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 Hiller, Stokes, Sylvester and Lane.

Councillors Kreling, Martin and Ash were in attendance as substitutes.

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 Ash declared a personal, none prejudicial interest in item 5.1, in that one of the objectors against the application was known to him. He had not held any discussions with the individual relating to the application; therefore this would in no way affect his decision. 

Councillor Casey declared that he had met a number of individuals who were in objection to item 5.1 but this would in no way affect his decision.

Councillor North declared a personal, prejudicial interest in item 5.1. He stated that he had been involved in numerous discussions relating to the site and that he would therefore not take part in debate, or vote on the item.

Councillor Martin declared that he had been approached by a number of local residents in relation to item 5.3, but this would in no way affect his decision.

Councillor Harrington declared a pecuniary interest in 5.5 in that he owned property in the area. He would therefore not take part in debate or vote on the item.

There were no declarations of intention from any Member to make representation as Ward Councillor.

         The minutes of the meeting held on 6 November 2012 were approved as a true and accurate record subject to the following amendment:

         Page 11, item 5.8, the voting to read “7 For and 1 Against” rather than “7 For and 1 Abstention”.

Councillor North left the meeting.

Tranche E2.1 was located within the Great Haddon employment area which was some 65 ha in size and had outline planning permission for B1 (business including offices), B2 (general industry) and B8 (warehouse and distribution) uses. The access road, which would serve the employment site and connect it to junction 1 of the Fletton Parkway, was located immediately to the east of tranche E2.1 along with bridleway number 1 which formed part of the Green Wheel network. On the other side of the road/bridleway and to the south of tranche E2.1 were other development tranches including the remainder of tranche E2. Further east some 545 metres from tranche E2.1 was Orton Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)/ Special Area of Conservation (SAC) a site of international ecological importance. Beyond this was the existing development of Hampton.

Further south, beyond the Great Haddon employment area, was the woodland of Chambers Dole and Two Pond Coppice. Beyond the woodland, were a number of existing properties on the Old Great North Road and the proposed Great Haddon core area (planning permission was being sought for up to 5350 houses with associated infrastructure including a district/local centre and schools). The settlement of Norman Cross lay to the south west of the core area along with a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The village of Yaxley lay to the south east on the A15. The villages of Stilton and Folksworth were located further to the south west on the western side of the A1(M) (accessed from junction 16).

To the west of the Great Haddon employment area was the Alwalton Hill employment area which also had planning permission for employment uses. Building heights were limited under this consent to a maximum of 15 metres. Immediately to the west/south west of tranche E2.1 within Alwalton Hill was an area of woodland.

To the north of both employment areas was the Fletton Parkway and beyond this the township of Orton. To the west beyond Alwalton Hill was the A1(M) on the other side of which was the village of Haddon. To the north west were the villages of Alwalton and Chesterton.

The surrounding residential areas of Hampton and Orton, the existing properties on the Old Great North Road and the proposed Great Haddon core area lay within the Peterborough Unitary area. The other villages referred to (Haddon, Stilton, Folksworth, Alwalton, Chesterton and Yaxley) lay within the area administered by Huntingdonshire District Council.

Initial works had commenced on both the Great Haddon and Alwalton Hill employment areas but at the time there were no buildings and the land generally remained within agricultural use.

The application sought approval for a variation to condition 5 of the outline planning permission for Great Haddon (reference 09/01369/OUT) which limited the height of the buildings to 15 metres (with the exception of plot 7 where a 17 metre high building was allowed) to allow a building of up to 35 metres on tranche E2.1. This was the only alteration proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The site was approximately 0.11 hectares and formed part of the garden area to no. 14 Lincoln Road and was located on the eastern side of Lincoln Road close to the southern edge to the village of Glinton and within the Conservation Area boundary.  The site contained a large two storey detached dwelling with triple garage to the side/front and had a single access off Lincoln Road leading to a courtyard area.  The site was enclosed by mature trees to the western and southern boundaries and there were a number of trees within the site, several of which were protected under a Tree Preservation Order.  The immediate context was comprised of detached dwellings of individual style and the site lay directly opposite the Arthur Mellows Village College School Playing Fields.  Lincoln Road was the main route through the village and speed restrictions had been implemented in the form of ‘build outs’ which included the stretch of road to the site’s frontage.

The application sought consent for a two and a half storey dwelling with detached double garage.  The proposed dwelling would be set within the grounds of, and to the south of, the existing dwelling, no.14 Lincoln Road. The dwelling would contain five bedrooms, with two shown to be located within the roof space. Overall the dwelling would also contain six bathrooms including en-suite rooms.  Vehicular access would be gained from the access to the south which was shared with properties at nos. 10 and 12 and a pedestrian access would be provided through the western (front) boundary hedge.

