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 Todd declared that although she did not have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in relation to item 3.2, Enforcement Action in Central Ward, she would not be speaking, voting or taking part on the item.

The Group Manager introduced the application which sought planning permission for the construction of a four bedroom dwelling with attached double garage and detached stables. A similar application for the area had been previously approved; however, the design was much smaller and more simplified compared to the new design in respect of the current application.  

The Officers’ report had raised concerns regarding the design of the dwelling in that its appearance was too complicated and not in keeping with the dwellings in the surrounding area.  Concerns had also been raised regarding the proposed materials to be used to construct the dwelling such as brick instead of stone and the type of slate in respect of the roofing.  The Group Manager Development Management outlined the Planning Department’s recommendations to the Committee for refusal of planning permission.  It was further advised that if the Committee was minded to grant planning permission for the application; consideration should be given to introducing conditions to include the use of preferred materials to construct the dwelling, such as stone instead of brick and replica Collyweston roof tiles.

The site was located in open countryside approximately half a mile to the south of Eye village. Eyebury Road was located alongside the western most boundary of the application site that connected Eye village to the Eastern Industry area of the city and the North Bank Road to Whittlesey.  To the west of the site beyond Eyebury Road and behind a lengthy 1.8 metre high stone wall was a large two storey barn that had been converted to residential use.  The barn was formerly within the curtilage of Eyebury Farmhouse, which was a grade II listed building, to the west of the barn.

The barn itself was approximately 70 metres away from the western most curtilage of the application site.  The western boundary of the application site was delineated by close boarded fencing to a height of 1.8 metres.  To the north/north west of the site were two attached dwellings known as Eyebury Cottages. These were stone wall/concrete tiled construction, of simple design, one and a half storey dwellings. Both dwellings were grade II listed. To the east of the cottages was a substantial sized, steeply pitched roof double garage that served the eastern most of the two cottages. The southern most boundaries of the two cottages were comprised of 1.8 metre high close boarded fencing.  Other than the presence of the close by dwellings the site was surrounded by open countryside.  Immediately to the north of the site and running alongside the front of Eyebury Cottages was Tanholt Lane. This was an unmade track that provided a vehicular access to the eastern most of the two cottages and had formed part of the route of the Peterborough Greenwheel.  The track formed a ‘T’ junction with Eyebury Road and had restricted visibility in either direction.

The application site was entirely open and dominated by overgrown vegetation. A number of deciduous  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.