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 Lane and Shabbir.

Councillor Ash was in attendance as substitute for Councillor Lane.

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.

         Councillor Todd raised a non pecuniary interest in items.4.2 and 4.3, due to the applications being located within the Councillor’s ward area.  Councillor Todd advised that the ward association would not affect her questioning, debate or decision making contribution.

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 Chairman introduced a proposal to extend the speaking time for supporters and objectors from five to ten minutes for item 4.1 - 12/01734/FUL - Proposed gypsy and travellers site for one extended gypsy family containing two static caravans and two touring caravans.  Following a vote, the majority of Members were in agreement to extend the speaking time.

The Solicitor confirmed to the Committee that there were no objectors speaking for item 4.1

The Chairman introduced a request for Committee to allow Councillor Sanders to contribute to the Ward/Parish Councillor speaking time for item 4.1 - 12/01734/FUL - Proposed gypsy and travellers site for one extended gypsy family containing two static caravans and two touring caravans.  No objection was received for Councillor Sanders to make representation.

The site was approximately 0.54 hectares and was located on the south side of Northey Road approximately 1.5km from the urban area boundary and within land designated as open countryside.  The site was on agricultural land. The site lies within the southern boundary of the Flag Fen Bronze Age Settlement, which was now designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, (SAM).  To the east was sporadic residential dwellings and the Northey Lodge Carp Fishing Lakes, otherwise the surrounding character was flat open agricultural land.  An area of rough scrub land to a height of a maximum of 2m lay between the site and Northey Road. The site lay at a lower level than the public highway. The SAM was located to the west, north and north east of the application site and covers an area of approximately 48sq.ha.

The proposal was for the residential use of the site by one Gypsy family currently residing at the Oxney Road caravan site. The living accommodation would include two static caravans and two touring caravans. There was to be parking for four vehicles. It was apparent from the submitted drawings that the static caravans were in effect mobile homes. The sizes of these were to be 9m long by 3m wide and would comprise one double bedroom. The touring caravans would have a length of 9m and a width of 2.5m.  The caravans were to be located to the north of centre of the site and the parking spaces were sited immediately alongside the touring caravans. The vehicular access would use the same access that serves the field at present through the eastern boundary of the site off Northey Road.

The proposal showed extensive planting of native plant species and wild flowers as part of the landscaping within all four boundaries. The application details showed that the land within the landscaped areas would be raised by a 0.75m by the importation of top soil. The caravans would not include any foundations. All foul water was to be pumped into an above ground septic tank to be located close to the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the caravans. As the application site lay within a SAM, English Heritage would also be required to provide its approval for the development under the SAM consent regime.

Officer’s recommendation was to refuse the site on the grounds of the disputed archaeological evidence which should be examined by the Planning Committee and in addition to be was mindful that government policy was to promote the creation of more private Traveller sites.  Reasons for Officer recommendations for refusal were:

·         The proposal would be damaging to the SAM;

·         Development would be degrading to the landscape setting to the SAM;

·         Whilst there was an urban back drop to the west of the SAM, the landscape in the east was much more open and sparsely occupied by buildings and this proposal would radically alter the appearance of the open aspect; and

·         Development would damage buried archeological remains  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The proposed site lay within an existing area of industrial development on First Drove, Fengate within the 'Eastern General Employment Area' (Peterborough Site Allocations DPD - April 2012, Policy SA11; GEA3). The site was surrounded to all sides by commercial / industrial premises, and was separated from the nearest residential properties to the north by a warehouse. The site was accessed via First Drove, and the two single storey industrial units comprising the site were accessed via a securely gated yard.

The proposal was to use the existing yard and buildings for the dismantling of vehicles for export. Two people would be employed on site dismantling approximately five vehicles per week which would be brought to the site on a flat bed vehicle transporter van. Vehicle parts would then be stored and loaded into a shipping container for collection approximately once every six weeks.

