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.

There were no apologies for absence received.

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 declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in item 5.8, Perkins Sports Association, as it was situated within her ward, but that this would in no way affect her decision.

Councillor Harrington declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in item 5.1, Stanground Surgery, in that was acquainted with Mr Damani, an objector to the application, but this would in no way affect his decision.

Councillor Shabbir declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in item 5.1, Stanground Surgery, in that he was acquainted with Mr Damani, an objector to the application, but this would in no way affect his decision.

Councillor Shabbir also declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in item 5.5, Newark Court, in that he was one of the statutory invitees to the Panel which had been discussing the development, however this would in no way affect his decision.

Councillor Hiller declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in item 5.5, Perkins Sport Association, in that his wife was employed by Caterpillar, the owners of Perkins Engines, but that this would in no way affect his decision.

Councillor Stokes declared that she would be speaking on item 5.3, R & P Meats, on behalf of local residents.

         The minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2013 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2013 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The Chairman addressed the Committee and stated that, with Committee’s approval, it was proposed to take item 5.4, 39 The Green, Werrington, first. The Committee agreed to the proposal.

The application site was comprised of a primary health care facility located at the junction of Peterborough Road and Whittlesey Road. There was a shared car park to the immediate south of the site which served patients attending the surgery and the adjacent Dental Clinic. Access to the site was granted from Peterborough Road via a shared access road of approximately 4.5 metres in width.  To the north of the site lay a public footway and landscaping strip along Whittlesey Road. The south and east the site was abutted by Stanground College playing fields and to the west, the site lay adjacent to the Co-Operative Funeral Directors. The site fell outside any identified district or local centre. 

The application sought planning permission for the construction of single storey extensions to the north and south of the existing building to provide new consulting rooms and administrative offices. As a result of the proposed extension, the internal space of the existing surgery would be reconfigured and a new ancillary dispensary created.

The proposed dispensary was to be located within the existing building with no separate or independent access and would extend to a floor space of only 32 square metres. On this basis, it was considered that the dispensary was an ancillary element to the main use of the building as a Medical Centre/Doctor’s Surgery and therefore fell within Class D1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order (as amended), the same use class as the surgery itself, not Class A1 (retail).  As an ancillary use to the main building, it was permitted development and therefore the creation of the dispensary did not require planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. 

The scheme had been amended following refusal of application reference 12/01331/FUL for the same proposed extensions. This earlier application was refused for the reasons as outlined in the committee report.

R 1         The proposed development did not provide adequate space within the curtilage of the site for the required parking facilities. This would result in cars parking within the access and in unsafe locations on the adjoining public highway and would therefore cause detriment to highway safety. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy CS14 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and emerging Policies PP12 and PP13 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (Submission Version incorporating the modifications recommended by the Inspector following Examination 2012).

R 2         The proposal would result in an intensification of use in terms of traffic movements to and from the site. Due to the insufficient width of the existing access road into the site, the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the safety of users of the adjoining public highway which is contrary to Policy CS14 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and emerging Policy PP12 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (Submission Version incorporating the modifications recommended by the Inspector following Examination 2012).

This revised application sought to address the reasons for refusal by including a car  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

*PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM HAS NOW BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA*

The Committee was advised that this application had been withdrawn by the Applicant.

          The application site was located on the southern edge of the Orton Waterville Conservation Area. The site consisted of a dwelling to the front of the site that had been rendered and remodelled over the years and was no longer of historic character. Along the left hand side of the site and to the rear was the meat wholesale premises that had been in operation since the mid 1950’s. Along the left hand side of the site were relatively narrow, single storey brick built outbuildings that were in commercial use. To the rear of the site was a larger modern structure which was in mixed use of commercial, incorporating residential garaging. To the centre of the site there was a garden space and gravel driveway that was used for the parking and turning of the four commercial vehicles stored on site.

          Permission was sought for the change of use of remaining part of residential garage to business use. This was retrospective.

          The Group Manager, Development Management, addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. It was highlighted that there had been a substantial number of retrospective applications associated with the site and discontinuance had previously been considered. Officers were of the opinion that they could not agree to any more proposals at the site and therefore the recommendation was to refuse the application.

          Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Comments had been received from Councillor Sue Allen and Councillor June Stokes, as Ward Councillors, in objection to the application.

