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 North, Lane and Harrington. 

Councillor Ash was in attendance as a substitute.

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 an interest in item 5.2 Thorpe Road in that the Agent was well known to him.  Councillor Ash confirmed that he had not discussed the item with the Agent and intended to remain for the discussion of the item.

There were no representations made by any Member of the Committee to make representation as Ward Councillor.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 June 2013 were approved as a true and accurate record, subject to the inclusion of Councillor Hiller noted as being in attendance.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2013 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The Chairman announced that an urgent item of business had been put forward for consideration. Members were advised that the item, regarding potential works being carried out within the City, contained exempt information. The Committee agreed that the item be heard.

The application site was comprised of a two storey detached residential dwelling located within a residential estate of uniform character.  The main dwelling house was set back from the streetscene and sat behind an existing single storey detached double garage.  The garage was positioned side-on to the street and shared a driveway with No.11 Nottingham Way.  There had been a small area of landscaping to the front comprising shrubs and an immature silver birch tree which had provided some screening to the dwelling and garage. The garage had a blank gable elevation which fronted the public highway and was constructed of buff brick and brown concrete roof tiles. 

The description of development referred to the conversion of an existing detached garage to form living accommodation. Notwithstanding this description, the proposed use of the existing garage as an annexe for occupation by a family member associated with the occupation of the main dwelling house, did not require the benefit of planning permission. Accordingly, the only elements for which planning permission were sought was the insertion of two small windows to the front elevation, the insertion of a door to the rear elevation and replacement of the existing plastic-clad metal roller shutter doors with a solid brick wall and cladding of a similar appearance to that which was existing. 

The Development Management Support Officer addressed the Committee and provided an overview of the proposal. It was advised that there had been two further letters of objection received from local residents in addition to those detailed within the committee report. These objections were summarised within the update report. The officer recommendation was one of approval subject to the imposition of specified conditions.

Ward Councillors John Peach and John Shearman addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members.  In summary, key points highlighted included:

·         There had been email communications received from Planning Officers which had stated that the officer recommendation would be one of refusal as the application was contrary to Planning Policy;

·         The application was entirely out of character within the area, to the detriment of local residents and the environment;

·         Whilst there were some extensions along Nottingham Way, none of them included a free standing annex such as a garage;

·         The application was in a landscape road adjacent to a conservation area;

·         Approval of the proposal may invite similar development requests to convert            garages;

·         Members of the Committee were asked to be mindful of the officer’s original recommendation for refusal;

·         There was sympathy for the Applicant wanting to care for an elderly relative, but the Committee was asked to be mindful of the shared driveway area and whether the living arrangements would be sufficient given the number of residents that would be living at the property;

·         Whether the amenities included within the proposal was acceptable within planning regulations particularly due to one door being available in the proposed conversion;

·         And concerns were raised over the building regulations for appropriate fire escape routes.

Mr Rod McDonald, a local resident and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The application site was part of the rear garden associated with a two storey, predominantly unaltered Victorian villa. The house was identified as a locally listed building (WE15, under policy PP17 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD). The dwelling formed one of several dwellings of similar style and character and retained a number of architectural features that were important to the historic character of the area. The property had two off-street parking spaces to the front. The rear garden sloped to the south, falling to a watercourse, and was host to several species of trees, including a Horse Chestnut which was protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

The immediate area to the west of the application site was characterised by similarly sized, locally listed Victorian villas on large, linear plots which fronted Thorpe Road. Slightly further west were two modern stone dwellings which had received planning permission in 2003. The gardens of these properties had a number of matures trees within them which collectively provided them an almost rural character. To the east was Fairmead Way, an estate which received planning permission in the 1970's while to the south was Rivermead which was separated from the application site by a watercourse.  There were more residential dwellings to the north.

The application sought outline planning permission for a two bedroom dwelling with all matters reserved. To support the proposal, indicative drawings had been submitted, which illustrated a two storey dwelling built into the slope, a detached garage and vehicular access to the side of 95 Thorpe Road.

Further to receiving the application, a number of trees had been trimmed/felled adjacent to the watercourse at the bottom of the application site. None of these were protected and so permission for the works had not been required.

The Group Manager Development Management advised that a further three representation letters had been received, one in objection, one in support and the third was received from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer also in support of the proposal. The officer’s recommendation was one of refusal as the scheme warranted Committee scrutiny to establish whether the loss of garden was outweighed by the sites sustainable location.