The Officers recommendation was to grant the permission subject to relevant conditions  CS 9, CS 14, CS20 and CS22.

The Barry Nicholls addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  In summary the main points included:

·         There appeared to be a difference in standards in the consideration of applications for similar sites;

·         Clarification was sought over whether a traffic survey had been conducted in order to identify the number of deliveries expected;

·         There was no condition attached over catchment/pollution tanks and junction improvements; 

·         The application should be subject to a S106 agreement in order to improve the junctions. 

Mr Nicholls responses to Members questions and comments, in summary responses included:

·         The main objection to the application aside from the lack of funding to improve the junction was the lack of introduction of conditions for pollution tankers;

·         A survey had not been conducted by Highways in order to review the historical information over deliveries for the old saw mill and the old recycling businesses that operated on the site in order to confirm the anticipated lorry deliveries for the new proposal; 

·         Before enforcement action was taken over the illegally operated recycling site, the site had received weekly deliveries from forty foot lorries;

·         Mr Nicholls site was situated at the far end of First Drove and behind the greyhound stadium and was not in use due to the awaited implementation of the conditions imposed by Planning Committee;

·         Mr Nicholls site was previously used as a water filtration station by Anglian Water; and

·         The proposal would affect Mr Nicholls site in terms of costs for the provision of junction improvements and water catchment, waste and pollution conditions.

The agent Mr Smith addressed the Committee.  In summary the main points included:

·         Use of the two buildings in the First Drove area were intended for the recycling of motor vehicles;

·         Planning permission was original given in 1962 for the errection of a timber yard and saw mill, and at the time, there no conditions were placed on the industrial use of the site; 

·         All recycling operations would be carried out inside the buildings;

·         The proposed use was relatively low key  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

At its meeting on 19th February 2013, Committee resolved to grant planning permission for the development subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement. The scope of the Sec 106 was outlined to Committee in the presented report and included an off site public open space contribution of £447460 required as a result of a shortfall in the amount of open space that was being provided on the application site itself. Since the Committee meeting, it has been established that the site would now meet its open space requirement in full on site. This meant that an off site contribution was not now required.   

The 2012 Adopted Peterborough Planning Policies DPD Policy PP14 had set out how much open space should be provided on new housing developments. The proposal would meet its open space requirements on site save for:

1.      The strategic country park and natural greenspace elements which were provided for by way of the POIS contribution being made by the development; and

2.      Allotment provision which would be accommodated by capacity on existing allotments nearby

As the development would comply with the open space requirements set down in the Adopted Planning Policies DPD 2012, there was no need for the developer to make an off site contribution towards off site open space provision.

Officer’s recommendation was for the Committee to approve the removal of £447,460 contribution towards off site open space provision for the S106 requirements for the development.

Following presentation of the proposal the Planning Officer responded to questions.  In summary, responses included:

·         The on site open space provision was slightly larger than a football pitch;

·         The POIS contribution for the development would remain at the agreed amount, which had included the £150k reduction given due to site viability;

·         The original development scheme would have provided more open space over houses, which was why the S106 reduction was being sought; 

·         The Governments MPPF document, had stated viability should be taken into consideration to promote sustainability; 

·         It would be difficult to impose conditions within the reserve matters of the application regarding timescales over the introduction of open spaces, due to the safety issues of placing play areas on a building sites;

·         Under planning policy and provision of open spaces for new sites, there was a level of flexibility to be given over the types of opens spaces such as children’s play and sports areas and their location.  The Committee would need to be mindful over the overall size of the open space being provided, which should accommodate the development needs and whether there was already provision established in nearby areas; and   

·         A 30% provision of affordable housing would still apply to the application. The request had sought the approval of reduction in the S106 contribution.

Following responses to questions a motion was put forward and seconded to approve Officer the recommendation to reduce the S106 contribution.  The motion was carried by 7 votes with 1 abstention and 1 Member not voting.

RESOLVED:as per Officer recommendation,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.