The Group Manager, Development Management, addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The main issues for consideration were highlighted and these included the impact on the character of the area, overdevelopment of the site, adverse affect on the retention and protection of both the trees and the hedge and the impact on the street scene. The recommendation was to grant the application subject to the signing of a legal agreement and the imposition of relevant conditions.

Planning permission had been approved for the site in 2009, however there had been no property built. The application before Members was therefore to renew the consent. The scheme differed from the previous scheme in a number of ways and these were outlined to the Committee.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report and it was highlighted that there had been further comments received from the Highways Officer in relation to the substandard shared access and also from the Landscape Officer, confirming that the original concerns sited against the application were still valid.

Councillor Diane Lamb, Ward Councillor, and Councillor Johnson, Parish Councillor addressed the Committee jointly.  In summary the concerns highlighted included:

·         The height, footprint and scale of development would impact on the character of the area;

·         The Conservation Officer had stated that the proposal was excessive;

·         The proposal would impact on the Conservation Area;

·         The proposal was against Policy DA9 of the Peterborough Local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The application site formed an area of landscaping in front of Heltwate Primary School, and was identified as such within the Peterborough Open Space Strategy (2010). The site was not suitable for play and was more of a landscaped area. To the north, east and south were high density residential and flats, with the Masonic Hall to the South-West. The site formed the centre of what was effectively a circulation route for the school, with parking and a drop off/pick up area to the west. The site was open with no boundary treatments. There were a number of healthy trees on site, none of which were protected by way of tree preservation orders.

The Applicant sought consent to erect a 2 metre high Paladin Classic fence and two gates, finished in green (RAL6005). This would incorporate the informal amenity space and pick up/drop off area into the school grounds.

The application had been made in order to ensure the safety and security of the school and its pupils with special needs.

The Group Manager, Development Management, addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The Officer recommendation was to approve the application, with relevant conditions.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report and it was highlighted that Highways had requested the re-positioning of the gates on the site. This was due to the originally proposed gates being located on an adopted highway. An additional condition was therefore proposed in relation to this re-positioning and the provision of the relevant plans.

It was further highlighted that an additional letter of objection had been received against the application and a petition containing 46 signatures had been submitted.

Councillor Harrington left the meeting.

Ms Anita Fellowes and Mr Rowan Wilson, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted included:

·         The residents owned the land in front of their properties up to the footpath and they were told that they could not erect fences or hedges etc.;

·         If a fence was erected it would hem in the residential area and have a negative impact upon the streetscene;

·         The imposition of fencing would make the school look like a prison;

·         The proposals would increase the car parking issues in the area;

·         The children at the school understood the dangers of the road;

·         Would the gates be wide enough to let in emergency vehicles?

·         The local residents of Ellindon did not want the fence.

Members debated the application and stated that the safety of the children at the school was paramount; however the need to fence off the grassed area in its entirety was unclear. The grassed area was used by the local residents and although owned by the school, could a compromise not be reached that would benefit all concerned.

Following further debate and questions to the Planning Officer, Members commented that in order to make an informed decision, it would be important to hear from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The site was to the south-east corner of the large rear garden area of Compass Barns, a converted complex of farm buildings and barns within the Ufford Conservation Area. The tree house lay directly adjacent to the Grade II listed White Hart Public House.

Retrospective permission was sought for the erection of a 'tree house' a garden room on a platform 3 metres above ground level with an overall height of 6.8 metres. A smaller satellite platform of 2.4 metres height was linked via a rope bridge to the east.

The Group Manager, Development Management, addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The main issues for consideration were the impact of the proposal on the character of the Ufford Conservation Area and the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. The recommendation was to refuse the application.

The application was a resubmission of a previous which had been refused due to the harm caused by the visual appearance of the tree house and its harm to neighbour amenity through overlooking. The revised application proposed to delete a window within the tree house and proposed the planting of a hedge to the site’s eastern boundary.

Mr Scott Weavers-Wright, the Applicant, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the issues highlighted included:

·         The tree house was large, but it was only visible from one public vantage point, aside from the public house car park, this being a narrow gap from the main street;

·         The view of the tree house was set between the context of existing trees and buildings;

·         The tree house was not prominent as it was set far back from the street;

·         There were no views for the tree house to invade;

·         It was unfair to say that the tree house would set a precedent. All applications should be considered upon their own merits;

·         The only neighbours affected would be the occupiers of Compass Cottage;

·         The window facing east would be blocked in to mitigate against overlooking;

·         Mature holly trees would be planted and no trees were planned for removal in the future.

Following questions, Members debated the application and stated that a lot of time, effort and money had been invested in the project in order to ensure it was in keeping with the village. Mature trees would be planted and a window was to be removed to prevent overlooking.

A motion was put forward and seconded to grant the application, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to a scheme of planting and the removal of a window to mitigate against overlooking of the neighbouring dwelling. The motion was carried by 6 votes, with 1 abstaining.

