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 Shabbir, Councillor Harrington and Councillor Lane.

Councillor Ash was in attendance as a substitute. 

Councillor Serluca declared that, in respect of item 5.6, Lavender House, she knew the Applicant very informally.

         Councillor Serluca declared that she would be speaking as Ward Councillor on item 5.1, 48-50 Jubilee Street and that she would be stepping down as Chairman for this item.

         Councillor Simons declared that he would be speaking as Ward Councillor on item 5.3, Land at Manor Drive, Phase Six.

         The minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2013 were approved as a true and accurate record.

         The minutes of the meeting held on 17 September 2013 were approved as a true and accurate record subject to the following amendment to item 4.1, 270 Eastfield Road, Peterborough, PE1 4BE:

         The addition of the words ‘and additional reasons as agreed by the Committee’ after bullet point one, under the reasons for decisions.

         The Chairman advised that there had been a request from a member of the public to audio record the meeting. Permission was requested from the Committee and this was agreed unanimously.

         The Chairman further advised that the press had requested permission to take photographs of the meeting. The Committee agreed this unanimously.

         The Chairman allowed the Committee five minutes to read through the update report.

         Councillor Harper took the chair for the following item.

There were a number of buildings on the application site which had historically been used for employment purposes. However the site was not allocated for any specific use within the Local Plan. Land to the north and east of the application site was in commercial use and land to the west and south was residential in character.

Jubilee Street was characterised by older semi-detached and terraced properties that formed a hard edge to the footway. As such most vehicles parked on-street. Jubilee Street was restricted to residents parking only.

The Applicant sought outline consent, with all matters reserved, for the erection of 7 x 3 bed dwellings. Indicative drawings submitted, which were not for approval, illustrated two off-street parking spaces per dwelling with dedicated garden areas.

In 2012, planning application 12/00556/OUT was submitted seeking consent for the erection of seven dwellings and six flats. However this was withdrawn following concerns raised by the residents and the Local Planning Authority (LPA) with respect to;

·         Car parking;

·         Refuse collection;

·         Private amenity space;

·         Protecting the amenity of adjacent residential properties; and

·         A form and massing which is of an appropriate scale and character to the area.

The current application originally proposed eight units, however further to neighbour and LPA concerns the scheme had been redesigned to propose 7 x 3 bed dwellings.

The Group Manager Development Management provided an overview of the application and the main issues for consideration. It was advised that there had been an indicative layout plan submitted by the Applicant which demonstrated that the properties could be adequately accommodated on the site and access to the site would be taken from Jubilee Street. The officer recommendation was one of approval subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

Ward Councillor Lucia Serluca and Ward Councillor Nick Thulbourn, on behalf of local residents, addressed the Committee on band responded to questions from Members.  In summary, key points highlighted included:

·         The development of seven dwellings on such a small piece of land would impact on the residents currently living in the street and particularly on those residents living opposite the development;

·         With the application being an outline application only, it was difficult for the residents of the surrounding area to gauge how the proposal would look and what effect it would have on them, for example, what were the parking arrangements to be? There was no indication as to how the bins would be collected, or where they would be stored. The boundary treatment was also not clear. There was also no indication as to the loss of privacy for neighbouring residents and what overlooking would take place;

·         Jubilee Street was a small street, with cars parked either side. The construction vehicles may damage the road and parked vehicles;

·         It was requested that any reserved matters applications came back to the Committee in order to ascertain how the development would look and what impact it would have on surrounding residents;

·         There was no room in Jubilee Street for a turning circle;

·         There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The application site covered an area of approximately 1.19 hectares.  The site was mainly overgrown grassland which was unused and enclosed by temporary fencing.  The site was bounded to the north by Car Dyke, to the east by unused land that would be part of the future Paston Reserve urban expansion, the south by Manor Drive and the residential properties beyond, and to the west by Phase 5 residential development, which was currently under construction.

Planning permission was sought for the erection of 46 affordable houses, 23 of which would be affordable rented and 23 would be affordable shared ownership. The development would be comprised of 23 x 2 bedroom, 21 x 3 bedroom and 2 x 4 bedroom properties, 44 of which would be 2 storeys and 2 of which were 2.5 storeys in height. The houses would be a mixture of semi-detached and terraced properties. 

It was advised that vehicle access to the site would be from Manor Drive. 

The Group Manager Development Management provided an overview of the proposal including a history of the site and the main issues for consideration, which included the shortfall of open space, discussions around which had been undertaken for the early release of land to serve the Burghfield development.

It was advised that the officer’s recommendation was one of approval subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Further comments had been received from Ward Councillor John Knowles, an additional objection letter from a neighbour and a petition against the development, together with a covering letter.

