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 Simons. 

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.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2013 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The application site was a detached dwelling of standard brick and tile construction located at the end of a pedestrian walk, with no through routes. The application site lay on a large plot with an open front garden and fully enclosed rear garden. The property had been previously extended with a single storey extension to the rear. Parking for the property was to the rear, accessed via a separate access.

There were three trees in close proximity to the dwelling. Two trees were located within the front garden, a conifer and maple, the latter benefits from a tree protection order. The crown of a large sycamore tree overhung the application site. None of the trees were likely to be affected by the proposals.

The dominant character of the area was of plain, brick and tile, semi detached dwellings with small enclosed porches and render bands at ground floor level, front to back dual pitch roofs and brick piers at the extremities of the frontage. The application site was mirrored by a single identical property directly opposite the application site.

Permission was sought for:

·         The erection of a single storey side extension measuring 1.97 metres wide by 3.6 metres deep;

·         A front porch measuring 2.7 metres wide by 1.69 metres deep; and

·         A 4.67 metres wide by 7.3 metre deep two storey side extension, with a dual pitch roof measuring 4.7 metres above ground level at the eaves and 6.6 metres at the apex.

The proposed extensions would increase the number of bedrooms from three to four.

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and provided an overview of the proposal.  The officer recommendation was to refuse the application due to the size of the proposed extension.

A written submission in favour of the application had been submitted by Councillor Arculus, Ward Councillor.  The main points contained within the submission included:

·         There were no main objections to the application from residents; and

·         The size difference was not so significant and that other houses in the area could alter or be altered accordingly, which removed the issues of symmetry.

Mr Andy Barker, the Applicant addressed the Committee and responded to questions and comments from Members.  In summary the comments and responses included:

·         The differences from the previous plans of 600m would take away space between the bed and wardrobe in the master bedroom and it would prove difficult to install a king sized bed;

·         Land for the extension had been purchased from Horrells farms to avoid building on the south side of the property;

·         The proposed extension would only be visible by 60 degrees from the footpath and would only be visible to the Postman;

·         None of the Neighbours were in objection to the proposed extension;

·         The symmetry of the pathway had already been closed up due to a neighbour’s extension;

·         Redesign options had been exhausted in order to reduce previous proposals to fit in with Officer’s requirements;

·         The extra room was needed in order to improve quality of living.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The application site was a two storey detached dwelling with detached single garage and off street parking for three vehicles. The streetscene was comprised of detached and semi-detached two storey properties with off-street parking.

The Applicant sought consent to erect:

·         A single storey extension with a floor area of 5.5 metres (d) x 8.9 metres (w) and proposes to stand at 2.3 metres to eaves and 3.4 metres to ridge. An existing conservatory would be re-used, which had a floor area of 3.5 metres (d) x 3.2 metres (w) and was proposed to stand at 2.3 metres to eaves and 3 metres to ridge. Combined, the single storey rear extension and conservatory would have a total depth of 9 metres;

·         A two storey rear extension would have a floor area of 3.8 metres x 6.65 metres and was proposed to stand at 4.8 metres to eaves and 6.8 metres to ridge; and

·         A first floor side extension would have a floor area of 2.2 metres (w) x 4.5 metres (d) and was proposed to stand at 4.9 metres to eaves and 6.6 metres to ridge. Due to officer concerns with this part of the scheme, this element had been removed from the proposal.

The conservatory was constructed out of UPVC; the remaining works would be constructed out of matching materials. First floor side windows were proposed to serve existing bedrooms.

The Committee was advised that a further objection had been received from a neighbour, which had been included within the update report. Key points included:

·         The amended scheme did not mitigate impact on No.11;

·         The proposal would be too close to neighbours, which would result in loss of light, create a shadow and overlook neighbouring properties;

·         The proposal would be out of keeping (with the street) and would set a precedent in the area;

·         The mono-pitch roof to the single storey side extension would result in water draining into No. 7 Grafton Avenue and would result in a loss of light to the rear kitchen window and would be out of character with No.7’s flat roof garage;

·         The first floor side windows would result in loss of privacy; and

·         The side elevation of the two storey side extension would be visible when using the rear room from No.7.

The officer recommendation was to grant the application subject to relevant conditions and the entering into of a S106 legal agreement.

Mr Robotham, a local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. In summary the concerns highlighted included:

·         Neighbouring residents were concerned that the proposal, if approved, would have an  overbearing impact on the surrounding properties;

·         The surrounding green space would be lost;

·         The proposed extension was large for the existing plot as it would extend by nine metres in length with the bulk of the extension being seven metres in height;

·         The high walls and would crate a tunnel effect;

·         Lose of sunlight particularly for No. 7 after midday; and

·         The three windows, including a bedroom window, would look  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The application site comprised of a two storey semi-detached former public house located within an identified Local Centre.  The site occupied a prominent position within the streetscene at the junction of Mayors Walk with Alderman's Drive and Nicholl's Avenue and benefited 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:

·         Construction of a single storey front extension and external alterations to create new shop fronts;

·         Change of use of ground floor to either retail shop (Class A1), professional/financial services (Class A2), restaurant/café (Class A3), retention as a drinking establishment or A5 takeaway unit, including the installation of extraction equipment;

·         Change of use of existing hotel rooms and construction of a first and second floor side extension, including the installation of dormer windows, to form three no. two-bed apartments, one no. three-bed apartment, one no. studio apartment and commercial unit; and

·         Change of use of the garden area to provide car parking and reinstatement of parking provision to the front. 