Ward Councillor Nick Arculus addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·      Section 6 of the Planning Policy Framework should apply;

·      There had been a number of negative responses received in response to the consultation;

·      The Committee should give due consideration to objectors views and concerns;

·      The construction of the proposed new dwelling would impact on the area and would specifically affect the nature of the surrounding area of the host dwelling;

·      There would be a loss of garden space for 95 Thorpe Road;

·      There would be a loss of privacy for the residents of Riverside Gardens;

·      The application would undermine the character of the area and would have a detrimental affect on the scenery and would change the rural setting;

·      The proposed dwelling would contain no windows to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The application site was located to the south west of Hampton Vale. It was approximately 9.35 hectares in size, including land which had consent for the Western Peripheral Road and its corridor and for open space (VG9). The site was allocated for development under policy Sa3.47 of the adopted Site Allocations DPD.

The land to the north of the application site had consent for allotments with associated infrastructure (see planning permission 11/00786/FUL). To the east was the existing edge of Hampton Vale. Morris Homes were currently building out on site; some of the properties were occupied. Also to the east/south east was an allocated area of open space (VG9, see 06/00710/REM now known as Robins Wood) which was currently being laid out. Further to the to the south east was an area of land known as Haddon Heights which the Site Allocations DPD allocated for development (approximately 350 houses).

To the west was land set aside for the Western Peripheral Road (planning permission 04/01900/FUL refers) which would ultimately connect with junction 2 of the Fletton Parkway. Beyond the road corridor lay Orton Pit SSSI/SAC a site of international ecological importance for its population of Great Crested Newts and Stoneworts. To the south was another part of Orton Pit. Beyond Orton Pit was the site of the proposed Great Haddon urban extension (planning application 09/01368/OUT refers) which the Western Peripheral Road would connect with.

The site was formally used for clay extraction in connection with the brick works. There was a bank on the southern edge of the site which separated it from Orton Pit. The remainder had been relatively flat with little vegetation. There were a couple of small ponds within it.

The application sought outline planning permission for up to 125 dwellings with associated vehicular access, and other infrastructure including new open space with all other matters being reserved for later consideration.

It was proposed that access into the site would initially be from Coriander Drive. This access would be maintained but at a later date a new access onto the Western Peripheral Road in the form of a new T-junction would also be constructed. Finally, the T-junction would be removed and a new roundabout on the Western Peripheral Road constructed (which would facilitate access into Haddon Heights).

The Principal Development Management Officer advised the Committee that since producing the report, there had been some wording changes and clarification to conditions, these were outlined within the update report. The officer recommendation was one of approval subject to the imposition of the relevant conditions and the entering into of a Section 106 agreement.

Ms Gail Revill, the Agent, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members.  In summary the key points highlighted included:

·      Officers had provided a clear presentation of the proposal; and

·      The green space proposed within the application area identified was 1 hectare, for playing fields and was an outline application and would not be clear at this stage where the amenities would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The application site was broadly rectangular and extended to some 54.4 hectares of which 39.5 hectares had been proposed to be worked. The site was located about 1.7 km west of the A1 at Wansford. Thornhaugh village lay about 1 km to the northeast and Wittering 1.7 km to the north. The cluster of residential properties at Home Farm (about 10 residences) lay about 400 metres to the north and several other isolated farm houses and residences lay within a few hundred metres of the site, notably Oaks Wood Cottage, 300 metres to the north beyond the A47, Nightingale Farm about 325 metres to the South and Sibberton Lodge, about 500 metres to the east of the site beyond the A47.

The northwest site boundary adjoined Thornhaugh I quarry (an active quarry being restored by landfill with access off the A47). The northeast boundary adjoined the A47 Leicester Road and the southern boundary adjoined the active Thornhaugh II quarry and agricultural land comprised Nightingale Farm. The west boundary was defined by a restrictive byway and the edge of Bedford Purlieus National Nature Reserve (which was a Site of Special Scientific Interest).

Thornhaugh Beck rose to the west of Bedford Purlieus, flowed eastwards through the site before joining the White Water Brook (a tributary of the River Nene). Although parts of the site had been worked previously for ironstone extraction the land generally sloped down, as to be expected towards the stream valley running west to east through the site.

Central to the site was Cook’s Hole Farmhouse, an abandoned stone farmhouse and associated barn and outbuildings. The farmhouse had recently been grade II listed and so the associated buildings were also listed by way of being curtilage buildings. The property was uninhabitable without extensive restoration works.