          Councillor June Stokes, Ward Councillor addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents.  In summary the concerns highlighted included:

·         The premises had been over expanded for the site, and this was a sign that they wished to expand further;

·         The business operated within an area that should be a quiet residential area of a conservation village;

·         The road was extremely narrow and had been blocked by lorries on numerous occasions;

·         Whilst lorries were parked, their refrigeration units were left running, causing fumes to enter nearby properties;

·         Properties had been damaged by vehicles entering and leaving the premises due to the narrow entrance;

·         Emergency vehicles wishing to access premises along the road may be hampered by other vehicles being parked along the road;

·         Residents had been disturbed early in the morning by workers and vehicles arriving prior to 7.00am and also by vehicles returning to the site late at night.

          Mr Singer, a local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted included:

·         There were always a number of vehicles parked along Cherry Orton Road;

·         The business had expanded beyond the site’s capacity;

·         The location was inappropriate for the nature of the business;

·         The business would only continue to expand, this would mean more employees also;

·         The duration of time that the lorries spent unloading was unacceptable for the local residents to contend with;

·         Why were the lorries permitted to unload along  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The application property was situated along the north side of The Green, close to the junction with Fulbridge Road. It was of brick and tile construction. The dwelling was located in a backland location to the rear of the Werrington Green Church Centre. To the south of the dwelling was the rear garden of no.2 Crester Drive, to the west was the rear garden of no.4 Crester Drive and to the west of the rear garden of the dwelling was the rear garden of no.6 Crester Drive. To the east of no.39 was the long rear garden of no.41 The Green. The dwelling was originally wholly two storey in height although it had been extended by way of a single storey extension that was located alongside the east facing elevation and to a point half way along the rear elevation.

The character of the immediate area was principally residential. The application had its vehicular access directly off The Green between no.41 and The Church Centre. The front elevation was set back approximately 50 metres from the public highway with the front elevation of the dwelling was partly visible from the public highway.

The proposal was a re-submission following on from a similar scheme that had been previously withdrawn. The proposal was for a two storey side extension with a width of 6.2 metres and a depth of 7.03 metres. The proposal would involve the demolition of an existing single storey, flat roof side extension to the west side of the dwelling.  The proposed extension would represent an increase in the width of the dwelling by 78%.

The ground floor of the extension would be comprised of a lounge and the first floor would add two additional bedrooms, giving a total of five for the dwelling. Also proposed was a modest single storey rear extension centrally located that would not extend beyond an existing single storey rear elevation of the dwelling.

The proposed south facing wall of the two storey side extension would be 6.1 metres away from the shared garden boundary with no.2 Crester Drive. The west facing wall of the extension would be 5 metres from the garden boundary with no.4 Crester Drive. The north facing wall of the extension faced into the garden of the application dwelling.

Fenestration for the extension:-

i)     South facing front elevation – Ground floor – One high level obscure glazed lounge window; and

       First floor – One bedroom window to be obscure glazed

ii)    West facing side elevation –  Ground floor – Two large clear glazed windows to serve the lounge; and

       First floor – Two high level bedroom windows

iii)    North facing rear extension – Ground floor – Patio doors

First floor – A French door arrangement to a bedroom that was to be fixed closed

The internal ground floor level of the extension would have to be raised to be in keeping with that of the existing dwelling and the materials used would match those of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The application site was approximately 0.47 hectares in area and was currently comprised of a vacant single storey building and associated car parking and access road.  The building was previously used by 'Best Deal 4 Baby' providing opportunity for the exchange of unwanted baby items albeit this use was never permitted and the lawful use of the building is for B1 offices.  In addition, part of the site area was formed by garden land associated with No.5 Newark Avenue, a residential dwelling. 

The site was located within a predominantly residential area, with residential dwellings enclosing the site to the north, south and east.  There was a variety of built form in the surrounding area, with a mix of size and style of dwellings along Newark Avenue, Eastfield Road and Derby Drive. To the north of the site was modern backland development comprising 4 no. flats.  To the south-west of the site was an established children's day nursery (Class D1). 

