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 Serluca (Chairman), Councillor Simons and Councillor Shabbir. 

There were no declarations of interest.

Councillor Todd declared that she would be speaking as Ward Councillor on item 5.3, 229 Star Road.

Councillor Harrington declared that he would be speaking as Ward Councillor on item 5.6, E1 Enforcement Action in Newborough Ward.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2013 were approved as a true and accurate record.

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

The application site was approximately 1.77 hectares of agricultural land and was located on the north side of Thorney Road, Eye.  The site lay to the east of the Larkfleet residential development that had recently been completed.  To the north of the site there was a mature hedge and the A47 was approximately 50 metres beyond this boundary; directly abutting the east of the site there was a two storey dwelling with commercial buildings to the rear beyond which was paddock land.  Further to the east was a row of bungalows and Dalmark Seeds lay approximately 70 metres from the site boundary.  There were trees and hedging along the site frontage to the south.

The application sought planning permission for 52 dwellings  (revised down from 58 units), including 12 affordable dwellings comprising two number 2-bed dwellings, 32 number 3-bed dwellings, 10 number 4-bed dwellings and seven number 5-bed dwellings.  An area of open space was proposed in the centre of the site.  The majority of the development would be accessed via the adjacent Larkfleet development (Millport Drive).  A new private drive access serving eight dwellings was proposed off Thorney Road.

The Group Manager Development Management provided an overview of the application and the main issues for consideration. It was advised that there had been a number of further submissions made in relation to the application following publication of the committee report. These were outlined in full in the update report and in summary included:

•           An amended layout plan, changes which included the extension of the footway across the site frontage, changes in the turning area to plot 52 and the addition of speed calming;

•           A response from the Environment Agency stating that there were no objections to the application subject to the imposition of a condition relating to  details of a scheme, including phasing, for the provision of mains foul water drainage on and off site being submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

•           An email received from Ward Councillor Dale McKean containing an amendment to a previously submitted objection relating to the density of the development;

•           An email received from Mr Stewart Jackson MP withdrawing his substantive letter of objection to the application with the caveat that wording be noted s as follows - “Stewart Jackson MP supports the comments by Councillor Dale McKean and is concerned at the impact of the development on local infrastructure in the village of Eye and would ask both the Local Planning Authority and developer to revisit S106 funding allocations, in light of the concerns of local City Councillors and Eye Parish Council.”;

•           A further objection email from Mr Stuart Macdougald-Denton, a local resident, including photographs, relating to the inadequacy of Millport Drive to accommodate any further traffic and a request that a condition be imposed stating that construction traffic must access the site from Thorney Road and not Millport Drive; and

•           A revised Officer’s recommendation, which was one of approval, subject to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The application site comprised a two storey detached residential dwelling, located within a residential estate of uniform character.  The main dwellinghouse 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 was a small area of landscaping to the front comprising shrubs and an immature silver birch tree which provided some screening to the dwelling and garage. The garage had a blank gable elevation which fronts the public highway and was constructed of buff brick and brown concrete roof tiles. 

The application had been submitted following a similar proposal being refused at Committee for the following reason:

The alterations to the street facing elevation, with the insertion of two windows, would be detrimental to the appearance of the street scene contrary to the provisions of Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP2 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012), both of which sought to ensure that new development made a positive contribution to the quality of the built environment.

The application differed from the refused scheme as there were no longer any windows proposed to be inserted into the western elevation of the garage.  Instead, the only new opening related to the insertion of a door into the eastern elevation (facing the main dwellinghouse). 

The proposal was associated with the change of use of the existing garage to an annexe for occupation by a family member associated with the occupation of the main dwellinghouse. This did not require the benefit of planning permission.

The Group Manager Development Management provided an overview of the proposal and advised that further comments had been received from both Councillor John Shearman, who had stated that his comments had been misrepresented within the committee report, in that he had not objected to the application, rather he was acting on behalf of local residents and Councillor John Peach, requesting that the application be called into the Committee should the recommendation be one of approval. It was advised that the Officer’s recommendation was one of approval subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

Ward Councillor John Peach addressed the Committee. In summary the key points highlighted included:

•           A while ago, Councillor Peach had been in contact with a Senior Planner who had stated that she was minded to refuse the application. This was later confirmed in an email;

•           Why had the application come back again and why was it recommended for approval?