          The site was traversed by various Public Rights of Way.

The site comprised an area historically worked for Ironstone from the 1950s which benefited from a Renewal of and old Minerals Permission - RMP (i.e. an historic planning permission which had been reviewed and updated with appropriate conditions) and a new permission for an area of previously un-worked mineral. The two permissions (03/01171/RMP and 10/01441/MMFUL) were to all intents and purposes identical and were granted in April 2011. The two permissions had subsequently been superseded by the current operator who wished to work the site according to a different phasing plan - including a re-design of the site layout and re-positioning of the weighbridge – which resulted in permission reference 12/01544/WCMM and 12/01545/WCMM taking precedence, and complemented by permission 12/01266/WCMM for the sting of a weighbridge and site office.

Additionally, the site benefited from a further permission for the wheelwash facility and means of access from the A47 through the Thornhaugh I site (permission reference 10/01442/MMFUL).

The proposal was to vary condition 11 (of both permission 12/01544/WCMM and 12/01545/WCMM) to amend the hours of operation. The proposal was to extend site operational working hours during weekdays from; 0700 - 1700 hours to; 0600 -  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The site measured approximately 3.74 hectares and was triangular in shape and located to the north part of Cook’s Hole Quarry, adjacent to the A47.  In operational terms the site was part of the whole Cook’s Hole Quarry but was originally permitted under a separate application because the area of the site had not been part of the old mineral workings at the site (1950’s).  Now, the site had been worked as part of the overall phasing of the whole of Cook’s Hole Quarry.  The description of the site and the issues to be considered were the same as those being considered under application 13/00432/WCMM.

The application was to vary condition 11 attached to the permission granted under 12/01545/WCMM to enable operating hours at the site to extend by one hour in the morning (0600 – 0700) and in the evening from 1700 -1800.  The applicant proposed the morning hour to enable only lorries to leave the site during this period.

The officer recommendation was to approve the application subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

The Development Management Support Officer andthe Senior Officer Minerals and Waste provided an overview of the proposals, including the key issues for consideration, and advised that objections had been raised by Thornhaugh and Wansford Parish Councils over the amenity disturbance to local residents and noise levels within the proposed additional hours of operation.  Further concern had been raised by the Noise Pollution Officer specifically relating to the additional hour requested for the mornings, it was therefore suggested that this be granted on a temporary basis only. 

A noise surveillance survey had been conducted by the Development Management Support Officer and Senior Officer Minerals and Waste Officer and on balance, it was felt that the extra level of noise from the lorries would not cause significant disturbance to nearby residents. Conditions attached to the permissions related to noise nuisance and monitoring, particularly near noise sensitive properties, would be imposed should the Committee be minded to approve the application.  Officers also advised Members that there had been significant control measure identified within the conditions.

As the applications were being discussed jointly the Chairman advised that each Parish Councillor’s speaking time had been extended from five to ten minutes each.

Parish Councillors Martin Witherington, Thornhaugh, and Richard Clarke, Wansford, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members.  In summary key points highlighted included:

·      Cooks Hole had experienced a range of applications over the period of 12 years;

·      Part of the documentation that was submitted was a noise assessment; this was not a technical assessment however. Concerns had been raised by Parish Councillors over the report and that the summary referred back to previous noise assessments.  It was therefore unclear if the assessment was correct or not;

·      The original conditions agreed in 2010 / 2011 had experienced many changes to those originally agreed;

·      There had been a number of references to the number of trucks travelling on the A47 and the noise levels this created. the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The site was located on the eastern side of the A1073 (Peterborough to Spalding Road) approximately 3km north of the village settlement boundary of Eye Green. The site lay to the south of 1 Steamhouse Cottage which was part of a pair of semi detached dwellings. The surrounding character was primarily open agricultural land with sporadic development along Crowland Road comprising primarily agricultural/commercial units. The site was rectangular in shape having a width of 13 metres and a depth of 31 metres and was set back from the highway boundary by approximately 6 metres. The site contained a brick built barn which had been converted to a residential dwelling. A porch/lobby had been added the side of the dwelling and a separate garage had been erected. The land on which the barn was situated was lower than the highway. There was an existing access which was shared with Steamhouse Cottage.