RESOLVED: (6 For, 1 Abstention) to grant the application, contrary to Officer recommendation, subject to:

1.      A condition stating that a scheme of planting be submitted for approval;

2.      A condition stating that the east window, overlooking the neighbouring dwelling, is removed from the tree house.

Reasons for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The application site was comprised of an area of open landscaped grassland within the curtilage of the industrial building currently occupied by Peterborough Dairies.  The wider site was occupied by a large B2 General Industrial Unit which received deliveries of fresh milk for processing before being distributed to local businesses within Peterborough and the wider area.  There was an associated car park immediately at the site entrance and a large area for the turning and manoeuvring of delivery vehicles to the rear.  The application site was located within the identified Werrington General Employment Area and was accessed via the Werrington Parkway.  The surrounding units were occupied by a variety of general industrial and storage/distribution businesses. 

The application sought planning permission for the erection of temporary residential accommodation to allow the owners of Peterborough Dairies to live on the site of their business until it was established.  The size of the temporary accommodation had been reduced following refusal by Members of application reference 12/00100/FUL.  The current proposed accommodation was comprised of three no. bedrooms and requisite living space within a temporary structure of dimensions: 16 metres (length) x 6 metres (width) x 2.2 metres (height to ridge).  The unit had been reduced in length only from the previously refused application scheme by a total of 3 metres. 

The Group Manager, Development Management, addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. It was advised that the Officer recommendation for the previous application, which had been heard and subsequently refused by the Committee, had been to refuse the scheme due to the size of the mobile. Therefore, due to the reduced size of the mobile, the Officer recommendation was now to grant the application for a three year temporary consent, with relevant conditions.

Mr David Shaw, the Agent, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the issues highlighted to the Committee included:

·         The size of the unit had been reduced;

·         The site was situated 75 metres from the railway line;

·         Peterborough City Council had allocated in its Development Framework four sites which immediately adjoined the railway line;

·         There were a considerable number of homes in Peterborough situated closer to the railway line than 75 metres;

·         There were many homes in Peterborough that were adjoined by industrial sites;

·         The application was for a temporary dwelling that was in accordance with national policy and it would assist with the development of a local business that would secure 30 jobs;

·         Approving the temporary dwelling would not set a precedent;

·         The only way of funding the business had been to release equity from the Applicant’s own home;

·         The development would not harm anyone and was a short term solution only;

·         The mobile could be insulated and it would meet environmental health conditions.

Members debated the application and it was stated that the application would be a lone dwelling, based within a noisy situation and approving residential accommodation in an industrial area could set a precedent going forward. Ultimately, the health  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The application site was a semi-detached red brick dwelling with a mono-pitch porch to front, a lean to extension to rear and detached brick outbuilding to side. The rear amenity space was proportionate for the size of the dwelling and the plot had the capacity to cater for at least three off-street parking spaces.

The application site was not within the Helpston Conservation Area; however, it was within the settlement boundary as identified under Policy SA3 of the Peterborough Site Allocations DPD (2012).

The Applicant sought consent to demolish the existing porch and rear extension, and erect a two storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extension. The roof space would also be converted to form a 5th bedroom, which included the installation of a roof light window.

The proposed extension would create an integral garage, dining room and kitchen and utility room at ground floor with two additional bedrooms at first floor.

The proposed single storey rear element would be 4.6 metres (deep) x 9.8 metres (wide) with a height of 2.3 metres to eaves and 3.9 metres to the highest point of the roof.

The two storey side and rear extension would have a maximum floor area of 7.3 metres x 5.8 metres and was proposed to stand at 5 metres to eaves and 7.6 metres to ridge.

The proposed extensions would utilise matching materials. The existing UPVC windows would be replaced with timber (opaque stained).

The consultation period was due to end on 23 December 2012.

The Group Manager, Development Management, addressed the Committee and outlined the main issues for consideration, those being the design and layout, neighbour amenity, protected species and access and parking. The Officer recommendation was to grant the application subject to the relevant conditions.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Comments had been received from Helpston Parish Council objecting to the application on a number of grounds. There had also been a letter submitted from the neighbouring dwelling, along with photographs illustrating how the proposal would affect their rear garden aspect.

A bat survey had also been requested by the Wildlife Officer and an Ecological Survey had been due for completion prior to the Committee meeting. The results of this survey would determine whether condition 3, detailed in the committee report, would remain in its current form or whether a bespoke condition should be attached advising of any required mitigation.

The Landscape Officer had advised that the yew tree located at the front of the site was worthy of note and a condition be attached with respect to providing details of protective fencing which should be retained throughout construction works.

Mrs Shackell, the adjoining neighbour, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. In summary the concerns highlighted included:

·         It was a difficult situation for Mr and Mrs Shackell as they were friends with the Applicants;

·         There had been no planning application notice put up along the road, therefore other neighbours had not been aware  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.