•           The application was out of keeping with the area, to the detriment of local residents and the environment;

•           Whilst there had been extensions in Nottingham Way in the past, none of these included a free standing annex such as a garage; and

•           If permission was granted, it would open the way up for similar development on nearby sites.

Ward Councillor John Shearman addressed the Committee. In summary the key points  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The application site comprised a detached two storey industrial premises (Use Class B2) located within a predominantly residential area.  The building was of a standard pitched roof design, gable to the streetscene, with a two storey flat roof side element, external steel staircase and single storey element.  The building had been rendered with green painted wooden windows and doors.  There was an area of hardstanding to the front and side of the property which provided some car parking and a single storey lean-to garage which was sited adjacent to 122 Padholme Road. 

The site was bound to the front by a 1.5 metre high brick wall and 1.8 metre high steel weldmesh gates. 

The surrounding area was varied in character, with both detached and semi- detached residential properties.  The former Volunteer Public House, which comprised a number of ground floor retail units, lay immediately opposite the site.  No.122 Padholme Road to the north of the site, comprised a first floor residential flat and at ground floor, an office which had previously been in use associated with the application site. 

The application sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and construction of two semi-detached residential dwellings. The dwellings were both proposed to be 2-bedrooms, each with one off road parking space and a private outdoor amenity space. 

The scheme had been amended following referral of the application to Planning Committee. The alterations related to the two storey rear projecting 'wing' elements of the dwellings.  There was now a void at ground floor level with an oversailing first floor containing bathrooms to serve each dwelling. 

The Group Manager Development Management provided the Committee with an overview of the proposal and the main issues for consideration. It was also advised that comments had been received from Pollution Control requesting that the Developer assess the site for the presence of contamination, and where necessary, submit an appropriate scheme for remediation. The Officer’s recommendation was one of refusal. 

Ward Councillor Marion Todd, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members.  In summary the key points highlighted included:

•           The size of the garden was not reason enough to refuse the application, it was adequate for the type of property in the area;

•           The parking provision was adequate and there was also on road parking available for a small cost. There had been no accidents relating to the site;

•           The house was close to town and therefore residents would not necessarily want cars;

•           The properties would not lend themselves to be homes for life, they would be ideal starter homes;

•           The majority of houses along Star Road were terrace with no parking and garages; and

•           It was not the ideal location for a business premises.

Mrs Annetta Sleigh, the Applicant, addressed the Committee. In summary the key points highlighted included:

•           The premises had been a family business for 60 years and had been recently vacated. Consideration had been given as to how best to use the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The application site was approximately 0.4 hectares and was located at the eastern end of Pine Tree Close, Dogsthorpe. The site contained a former residential care home comprising a single building mainly single storey with two storey element to the east.  The care home was now vacant.  The site was an island site contained between the two arms of Pine Tree Close and therefore had a street frontage to the north, west and southern boundaries. The east boundary was fenced and abutted existing residential properties on Acacia Avenue. The surrounding area was predominantly residential in character comprising two storey developments with open frontages. The existing Care Home incorporated off-street parking with access direct from Pine Tree Close as well as a small parking court and garage on the northern part of the site, with provision for approximately 16 car spaces.

Planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing care home building and the erection of 17 number 2-bed chalet bungalows with associated parking.  The development would be 100% affordable.

The Group Manager Development Management provided the Committee with an overview of the proposal and the main issues for consideration. The Officer’s recommendation was to approve the application subject to the imposition of relevant conditions and the signing of a legal agreement.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report and it was highlighted that a Construction Management Plan had been submitted and the Highway Section had raised no objections. Condition 7 in the committee report was therefore to be amended to a compliance condition.

Further comments had also been received from Ward Councillor Adrian Miners and Ward Councillor Chris Ash in support of the application.

Ward Councillor Chris Ash, addressed the Committee. In summary the key points highlighted included:

•           The Ward Councillors had been involved at an early stage and it was disappointing that some of their comments had not been included within the committee report;

•           The dormer windows made the application look somewhat ugly, and this had been mentioned by Ward Councillors previously;

•           There had been a highways issue, relating to additional off parking, which had now been clarified; and

•           It was requested that during the demolition and construction phases, the hours of operation be specified within a condition. There were many elderly residents who would not want construction work early in the morning and late at night.