The change of use of the ground floor to Classes A1, A2 or A3 did not require the benefit of planning permission (including any potential subdivision to create additional units within these classes). 

It should be noted that works had already commenced on site and accordingly, the application was part-retrospective.

This application scheme had been amended following refusal of planning application reference 12/01119/FUL by Members on 19 February 2013. The scheme had been amended following the refusal in the following ways:

·         Reduced width, altered elevation and altered fenestration treatment to the eastern elevation along Aldermans Drive and retention of single storey garage drive-through;

·         Improved shop front design including kick plate and slimline lighting;

·         Reduction in the number of units by one (from six units to five), thereby reducing the number of proposed bedrooms by two (from 12 bedrooms to 10); and

·         Introduction of first floor commercial office unit (floor area approximately 38 square metres).

The officer recommendation was to grant the application subject to relevant conditions and the entering into of a S106 legal agreement.  

Following a submission from a local resident regarding concerns raised over parking arrangements and light fixings, an additional condition, C10, had been included within the officer recommendations in order to accommodate the lighting concerns.

Following a request to speak, the Committee agreed that Mr Hussain be permitted to provide his representation.

Mr Hussain addressed the Committee and responded to question from Members.  In summary the concerns included:

·         It was felt that the takeaway may create a noise nuisance;

·         There would be an increase in parking and traffic volume in the area that would affect local business and residents’ parking;

·         The takeaway may produce extra litter in the West Town Park especially in the summer months;

·         There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Group Manager Development Management introduced a report outlining the twelve month appeal performance for planning matters.  It was considered useful for the Committee to look at the Planning Service’s performance at appeals and to identify if there were any lessons to be learnt in terms of appeal outcomes. The Committee was advised that the report would help to inform future decisions and may potentially reduce costs in the future.

RESOLVED:

          The Committee noted the past performance and outcomes.

The Strategic Planning Officer introduced a report on the Neighbourhood Planning - Application to Designate Neighbourhood areas.  The report was submitted to the Committee following the receipt of applications from Deeping Gate, Glinton, Northborough and Peakirk Parish Councils for the designation of neighbourhood areas and in accordance with the procedures contained in the adopted Peterborough City Council Statement of Community Involvement.

The purpose of the report was to provide the Committee with recommendations for the determination of the applications from Deeping Gate, Glinton, Northborough and Peakirk Parish Councils to designate neighbourhood areas. The reasoning behind the recommendations was included within the report. It was expected that the Committee would determine the four applications following consideration of the recommendations and reasons provided.

The Strategic Planning Officer and Senior Solicitor responded to comments and question from Members.  In summary responses included:

·         The plans adopted for each area would remain irrespective of any boundary change;

·         If the boundaries changed following the current boundary review, the plan would have to it accommodate the changes;

·         Adoption of the Neighborhood plan and would enhance what the local community wanted and how they wished to see their community develop; and

·         A Neighborhood Plan would allocate sites and would expand on the policies of a local plan it can also reflect the needs of local areas.

     RESOLVED:

1. Deeping Gate Parish Council’s application to designate a neighborhood area was approved without amendment (Option A - approval without amendment);

2. Glinton Parish Council’s application to designate a neighborhood area was approved subject to an amendment that included the whole of the parish area (Option B - approval with minor amendments);

3. Northborough Parish Council’s application to designate a neighborhood area was approved without amendment (Option A - approval without amendment);

4. Peakirk Parish Council’s application to designate a neighborhood area was approved without amendment (Option A - approval without amendment); and

5. None of the four neighborhood areas should be designated as business areas.

Reasons for the decision:

Deeping Gate                                                                              

It was considered that the whole of the parish was a logical and appropriate area for designation as a neighbourhood area. As a rural area, it was considered that designation of only part of the parish would lead to a fragmented approach within the area.

Glinton

It was considered that the designation of only the village envelope as a neighbourhood area was not preferable. Due to the rural nature of the area, it was felt that the designation of only part of the parish would lead to a fragmented approach within the area, and may result in some or all of the remaining parish area being excluded from the neighbourhood planning process (i.e. it was unknown whether the parish council would apply to designate any further neighbourhood areas within the parish boundary). In light of this and of the comment received during the consultation period, it was considered that the whole of the parish was a logical and appropriate area for designation of a neighbourhood area. Therefore it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.