The application sought approval for the continued use of a barn to a 2 bed dwelling and erection of garage (retrospectively). The dwelling had a footprint of 14.7 metres x 4.6 metres and there had been limited alterations to the openings of the original building. A porch had been added to the north elevation and a detached garage had been erected to the north side of the building.  The application was a resubmission of an identical application ref 12/00078/FUL which was refused on 2nd April 2012 and dismissed at appeal on 6th December 2012 (APP/J0540/A/12/2175375).  The Inspector’s decision was appended to the committee report for information.

The application had been resubmitted as the Applicant considered that ‘the goal posts kept moving’ in planning policy terms and in terms of the interpretation of events surrounding the proposal.

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and provided an overview of the proposal including the key issues for consideration. There had been a number of unsuccessful attempts to obtain a change of use for the dwelling and the application was presented to the Committee following a change in planning policy. The officer recommendation was one of refusal in line with previous decisions.

The Agent had brought some photographs highlighting the state of the building prior to the building works and the Committee agreed that the photographs could be circulated.

Mr David Landgrebe, the Applicant, and Mr John Dadge, the Agent, addressed the Committee and responded to questions raised by Members.  In summary the key points highlighted included:

·      The application was an extremely complex one;

·      Planning Policy had evolved over time;

·      The Applicant was 70 years old and had lived in the building for over 10 years, originally living in Steamhouse Cottage, which had been purchased by the Council;

·      Whilst living in Steamhouse Cottage, Mr Landgrebe used the building as ancillary storage;

·      There had been a number of reasons why the various past planning applications had been refused including floodrisk and highways issues. These issues were no longer relevant;

·      It had been stated that the building was suitable for conversion;

·      The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The application site comprised a parcel of overgrown land adjacent to McDonalds restaurant.  The site was bound to the east by the existing restaurant and service station, to the south by the A47 Trunk Road and to the north and west by open agricultural fields.  The Green Drain Extension formed the immediate northern and western boundary of the site.  Vehicular access was via the McDonalds car park and beyond from the roundabout on Crowland Road.  Surrounding uses comprised the service station, restaurant, hotel a small development of employment and industrial buildings known as 'Eye Green Industries'.  Clearance works had begun on site and some hardcore had been laid.

The parcel of land was situated within the identified settlement envelope of Eye/Eye Green which was allocated as a Key Service Centre within the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011). 

The application sought planning permission to change the use of the site for the sale of cars and light vans, up to a maximum of 54 vehicles.  Associated with the proposed use, permission was also sought for a portacabin sales office and a vehicle washing/preparation area.  Four car parking spaces were proposed to the front of the portacabin for customer parking, with three additional spaces for staff parking.

The application followed three previous applications for the same proposal.  The first, application reference 12/00173/FUL was refused under delegated powers.

The two subsequent applications, (12/01713/FUL and 13/00418/FUL), had both been withdrawn upon the advice of officers, as the previous reason for refusal had not been adequately addressed. 

The current application had been supported by tracking diagrams which adequately showed that delivery vehicles could be accommodated within the site. 

The Group Manager Development Management gave an overview of the proposal, including the key issues for consideration and advised that the officer recommendation was one of approval. Eye Parish Council had commented on the application and stated that any sales office buildings on the site should be permanent in nature and not portacabins.

The Highways Officer advised that he did not believe that there would be multiple cars visiting the site at any one time and in relation to a car transporter coming into the car park, this was not a public highway, hence the lack of any Highways objection.

A motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application as per officer recommendation and the imposition of relevant conditions. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) to approve the application, as per officer recommendation, subject to:

1.      Conditions numbered C1 to C7 as detailed in the committee report.

Reasons for the decision

Subject to the imposition of the conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

-  The proposed use for car/van sales was compatible within its locality and appropriate within its context, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012);

-  The proposal provided sufficient access, parking and turning within the site and would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Members were asked to determine whether the item, which contained exempt information as defined by Paragraph 6 of Schedule 12A of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1972, should be exempt and the press and public excluded from the meeting for the duration of the item, or whether the public interest in disclosing the information outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption.

The Committee unanimously agreed to the exemption and the press and public were excluded from the meeting.

The Committee received a report which requested it to make an immediate Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 restricting permitted development rights at a property located within Park Ward.

                                    Following debate, a motion was put forward and seconded to approve the making and serving of an immediate Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 to withdraw the ‘permitted development’ right of development within Class A of Part 31 of Schedule 2 to the Order. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) to agree the making and serving of an immediate Direction, as per officer recommendation.

Reasons for the decision

The Committee considered that the Direction was required as per the reasons outlined within the exempt committee report.