Mr David Turnock, the Agent, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members.  In summary the key points highlighted included:

•           The scheme had evolved from another scheme recently completed in Eye, which was being put forward for a design award;

•           The units were designed to be as usable and as flexible as possible by Cross Keys Homes Residents;

•           They would be homes for life and sustainable homes and would be secured by design;

•           There would be 37 car parking spaces, not 34. Two for each dwelling and three for visitors;

•           It was hoped that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The site was located to the south of Hartwell Way, Ravensthorpe and owned by Peterborough City Council. It was host to the Spinney Play Centre which was a parent led support group and registered charity for families with children that had additional needs and disabilities. The site was also used by the local Scouts and other Community Groups.

The site measured 0.45 hectare, and comprised a pre-fabricated concrete single storey building that had come to the end of its useful life and was no longer fit for purpose as a children's play centre. The existing structure had a footprint measuring 23.1 metres (length) x 10.9 metres (depth).

The proposal was to demolish the existing building which had been applied for under application ref: 13/00033/DEMOL and replace the building with a new play centre with a detached covered external seating area that met the needs of the charity.

The replacement building would have a modern design measuring a footprint measuring 27.3 metres (length) x 10.9 metres (depth), with a mono pitch roof that extended to 3.25 metres to the eaves and 3.8 metres at its highest point.

The proposed covered seating area had a footprint of 9 metres x 7.3 metres with a monopitch roof to match the main building measuring 3 metres to the eaves and 4 metres at its highest point. The canopy would be supported by 6no. columns.

The new building would be situated largely in the same location as the existing, with the same orientation, parallel to Hartwell Way. The main change was that the building would be slightly larger and set back deeper into the plot by approximately 4 metres so that it would not encroach on the canopy and root protection area of the mature trees on site.

The Group Manager Development Management provided the Committee with an overview of the proposal and the main issues for consideration. The Officer’s recommendation was to approve the application subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report and it was highlighted that revised comments had been received from the Landscape Officer stating that there were no objections raised against the proposal. Further comments had also been received from Ward Councillor Ed Murphy and Ward Councillor Gul Nawaz in support of the application.

Members commended the facility and stated that it would be fantastic for the area and the city. A motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application, as per Officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.

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

1.      Conditions numbered C1 to C3 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 proposal was not considered to have any note-worthy detrimental impact on the character and appearance of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Members were asked to determine whether the item, which contained exempt information relating to an individual or would be likely to reveal the identity of an individual and information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person (including the authority holding that information), as defined by Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 12A of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1972, should be exempt and the press and public excluded from the meeting during 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 requesting it to consider appropriate enforcement action in relation to unauthorised development and whether it was appropriate that supplementary planning policy be prepared in relation to the subject under consideration.

Following debate, a motion was put forward and seconded to agree that enforcement action be taken. The motion was carried unanimously.

A second motion was put forward and seconded to agree that it would not be appropriate for supplementary planning policy to be prepared.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously), to agree that enforcement action be taken, as per Officer recommendation and that it would not be appropriate for supplementary planning policy to be prepared in relation to the subject under consideration.

Reasons for the decision:

The Committee considered that enforcement action was required, and that it would not be appropriate for supplementary planning policy to be prepared, as per the reasons outlined in the exempt committee report.

A report was presented to the Committee which highlighted the proposed changes to the Local Validation List requirements. On previous occasions, changes to the Local Validation List, which set out what information had to be submitted with planning applications, had been reported to the Committee.

It was proposed to streamline the local list of validation requirements in accordance with the government’s aims of simplifying the application process. This would reduce the likelihood of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) being challenged by Applicants on its validation requirements.  There was some risk that whilst this would speed up the validation process, in some cases it could cause delay during the consideration of the application; it may become apparent that additional information would be needed to enable the Case Officer to make a proper recommendation. This could result in some applications being refused if the requested information was not provided in a timely manner or otherwise the LPA would require an extension of time from the Applicant in order to try to resolve outstanding issues.  This would be at the Officer’s discretion, taking into account the circumstances of each case.

To assist potential Applicants with validation requirements, a pre-application advice service was already offered. It was proposed to extend this service to provide a list of validation requirements only (upon request) for a small fee.  All of these changes were to be published on the planning and building control pages of the Peterborough City Council website.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the proposed changes to the Local Validation List requirements as set out in the Council’s “One Stop Shop” on the Planning and Building Control web pages.