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 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 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 extend the speaking scheme for item 5.1, land to the north of Norman Cross, to allow 20 minutes for objectors and 20 minutes for supporters. This time had been agreed in principle at the meeting held on 19 February 2013. The Committee agreed to the speaking time extension. 

The Chairman further addressed the Committee and stated that Councillor Sandford had requested to be permitted to speak on item 6, discontinuance of Nos 1-15 Rowledge Court. The Committee agreed that Councillor Sandford be permitted 10 minutes to speak.

The application site was some 305.58 hectares in size and located on the western edge of the administrative area of Peterborough.

To the north east the site adjoined Orton Pit Special Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI)/ Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a site of international ecological importance for its populations of Great Crested Newts and Stoneworts (aquatic invertebrates). Adjacent to this was Haddon Lake and further to the north east the existing development of Hampton.

To the north west immediately adjoining the application site was a wooded area known as ‘Two Pond Coppice’ and ‘Chamber’s Dole’. This woodland was within private ownership and did not form part of the proposed Great Haddon urban extension. Beyond the woodland was the Great Haddon employment area which had consent for a mix of B1 (office and light industry), B2 (general industrial) and B8 uses (warehousing and storage) (see planning permission 09/01369/OUT). Further to the north west was Alwalton Hill which had a detailed permission for up to 172,000 square metres of B8 development with ancillary offices in five buildings (applications 06/00346/OUT and 09/00725/REM refer).

To the east was the village of Yaxley and the A15 which also adjoined the southern boundary of the site. Further south beyond the A15 was the open landscape of the Fens. The south west corner of the application site adjoined a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) (reference CB268) containing the remains of a Napoleonic Prisoner of War Camp. Adjacent to the SAM was the settlement of Norman Cross. Two of the houses within Norman Cross were Listed (the former house of the camp Commandant now known as Norman House and the old Governor’s House including the Barrack Master’s Lodge). Three other listed structures were located to the south and west of the application site; these comprised the Eagle Monument (moved from its original location to the west of the application site) and two mile posts (one on the A15 and one on the Old Great North Road). There were three groups of trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) located within the gardens of existing dwellings (Norman House (TPO 9.90), Norman Cottage (TPO 22.90) and the Barrack Master’s Lodge (TPO 176). All the Listed buildings and TPO trees were located within Huntingdonshire District.

To the west of the application site was the Old Great North Road which had a number of existing properties along it. Further west was the A1 (M). Beyond the A1 (M) to the south west were the villages of Stilton and Folksworth whilst to the north west was the village of Haddon which was accessed via the Old Great North Road.

The site was largely in agricultural use and contained two farmsteads. A number of footpaths/bridleways (footpath numbers 12 and 14, bridleways 2 and 11 (which was part of the Green Wheel)) cross it.

The Stanground Lode and its northern tributary flowed through the site along with other drainage channels which formed part of the current field drainage system.

Also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The proposed facility would be located on land which presently formed part of the overall Dogsthorpe landfill site.  The site was comprised of an existing vehicle parking area, equipment storage area, other land which was not used and a proportion of the restored landfill.  The site was generally flat and measured approximately 4.7 hectares.  The vegetation on site was grassland and there were several immature self set trees and bushes.

The site was bounded to the north by an existing skip hire business operated by a third party and a disused clay pit.  Beyond these to the north was the Welland Road and Eye Road roundabout (A47T). To the north of the A47 was the continuation of the clay pit which was designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Immediately to the east was the active landfill site operated by the Applicant.  Eye village lay approximately 1.2 km to the east of the application site.

To the south east of the application site was the Peterborough Garden Park retail development. To the south was the A15 (T) and beyond this the urban area of Peterborough. The nearest residential property was located on Belvoir Way approximately 160 metres to the south.

To the immediate west was a concrete batching plant operated by Cemex and beyond this a grain store/flour mill comprising substantial buildings.  To the west of the grain store Welland Road crossed over the A15.

The proposal was for a waste recycling centre (termed an “eco park”) and comprised the following;

                 •    Removal of existing structures on site;

            •    Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) and pre-treatment building (for the Anaerobic Digester (AD) located in one purpose building portal framed building;

•    A Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) under a covered open sided building;

•    An anaerobic digestion (AD) facility comprising pre-storage tanks, digester tanks (x2), a digestate tank together with associated plant and machinery including a feedstock clamp;

•    Combined heat and power units and associated plant (generating up to MWe of power);

•    Ancillary parking and turning areas, gatehouse and weighbridge, offices and visitor centre; and

•    Surface water lagoon.

The proposed facility would manage up to 206,000 tonnes per annum of municipal, commercial and industrial waste and had the potential to generate up to a maximum of 1.5MWe of power. The electricity could be used to power the wider facility and/or the local distribution network.  The nearest sub station to which the facility could potentially connect was on Welland Road.

Access to the site would be as existing, off the Welland Road/A47 roundabout.

          The application is accompanied by and Environmental Assessment.

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

Members attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report were it was highlighted that there was a proposed re-wording to condition 17 and an amendment to condition 19. A comment had also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Prior to the presentation of the report, the Legal Officer addressed the Committee and reminded Members that the report contained an exempt appendix, if this appendix was to be discussed in detail then a view would need to be taken by the Committee as to whether the meeting would need to go into exempt session.

The report was submitted to the Planning and Environment Protection Committee following a request by Councillor Sandford for the Committee to give consideration to pursuing a Discontinuance Order for Nos. 1-15 Rowledge Court (odd Nos only). The seven dwellings (there was no No.13) made up the ‘rear block’ of the development and backed on to existing dwellings on Arundel Road. All but one of the seven dwellings was occupied.  The request had its origins in the fact that two households that abutted the development remained dissatisfied with the decision to give planning permission for the development principally for the following reasons:

·      The modern design of the dwellings;

·      The three storey nature of the dwellings; and

·      Overlooking of their property causing a reduction in privacy

            The purpose of the report was to obtain a decision from the Committee on whether the discontinuance of the development should be pursued.

Planning permission was first granted for the development in 2007. The proposal was contentious at the time because of:

·         The development would result in the loss of the Royal Oak Public House;

·         The modern design of the dwellings;

·         The three storey nature of the dwellings; and

·         The relationship with the existing residential development adjacent

The development approved was for two rows of seven, three storey dwellings. The application was considered by the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee at the time and was granted planning permission.

The planning permission was not implemented and so in 2011, an application to renew the permission was received. As there were no significant material changes in policy (from when permission was previously approved), planning permission was granted again for the development under officer delegated powers (in accordance with the Council’s constitution).

Two households in Arundel Road had subsequently gone through the Council’s formal complaint process and had remained dissatisfied with the outcome. Officers are satisfied that both the planning permissions granted were legally sound. During the process of responding to the complaints, the residents were advised that the only option available that (if agreed and implemented) would ‘take the development away’, would be a Discontinuance Order.

An independent assessment had been undertaken on the development by Mr Andrew Moffat from Huntingdonshire District Council. Mr Moffat provided the Committee with an overview of his report findings and it was his conclusion that “having regard to development plan policies, it was neither appropriate nor expedient in the interest of the proper planning of the area (including the interest of amenity) for the Council to pursue discontinuance.

          If discontinuance was taken forward, there would be a compensation cost associated with (Under Section 115 of the 1990 Act). It was important to note that if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.