The application sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new two storey medical centre (Class D1) comprising:

-          8 no. consulting rooms;

-          3 no. treatment rooms;

-          2 no. Healthcare Assistant/Phlebotomy rooms;

-          4 no. rooms for District Nurses, Health Visitors and District Midwife;

-          Ancillary office and staff accommodation; and

-          Pharmacy (100 square metres of floor area)

The total gross internal floor area of the proposed surgery extended to 992.7 square metres.  In addition to the above, the proposal included improvement to the existing vehicular access, provision of 41 car parking spaces (14 of which resulted from the change of use of part of the garden associated with a dwelling) and associated landscaping. The proposed new accommodation would provide replacement facilities for four GP practices located in the surrounding areas - Welland, Dogsthorpe, Parnwell, Burghley Road/Church Walk.

          The Group Manager, Development Management, addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The recommendation was to grant the application subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

          Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Comments had been received from Councillor John Peach, Ward Councillor highlighting a number of issues, specifically in relation to the lack of on-site parking provision. Councillor Chris Ash had also submitted comments concerning the impact on the surrounding highways and the lack of parking provision.

          Eight further letters of support had been received for the proposal and a further letter of objection, and comments from a local resident. Further conditions had also been specified by the Highways Authority and an amendment to condition C6, as detailed in the committee report.

          Councillor Pam Kreling, Ward Councillor addressed the Committee. In summary she stated that she was in favour of the proposal, however she had reservations with regards to the parking provision on site, 25 car parking spaces was not enough. The solution would be to knock down the bungalow, as procured by the Primary Care Trust. Furthermore, the egress of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

          The Committee was advised that the item had been withdrawn from the agenda by the Group Manager, Development Management.

The application site covered an area of approximately 1.45 hectares. The land was previously used for allotments, but now is overgrown and unused. The City Council owned the site.  The site was bounded to the east by the two storey high residential properties of Monarch Avenue. To the north by allotments, beyond which were residential houses which fronted onto Fletton High Street. To the south of the site was a bridleway and then the large IKEA distribution centre, and to the east were redundant railway sidings and the East Coast railway line. 

Planning permission was sought for the erection of 59 affordable houses, 29 would be affordable rented and 30 would be shared ownership. The development would comprise of 44 x 3 bedroom and 15 x 2 bed properties, all of which were two storeys in height. The houses were a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. 

A play area was also proposed on site. There was also an attenuation pond for surface water drainage.  

Vehicle access to the site was from Monarch Avenue, and the proposed layout allowed for possible vehicle access to the allotment land to the north should it be required in future.        

          The Group Manager, Development Management, addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The recommendation was to grant the application subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

          Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Comments had been received from Councillor Irene Walsh, Ward Councillor, the Wildlife Officer, the Police Architect Liaison Officer. There had also been amended plans received and an amended recommendation and additional condition.

          Mr Mark Croker, Architect, Larkfleet Homes, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the issues highlighted included:

·         Larkfleet aimed to build 200 units per year for private and affordable sales;

·         They had been involved in many schemes in Peterborough in the past few years;

·         This was a unique opportunity to bring funding into the area;

·         It was an important scheme for the Council;

·         The materials specified had been chosen to be in keeping with the area;

·         There were no garages to be provided within the scheme but there would be storage sheds and lockable bike storage;

·         The site had not been allotments for at least two years.

Following questions to the speaker, Members commented that the proposal was a good opportunity to provide much needed affordable housing in the city. It was a well set out and planned development. 

A motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application, as per the revised recommendation and additional condition as detailed in the update report. The motion was carried by 9 votes, with 1 abstaining. 

          RESOLVED: (9 For, 1 Abstention) to approve the application, as per Officer recommendation, subject to:

1.      Delegated authority being granted to Officer to issue planning permission on completion of a further 14 day neighbour re-consultation on the amended plans, and provided no further adverse comments are received on the changes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The site formed a rectangular shape and covered an area of approximately 4.43 hectares. The site lay within the north western section of the Perkins factory estate and comprised land formally used for recreation by factory workers. The recreation areas had not been in formal use since 2005 and were currently under-utilised and in poor condition.

The site was bounded to the north by rear gardens to existing residences at Marriot Court and to the south by The Broadlands, a private access road for the Ideal World office building. The site was contained by Newark Road to the east and to the west by an internal access road serving the industrial estate.  Adjoining land uses comprised employment to the west of the site specifically the main Perkins facility and office buildings. Further employment uses were located immediately south of the site at Ideal World House. Residential uses were located immediately north of the site (Marriot Court) and to the east beyond Newark Road.

Existing pedestrian and vehicle access to the site was from an internal access road via Vicarage Farm Road, also known as Gate 6 and from Oxney Road. An informal access point was available from Newark Road.