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

·      The residents had been taken for ride, the initial plans had included shops, doctors and a community centre;

·      The residents were now faced with half social housing and half part rent/part buy houses for which there would be no facilities available in the area;

·      The proposals needed to be looked at again and the original plans followed. This would give the community a heart;

·      Any shops built on the site would be utilised by factories in the area;

·      The amended play area offered by Cross Keys was not sufficient;

·      The whole site was badly designed, there was no greenery and the quality of life for people living there was not good enough. There was nowhere to go for a walk and no facilities for children; and

·      If the Committee did not listen to the residents, the development would become another run down estate.

Mr Stewart Jackson MP addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·      This was the only urban extension in the Greater Peterborough area where there were no facilities at all, no bus stops, no shops etc.;

·      The residents were being told that affordable homes were to be built, with no community facilities;

·      There was £900k of community facilities available in a pot and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The application site covered an area of approximately 0.54 hectares.  The site was mainly overgrown grassland which was unused, and enclosed by heras fencing.  There was however part of the site, adjacent to Manor Drive, which was cut grass with some landscaping.  The site was bounded to the east by Beadle Way Road and the residential properties beyond, to the south by the residential properties on Brickenden Road, to the west by the Barker Perkins site and car parking, and to the north by Manor Drive and the Phase 5 residential development, which was currently under construction.   

Planning permission was sought for the erection of 27 affordable houses, 14 of which would be affordable rented and 13 would be shared ownership.  The development would comprise of 20 x 2 bedroom, 5 x 3 bedroom and 2 x 4 bedroom properties, 25 of which would be 2 storey and 2 of which would be 2.5 storeys in height.  The houses would be a mixture of semi-detached and terraced properties. 

It was advised that vehicle access to the site would be from Manor Drive and Beadle Way. 

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 one of approval subject to the imposition of relevant conditions, however it was advised that should the Committee consider that open space should be provided on the site, Cross Keys Homes had provided an initial site layout which made space for open space provision and also cut off the vehicular through link from this phase to an existing phase. The Committee could therefore defer the application to allow for a full public consultation on these proposals.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Further comments had been received from Ward Councillor John Knowles, an additional objection letter from a neighbour and a petition against the development, together with a covering letter.

Ward Councillor George Simons and Ward Councillor John Knowles, addressed the Committee.  In summary the key points highlighted included:

·      There used to be nine houses on the site and outside the show house was a board, detailing all the great facilities that potential residents of the new site could expect;

·      Play areas and schools were desperately needed on the site;

·      The Ward Councillors had been working for over four years on the site and the only thing that had happened was broken promises with the provision of no facilities at all;

·      The Ward Councillors had attended several meetings and a number of site visits;

·      The residents had been repeatedly let down and the fairest action was for a deferral of the application;

·      Under pressure, the Council had come up with a poor proposal for green space on an area that had yet to be developed;

·      The grass verges were rutted and could not be walked upon; and

·      The development would be too close to Car Dyke, 30 metres was not adequate distance.

Mr Stewart Jackson  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The application site was comprised of a small parcel of land measuring approximately 0.012 hectares, sited within a wider open pasture field located on the eastern side of Werrington Bridge Road.  The site lay to the west of the village of Newborough and north of the area known as Milking Nook. 

The boundaries to the site were comprised of an open ditch running along the eastern boundary adjacent to Werrington Bridge Road, with some semi-mature and matures trees and shrubs to the north-western most corner.  The northern boundary was comprised of a low post and rail fence with the remaining extent of the site open to the wider field.  There were residential dwellings located to the south, screened from the site by mature conifer hedging between 3 and 4 metres in height. 

Vehicular access to the site was currently taken by an informal gate across the existing grass verge running along Werrington Bridge Road.  A telegraph pole was situated to the front of the site, albeit within the highway verge and outside the extent of the red line boundary. 

The application sought planning permission for the siting of two static caravans 3.2 by 9.2 metres by 3 metres high and two touring caravans 2.4 by 6.6 metres for use by a single extended gypsy/traveller family.  Associated ancillary development included internal driveway, parking, turning and a facilities block 3.1 x 4.5 metres by 3.4 metres high.  The static caravans would have a 1 metre high wall with flood boards.

The Group Manager Development Management provided the Committee with an overview of the proposal and the main issues for consideration. It was advised that Council had a Gypsy and Traveller Assessment, undertaken in 2011, which indicated that for the planned period 2011 to 2016, a total of 10 new pitches were required to be provided, with a further seven to be provided in the period 2016 to 2021. The officer’s recommendation was one of approval subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report and it was highlighted that revisions to highways conditions C7, C8, C9 and C19 were proposed. A representation had been received from Councillor Harrington, Ward Councillor, an additional neighbour letter of objection and an additional objection from solicitor action for a number of local residents.

