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, Councillor Shabbir and Councillor North.

Councillor Ash was in attendance as a substitute.

There were no declaration of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2013 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

The site was host to a large detached bungalow facing onto Hall Lane Werrington. The dwelling was single story, constructed of red/brown facing brick, a dark brown concrete tile roof and brown timber windows and doors. The rear garden was laid to lawn with a detached garage to the back of the site, accessed via a road to the rear of the site.

The proposal was for prior approval for a single storey rear extension to the bungalow. The extension would measure 6230mm (projection) x 4300mm (width). The eaves of the proposal would measure 2350mm and 3900mm to the ridge. The extension would form a brick built lounge/sunroom with two roof lights in each roof slope, high level windows in the south elevation which faced the shared boundary with no.46 Hall Lane, with the north facing elevation being mostly glazed.

The Committee was requested to consider the permitted development with a view to approving the extra 2.2 metres of the development. The Group Manager Development Management drew the Committees attention to the updated information and photographs contained within the update report which outlined the removal of the proposed two high level windows.

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

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

·         The proposed extension would be situated too near number 46 Hall Lane’s fence, with the height causing the main concern;

·         The residents of 46 Hall Lane had lived in their house for 20 years and the extension would have a dramatic impact on them, as it would impact on their view;

·         The proposed extension was out of character compared to other dwellings in Hall Lane;

·         No compromise could be negotiated between the neighbours; and

·         The Committee should consider rejecting the application under policies CS16 and PP03.

Mr and Mrs Alexander, local residents, addressed the Committee and responded questions by Members.  In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The proposed extension  would be more visible from number 46 Hall Lane;

·         The photo mock ups, provided by Mr Alexander, were technically accurate and showed that the dwelling’s roof access would increase by 3.9 metres and would reach number 46 Hall Lane’s upper bedroom window sill;

·         The brick wall would be over 22 inches high rising above the fence and would compare to an overbearing building such as a garage;

·         There was a risk of light pollution from the proposed velux windows;

·         There would be an effect on Mr and Mrs Alexander’s quality of life;

·         Number 48 Hall Lane had been approached to consider installing a flat roof, but the idea was rejected; and

·         The residents at number 46 Hall Lane would not have purchased the house if they had seen that extension.

Following questions to the speakers, Members debated the application and were encouraged by the removal of the proposed high level windows.  However, Members raised a number of concerns relating to the adverse  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The application site comprised a parcel of agricultural paddock located to the east of dwellings along Lincoln Road, to the north of dwellings along the High Street and to the west of the Glinton Doctors Surgery.  In addition, the application site included the curtilage of the existing dwelling of No.30B Lincoln Road.  The paddock was bound by a number of mature trees and shrubs/hedgerow to the north, south and west and boundary fencing to residential dwellings to the east.  The site formed part of a wider parcel of land which was allocated under Policy SA6.9 of the Peterborough Site Allocations DPD (2012) and was contained wholly within the identified Village Envelope. 

To the south of the site lay the Glinton Conservation Area which ran along the southern boundary and extended to the east of the site, albeit not with a shared boundary. In addition, there were a number of Grade II Listed Buildings located to the south east. 

The application sought outline planning permission for the construction of up to 14 dwellings on the site.  The current application sought approval of the proposed vehicular access to the site which would be from Lincoln Road, in place of No.30B Lincoln Road which was proposed for demolition.  Matters relating to layout, appearance, landscaping and scale were proposed as 'reserved matters' to be secured at a later date through further submissions. 

The application had been accompanied by an indicative site layout and dwelling elevations/floor plans however it was not proposed for these to be agreed under the outline application. The information submitted in this respect had been illustrative only and were not to be used for purposes of detailed assessment of the scheme.

         The Group Manager Development Management advised that the update sheet contained information which related to concerns raised by a neighbour regarding traffic calming and vehicle volume increases.  In addition the concerns highlighted included the felling of trees which could impact on the bird and bat population.

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

Councillor John Holdich, Ward Councillor and Parish Councillor Robert Johnson addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members.  In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         There had been no issues for the Parish Council relating to how many houses were proposed for the development, however it was disappointing that it was necessary to demolish a house in the process;

·         The Parish Council had requested that their preferred maximum height of the proposed houses  be taken on board;

·         There were concerns raised over whether the roadway splays were adequate and whether there could be a danger for school children crossing the road;

·         The proposed road would be two foot lower that the actual main road;

·         Consideration should be given, at reserve matters stage, to the installation of a brick wall either side of the proposed roadway;

·         There were concerns raised over the adverse effect that the proposed roadway and development would have on the residents neighbouring the development site;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

         The application was for two developments, one being on each of two separate pieces of land.

The first application site was the Belvedere Bowls Club located to the rear of 106 - 118A Thistlemoor Road and 1- 21 Keeton Road.  The site contained two bowling greens and a single storey club hut and pavilion, garages and an area for parking. The site was land locked by residential development to the north west, north east and south west and Accent Nene Sheltered Housing to the south east.  Access to the site was currently served off Lincoln Road adjacent to the Parkway Sports Club, through its car park and via a narrow access road which also ran to the south east boundary and separated the site from the rear of properties at 56 to 64 Eaglesthorpe.  There was also a pedestrian/cycle path off Thistlemoor Road which had cut across the access road into Eaglesthorpe where it linked with St Pauls Road. The site was enclosed by a mature conifer hedge to a height of approximately two metres to the north west and north east boundaries and there were mature hedges to the south east and south west. 

The second application site was the Fulbridge Academy primary school building located on the north east side of Keeton Road in the heart of a residential area.  The site contained a single storey brick building to the south west of the site and there was a large playing field to the north east.  The school had previously had a number of extensions.

The first application sought permission for the erection of a single storey building to provide eight new classrooms, a studio/performance area and ancillary support spaces.   The new building would accommodate years five and six.  Parking would be provided for 20 vehicles (staff only) and vehicular access would be gained off Eaglesthorpe and through the adjacent Accent Nene Sheltered Housing Scheme.   Pedestrian access to the new school building was proposed to be provided off Burns Close at the intersection of Keeton Road and Shakespeare Avenue. The Belvedere Bowls Club would be relocated to the Peterborough Town Sports Club, Bretton Gate and a separate application for this development was currently under consideration (ref 13/01529/FUL). 

The second application sought permission for:

a)       A single storey extension to the existing primary school to provide 1 new classroom.  The extension would be located within a recess between two existing classrooms; and

b)       Alterations to windows/doors including the addition of windows to the elevations of the existing classrooms adjacent to the new classroom, insertion of door in reception classroom, insertion of door within the front elevation of the school building.

There were approximately 700 pupils and over 130 staff currently located at the existing school.  The proposal would increase the number of pupils by 240 and the number of staff by 20.  This meant the total number of classes would progressively expand from the current number of three to four in each year.

The Group Manager Development Management provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.