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 North.

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council.

Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

         There were no declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of intention from any Member of the Committee to make representation as Ward Councillor on any item within the agenda.

The Committee was informed that item 4.1 had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The application site formed part of Bretton General Employment Area 2 (GEA 2) as set out within Policy SA11 of the Site Allocations DPD (2012). The site was comprised of three industrial buildings (Ashwood, Elmhurst and Oaklea), all of which were currently undergoing refurbishment. The site was screened by a mature landscaping buffer, which ran parallel to Bretton Way. There was a pedestrian footway/cycle path to west behind this landscape buffer, and the East-Coast railway line ran north/south to the east of the site. The site had two vehicular accesses; Enterprise Way (south) and Marholm Road (north).

The Applicant sought retrospective planning permission for the erection of a 2.4m high palisade fence (green).

Referring to the Application forms, the palisade fence commenced along the west and north boundary on 15 August 2012, however the Parish stated that the works had commenced in July 2012. However, notwithstanding that the fence had been implemented, and would tie in with a security gate and turning head at Enterprise Way (south), which were approved earlier this year under Planning Applications 12/00859/R4FUL and 12/00653/R4FUL.

The Committee was asked to note:

·         The request for an amendment to delete C3 as submitted in the application as this was no longer a requirement due to the retrospective nature of the planning application;

·         Removal of some panels within the fencing in order to allow for wildlife to pass through; and

·         The submission from Councillor Sandford.

The Officers Recommendation was to grant the application subject to the imposition  of relevant conditions.

Bretton Parish Councillors Clements and Merrill addressed the Committee.  In summary the issues highlighted included:

·         The residents appreciation of the greenery surrounding Bretton and the differences the changes industrial buildings had made to the area;  

·         Concerns raised over the damage to Bretton’s landscape and wildlife corridors;

·         Bretton Parish Council (BPC) were not trying to stop development or prevent security of the area;

·         Concerns raised over alterations to the original development plan and the new position of the fence, as that there was no reason from a police point of view to change its position;

·         The landscape buffer had been removed to make way for the fence; 

·         Trees had been removed that had screened the view of the building from passers by; 

·         Linking the urban areas with the countryside was against objective three of the Core Strategy in BPC’s view;

·         Bretton may not be a conservation area, however, is was the first township of Peterborough that had added value and distinctive landscape which was met by objective 20 of the Core Strategy, within the DPD; 

·         There was a need to protect bio diversity; and

·         Concerns were raised over the fact that there were no plans submitted to replace the trees that had been removed.

Following questions to the speakers, Members commented that there had been conditions applied to the application to produce a plan to attempt to replace the trees that had been lost.  Councillor Clements confirmed that the plans had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The application site formed part of the Werrington Centre. Located in the north of Peterborough, it was the smallest of five District Centres which served the city. The application area was comprised of a number of different buildings and uses. The eastern part of the site was characterised by single storey retail units, which included a 2845 square metre supermarket (now occupied by Tesco), a public house, a petrol filling station and a two storey office building (Olympus House) which had its own parking area comprising forty four spaces. An additional 26 space car parking bay lay to the south of the retail units. At the rear (further east) of the retail units was a bus lay-by accessed from Goodwin Walk and a dedicated bus lane. Within the western part of the site there were two retail car parks comprising of 335 spaces and another two storey office building (Sundance House) with its own 49 space parking area. Access to Sundance and Olympus House, the car park and the petrol filling station was from Staniland Way. To the south of the application site but still within the District Centre boundary was a dental surgery, health centre, a small parade of retail units and a terrace of four dwellings. Access to them was from Skaters Way. Residential properties outside of the District Centre were located on the southern side of Skaters Way and immediately to the south west of the application site. The properties to the south west were blocks of flats owned by Minster Housing Association.

To the west of the application site, and separated from it by Foxcovert Walk footpath/cycleway, was a library, sports centre and the Ken Stimpson Community School. The library and sports centre formed part of the District Centre. These facilities had no separate parking areas. School staff and visitors used the Werrington Centre car park and the newly created 100 space community car park adjacent to the bowling green. Delivery access to the school was via Staniland Way.

There were dwellings to the north of the Centre, on the other side of Staniland Way and to the east on the other side of Goodwin Walk.

The application before Committee was to consider the alteration of the design of the proposal, Committee Members were reminded that they were unable to consider and alter any part of the previously approved decision.

Members were informed that the application site was now within two ownerships, as such Tesco could not be required to commit to any obligations outside of their control.

During demolition, there was a requirement for the store to provide temporary shopping facilities, which would take up one hundred and seven parking spaces.

The Officers recommendation was to grant the application subject to the applicant entering into a S106 planning obligation and the imposition of relevant conditions.

The Group Manager Development Management also summarised a submission received from Councillor Judy Fox, which had included the following:

·         Concerns raised over the reduction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.