The north and south sites were allocated in the Peterborough City Council Local Plan (First Replacement) 2005 for employment uses. Given the proximity of housing to the north and west of the site, housing was considered a more suitable use for the north site. The site was subsequently reallocated for housing in the Site Allocation Development Plan Document.

Outline planning permission was sought for residential development. Up to 230 units were proposed including the provision for 30% affordable housing and open space provision including equipped play areas. The average density of the proposed development was approximately 50 dwellings per hectare. The indicative masterplan indicated that the majority of the buildings were 2-3 storey with a small number of 4 storey flats on the south boundary. Access would be via two new accesses on Newark Road.

In addition a bus gate was proposed along Newark Road. The bus gate would be sited between The Broadlands and Palmers Road junctions. The bus gate would have a CCTV / Camera and only buses, cycles and emergency vehicles would be allowed through it. This would mean that there would be no through traffic between The Broadlands and Palmers Road.

          The Group Manager, Development Management, addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The recommendation was to grant the application.

          Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. A safety audit of the bus gate had been undertaken and the Highways Officers had no issues with the audit outcome. There were also a number of changes to conditions highlighted following a revised access drawing being submitted by the Applicant, a revision to the Section 106 and four further letters of objection.

          Mrs Amaryllis Elphick, a local resident and Mr John Dadge,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

The application site comprised a two storey semi-detached former public house located within an identified Local Centre.  The site occupied a prominent position within the street scene at the junction of Mayors Walk with Alderman's Drive and Nicholl's Avenue and benefitted from a double frontage. The existing building was unique within the locality, with architectural detailing including double storey brick and timber bay windows, projecting gable roofs and stone cills and lintels.  Parking was provided within a single storey garage to the rear of the site, adjacent to No. 165 Alderman's Drive. 

The application sought planning permission for the following:

- Erection of single storey front extension and external alterations to create new shop fronts;

- Change of use of ground floor to form A1 retail and A5 takeaway unit, including the installation of extraction equipment;

- Change of use of existing hotel rooms, raising the existing public house roof and installation of dormer windows to form three residential dwellings;

- Erection of first and second floor extension to side to form two residential dwellings; and

- Change of use of garden area to parking, and reinstatement of parking provision at front.

The Committee was advised that works had already commenced on site and accordingly, the application was part-retrospective.

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

          Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report where it was highlighted that there had been four additional letters of objection received from local residents.

          Councillor Yasmeen Maqbool and Councillor Nick Arculus, Ward Councillors, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns and issues highlighted included:

·         There was inadequate parking available on the site for the number of flats proposed;

·         There would be increased traffic flow and footfall to the site due to the takeaway;

·         There was concern about the adequacy of the bus routes;

·         The existing historical features on the building should be retained;

·         There was mixed feeling from local residents;

·         The most important aspect was the appearance of the building, it needed to be in keeping with the street scene;

·         The detail provided in relation to the provision of parking and the frontage of the building was not adequate enough for the Committee to grant the application.

          Mr Ed Murphy, a City Councillor speaking as an objector, addressed the Committee. In summary the concerns highlighted included:

·         The property was situated within an extremely busy area;

·         The proposal would diminish the appearance of the area;

·         The façade of the building should be retained;

·         There was congestion in the area and the proposed takeaway would increase this;

·         The builders had already started on the site, what had they done to the front of the property already?

·         Many local residents were fearful that the property would be turned into yet another off license;

·         Further information with regards to the design needed to be provided prior to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

At its meeting on the 4 December 2012 the Committee resolved to approve planning permission for this application subject to:

i) The completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation in respect of a financial contribution towards -  payment for the existing community car park - public art - bus stop upgrades - a travel plan - travel plan monitoring contribution - CCTV provision – monitoring fee; and

ii)    29 conditions.

Since this decision the Applicant and the council’s Pollution Team had requested a series of changes to a small number of the conditions approved by Members and the addition of a new condition.

The conditions that were in need of revision are set out below together with explanation of why the change was needed:

Condition 15

In its approved form the condition set different noise limits for fixed plant and machinery during the day time and night time periods. In error the Pollution Team referred to the wrong noise level, 38 dB LAeq, whereas it should have been 35 dB LAeq which is a lower noise level.  

Condition 19

In its approved form, the condition required the details of the alterations to the access to Olympus House to be submitted for approval. However, as this access was not shown in the plans consider by committee as being altered, the condition is not required.