Post publication of the update report, the following submissions had been made:

i)              An objection letter had been received from a Mr Edwards highlighting a number of issues including:

·           The lack of publicity on the application;

·           The Committee report did not give sufficient weight to the concerns expressed by objectors; and

·           That he would not have bought his property if he knew that this development was proposed or that there was the potential for it to be proposed and in his view, this development proposal would have a negative impact on the landscape, ecology and the social fabric of the area.

ii)             An objection letter from a Mr Hornsby stating that he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The application site was located on the northern side of Storrington Way and on the corner with Amberley Slope to the west and was a grassed area adjacent to the western end unit within a Local Centre.  The Local Centre was comprised of a terraced shopping parade with commercial units at ground floor and flats at first and second floors.  There were parking bays for up to four cars to the front of the parade and a car park was located to the east and accessed off Storrington Way.  The surrounding character was predominantly residential comprising bungalows and 2 storey properties. There were currently two trees located within the grassed area to the west of the site.

The application sought approval for the erection of an extension to the western end unit within the shopping parade.  The extension would provide 136m2 of retail (A1) floorspace at ground floor and 2 no. 1 bed flats at first floor.  The flats would be accessed via an external staircase at the rear in a similar way to the existing flats.  The commercial units would also be serviced from the rear. Two parking spaces would be provided to serve the flats.  The footprint of the extension would be 11 metres in length x 13 metres in depth.  The roof would have a gable end style to match the existing building at a height of 7.2 metres  A small terraced area would be available to both flats on the southern elevation (front) and a small amenity/drying area would be provided to the rear.

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 signing of a legal agreement and the imposition of relevant conditions.

Ward Councillor Paula Thacker, Ward Councillor Julia Davidson and Mr David Hedges, Werrington Neighbourhood Committee, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         There had been numerous problems experienced with the shops including anti-social behavior and flytipping;

·         The landlord did not look after the site adequately and this application would add to the dreadful appearance of the building;

·         Why did the Applicant want another shop and flats when he could not look after those that he already had?

·         There were only four parking spaces in front of the building which encouraged double parking and caused a blind spot on the corner;

·         The corner was extremely dangerous, with numbers of buses passing through and children crossing the road regularly;

·         Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, stated that development should add to the overall quality of the area and create a safe environment, which was visually attractive. The existing property was far from this;

·         PPO2, design and quality, stated that permission would only be granted for development that made a positive contribution;

·         Permission should not be granted that would result in an unacceptable loss of green space and be overbearing. There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

          The application site was located on the south side of Broadway and within the Park Conservation Area Boundary.  The site contained a large 2 storey property which dated from the early 20th Century which had had significant extensions and  operated as a residential care home run by Peterborough Care. The surrounding area was predominantly residential in character and there was another care home ‘Broad Leigh’ further to the east at 213 Broadway, also run by Peterborough Care. 

          The site had 31 rooms, two of which were double rooms and most were equipped with en-suite facilities.  The care home was currently registered for 33 beds. 

          The application sought approval for a single storey extension to an existing single storey rear element of the existing building. The extension would be located on land which was currently the far rear garden of number 209 Broadway. The extension would provide three bedrooms with en-suite facilities and a lounge.  The dimensions of the extension were 9.6 metres in length x 11.2 metres in width.  The height would align with the existing single storey element of the building.  The proposal would replace 2 no. double rooms and enable the provision of en-suite facilities to bedrooms within the existing care home.  The 33 registered number of beds would remain the same. The proposal would not result in any additional employees at the care home.

          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 Councillor Peach had submitted a statement in objection to the application.

          Ward Councillor John Shearman addressed the Committee, on behalf of both the Applicant and local residents, and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         There was a slight error within Councillor Shearman’s submission in that he had originally believe that the extension would be for additional residents and not additional room for existing residents;

·         The Applicant was seeking to improve the facilities for the residents within the care home. It was imperative that the provision of care was to the highest quality;

·         The Broadway Residents Association had expressed concerns that the site had already been extended and this application may represent a modest increase, but these increases could keep happening incrementally going forward;

·         The back garden development had a negative impact in relation to the infilling of the green area, to the detriment of surrounding properties and the character of the area;

·         There had been previous applications that had been refused not only locally, but on appeal to the Secretary of State; and

·         There had been a number of accidents in the area, however there would be no increase in residents, therefore no increase in the number of vehicles.

          Mr Needham, a local resident and objector, addressed the Committee. In summary the key points highlighted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.