being part of the families main living areas;

·      The development would have a detrimental impact on the family’s lives and property.

Miss Jane Mann, the Applicant, addressed the Committee. In summary the issues highlighted to the Committee included:     

·         Planning permission had been requested for the needs of Miss Mann’s growing children;

·         The plans had been amended to be more in keeping with the recommendations made by the planning department;

·         The extension had been kept to a minimum in order to appease neighbour concerns;

·         Many of the surrounding properties had had internal adjustments to their properties;

·         Miss Mann’s property was not large enough for internal adjustments, hence the planning application.

Following questions to the speakers, it was commented that the extension was extremely large and would be overbearing to the neighbour’s property, depriving them of natural light. It was also felt that the extension would have a negative impact on the streetscene.

A motion was put forward and seconded to refuse the application as per Officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously), to refuse the application, as per officer recommendation and:

1. The reasons R1 and R2 as detailed in the committee report

Reasons for the decision:

The proposal was unacceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and for the specific reasons given below.

- The proposal, by reason of its odd juxtaposition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The Committee was advised that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Hankey Street for the most part was residential in character comprising two storey dwellings. The application site used to be comprised of seven lock up garages with vehicular access alongside no.25 Hankey Street. These garages had been part demolished and the retained flank boundaries had been added to by way of breeze blocks and brickwork to form a storage building. At the time of the site inspection the breeze block work had not been rendered. The storage building covered the majority of the site with a set in of 1 metre to the western flank boundary. The eastern boundary was part open for the first 6 metres to the frontage of the building. Thereafter the eastern elevation of the storage building formed the common boundary with no.25 for a depth of 12 metres. The storage building had a shallow pitched roof that was 3.4 metres high at the frontage with a rear elevation with a height of 3.8 metres.

The front of the building was set back by 3.2 metres from the back edge of the pavement.  The store floor area measured 18 metres deep by 9.3 metres at its widest. At the time of the site visit there were no openings within the front elevation of the building. However there was an opening, with a width of 2 metres, protected with a roller shutter, set back by 6 metres from the eastern side frontage of the building. The front of the building had retained the rear elevations of three of the former garages and the height had been added to but not with matching brickwork. There were movable bollards at the back edge of the pavement with the front elevation of the building set back 3 metres from these. To the west of the site at the southern side of the junction of Hankey Street and Gladstone Road was a retail shop.

The application sought part retrospective planning permission to use the building for the storage of goods related to the retail store at no. 233-237 Gladstone Street.  Associated with the proposal was an opening to the front of the building to a width of 3 metres. This was to be protected by a sliding timber door. The steel roller shutter door in the recessed part of the storage building was to be retained. The proposal was to retain the height of the building at 3.4 metres to the front elevation and 3.8 metres to the rear elevation. The external walls of the building were proposed to be rendered and painted.  The application had been re-submitted following refusal of the same scheme under application reference 12/00771/FUL. That application was refused planning permission on the grounds that the storage building would have a detrimental impact upon the appearance of the street scene and it would impact adversely upon the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties.

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The recommendation was one of refusal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The application site was comprised of an area of playing fields associated with the wider site of Peterborough Regional College and was sited immediately adjacent to the College Sports Hall.  The site boundary was currently comprised of 2.4 metre high steel palisade fencing and to the south west by mature shrubbery which separated the site from the residential premises on Tait Close.  To the east was a public footway lined by an area of open space with mature Lime trees which were the subject of group Tree Preservation Order. Beyond this were residential properties on Derby Drive whose gardens faced towards the site.

The application sought planning permission for the erection of 5 metre high black chain link fencing along the south eastern boundary of the site and 1.8 metre high black netting to the south western boundary which could be raised to a height of 5 metres when the pitches were in use.  The fencing/netting was proposed to ensure that footballs and rugby balls were contained within the site whilst matches were being played and to prevent balls from straying into gardens and the public realm.

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The recommendation was one of approval.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report and it was advised that two additional letters of objection had been received from neighbours.

The Chairman addressed the Committee and stated that Councillor John Shearman, Ward Councillor, was in attendance and wished to speak alongside Councillor John Peach, Ward Councillor. As Councillor Shearman was not a listed speaker, the Committee’s approval was required. Following a vote, it was unanimously agreed to permit Councillor John Shearman to address the Committee.

Councillor John Peach and Councillor John Shearman, Ward Councillors, addressed the Committee jointly and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:     

·         Councillor John Peach was speaking mainly on behalf of the residents of Derby Drive;

·         The application had been ongoing for a long time;

·         The residents had no previous issues with balls and did not see the need for such a large fence;

·         The fence would look unsightly;

·         There had been issues in the past relating to drug use along Tait Close parkway, which ran alongside the fence. Further obscuring of this area would be unadvisable;

·         School children used this pathway to walk to school;

·         Why were two different heights of fence/netting required?

·         The proposal was contradictory to planning Policy CS16 and should be rejected;

·         During the autumn and winter months, the fencing, at the proposed height, would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the local residents;

·         Why could the fencing along Derby Drive not be lowered and raised as required? As per that proposed along Tait Close?

·         The residents were not against the use of the pitch in any way;

·         There was no history of balls going into residents’ gardens, but if it was necessary, could the fencing be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Committee received a report which sought its comments in relation to the proposals as set out in the document, prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 24 September 2012.

The purpose of the report was to draw attention to important proposed changes to the way in which Developer Contributions were collected and administered in the light of recent statutory and regulatory changes instigated at the national scale.

An overview of CIL, the Proposed Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, and the IDS was given and key points were outlined as per the committee report and the supporting documents. 

Members were invited to comment on the documents and the following points were highlighted:

·         CIL discretionary relief would only be considered in exceptional circumstances;

·         There was a disparity of charge per square metre between local authorities, this may be questioned. Peterborough was pitched roughly in the middle;

·         The comparison data between local authorities would be available for inspection throughout the consultation period via the Planning Advisory Service website, CIL Watch page;

·         The charges were subject to inflation each year and the Council was entitled to amend them, subject to repeating the consultation process;

·         Different rates of charge could be set for different geographical areas in the future, subject to repeating the consultation process;

·         All CIL money must be spent on infrastructure, this infrastructure being listed on a schedule. There was flexibility as to the contents of the schedule. Cabinet were to be asked to agree an updated schedule each year, with a delegation to a portfolio holder (to be agreed at Cabinet) allowing individual projects to be added or removed as required;

·         5% of the funds would be allocated to Neighbourhood Committees and the remaining 95% would be spent as per the infrastructure schedule;

·         The current Planning Obligation Implementation Scheme (POIS) scheme and CIL were not like for like, POIS being worked out on bedrooms and CIL floorspace. Broadly they were very similar;

·         A couple small typo was highlighted and noted for correction within the document;

·         The inclusion of the University within the list of education projects would be explored;

·         CIL would only be charged on new floorspace and a house extension under 100 square metres would not pay a CIL charge;

·         A thematic package referred to the different pots funds were split into such as education and transport;

·         CIL would still be required in relation to off site highways infrastructure to serve a number of sites.

Following debate and questions, Members commented that the document was extremely well prepared and very informative. Members were advised that their points raised would be relayed to Cabinet and the minor typos identified would be rectified within the document.

RESOLVED: to comment on the draft Peterborough ‘Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDSC)’ and Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (IDS)