Condition 25

In its approved form, the condition required a management plan for the operation of the new pub and shop unit service yard as a way of mitigating and potential noise problems.  As the application as submitted and considered by the Committee made no changes to the pub element of the scheme approved back in 2009, in hindsight, it was unreasonable for officers to have recommended the condition to members. It is therefore now recommended by both Planning and Pollution Control Officers that the condition is removed.

In addition to the above changes, it was considered that a new condition be added which sought details of the emissions from the proposed Combined Heat & Power Plant located in the service yard. This was a ‘belt and braces’ condition as the emissions would have to comply with other existing legislation relating to ‘clean air’.

All other elements of the application and recommendation remain unchanged.

          The Group Manager, Development Management, addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The recommendation was to grant the revisions to the conditions and the imposition of an additional condition.

A motion was put forward and seconded to approve the revisions to the conditions outlined and the imposition of the additional condition. The motion was carried unanimously.

          RESOLVED: (Unanimous) to approve the changes in conditions and the imposition of an additional condition, as per Officer recommendation and as detailed below:

1. Condition 15 now to read:

C 15    The rating level of noise emitted from all fixed plant including stationary vehicle refrigeration noise sources, shall not exceed 35 dB LAeq, 1 hour between 0700 and 2300 and 35 dB LAeq, 5 minutes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

A report was presented to the Committee following the requirement for the Cabinet Member for Housing, Neighbourhoods and Planning to formally adopt the City Council’s Historic Environment Record as the register of “sites of archaeological interest” within the terms of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. This decision was proposed to be made exercising delegated authority within a Cabinet Member Decision Notice in accordance with the delegated authority under paragraph 3.3.3 of Part 3 of the constitution in accordance with the terms of the Cabinet Member’s portfolio at paragraph 3.8(a).

The report was for information purposes only prior to the formal adoption of the Historic Environment Record.

The Committee commented that the record was extremely important, well established resource.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the proposed adoption of Peterborough City Council’s Historic Environment Record within the terms of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

Reasons for decision:

Formal adoption was in accordance with the terms of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

i)        SMRs were first mentioned in the Town & Country Planning General Development Order 1988 which defined 'site of archaeological interest' as (in addition to sites covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979) "land ... which was within a site registered in any record kept by a county council and known as the County Sites and Monuments Record".

ii)       This had been redefined in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as "land ... which was within a site registered in any record adopted by resolution by a county council and known as a County Sites and Monuments Record " (italics added).

In order to comply with this definition it was necessary to pass a formal resolution to adopt Peterborough City Council’s HER. Historically this requirement had been overlooked and was only identified within a recent audit undertaken.

A report was presented to the Committee which sought its views in relation to considering alternative time allowances for speaking at the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee meeting, at which the urban extension at the Great Haddon site was to be considered.

The Group Manager, Development Management addressed the Committee and outlined the main reasons for requesting Members to consider a possible extension, in the main those being to allow Officers to arrange, manage and liaise with interested parties prior to the meeting in a more effective and efficient manner. The existing speaking arrangements were detailed and it was noted that although any change could be agreed in principle, it could not be confirmed until the day, when the Committee would vote on any such proposal.

The suggested alternative speaking times were outlined and Members debated them. A number of points were raised both for and against any extensions to time.

Following debate, the Committee agreed a scheme in principle with the caveat that any extensions to the scheme would be approved by the Committee on the day of the meeting.

RESOLVED:

The Committee agreed a scheme in principle as follows:

i) 20 minutes (total) be allowed for each of the following:

(a) objectors;

(b) applicant or agent and their supporters

ii) 30 minutes (total) be allowed for speeches from Ward Councillors and Parish Councillors.

iii) MPs be allowed to speak for 15 minutes.

This was agreed with the caveat that any such extensions would be approved by the Committee on the day of the meeting.

Reasons for decision:

The Committee could not make a binding decision on an alternative amount of time to be allocated to speaking at a meeting of the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee, as the Constitution (Paragraphs 9.2. and 9.3 (under Part 4, Section 3) stated that such a decision could only be made on the day of the meeting when the alternative would be applied. However, in the interest of planning for the meeting, and to allow Officers to arrange, manage and liaise with interested parties prior to the meeting in a more effective and efficient manner, a view in principle was sought from Members.