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 and Councillor Lane.

Councillor Todd declared that item 5.1, Anteon UK Ltd was in her ward, but this would in no way affect her decision.

Councillor Shabbir declared that item 5.1, Anteon UK Ltd was in his ward, but this would in no way affect his decision.

         There were no declarations of intention to make representation as Ward Councillor.

         The minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2013 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The application site comprised a large detached storage and distribution warehouse (Use Class B8) set centrally within its plot and surrounded entirely by concrete hardstanding.  The existing unit was of dual pitched design with buff brick construction to the ground floor and metal cladding at first and second floors.  The principal elevation of the unit was entirely glazed.  Parking was provided on-site to the front and sides of the unit, with vehicular access taken from Newark Road to the south-western corner of the site. The area of hardstanding to the rear of the unit was previously used for the manoeuvring of delivery vehicles and overflow car parking.  The building was set back from the adopted public highway by a small strip of landscaping comprising grass, semi-mature trees and shrubbery. 

The site lay within the allocated Eastern General Employment Area with the surrounding area comprising a mix of industrial and commercial units. 

The application sought planning permission for the construction of a detached cold storage building to the rear of the site measuring 23.75 metres (width) x 61.275 metres (length) x 11.6 metres (height to eaves). The development had been substantially completed and as such, the scheme was retrospective.

The Development Management Support Manager provided an overview of the application and the main issues for consideration. It was advised that there had been no consultation responses received, but three representations had been received from local residents. It was further advised that, should Members be minded to grant the application, a condition was requested from Highways to ‘restrict delivery vehicles from accessing the site during normal working hours owing to conflict with visitor parking and the site entrance’. The officer recommendation was to grant the application subject to the imposition of relevant conditions and the amended condition from as proposed by Highways.

Mr Mark Foster, an objector on behalf of the Lindum Group, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members.  In summary, key points highlighted included:

·         There were serious concerns regarding the development;

·         A large investment had been placed in the surrounding site;

·         There had been no permission sought for the development and no regard to planning procedures;

·         The development was out of keeping with the buildings in the surrounding vicinity and existing buildings were dwarfed by its overbearing appearance;

·         The development was not in line with a number of planning policies, including Policy CS16, Policy PP2 and PP3;

·         The scale of the development meant that there was a lack of car parking on site;

·         There were a number of concerns around the impact that the development would have on highways safety;

·         How could the condition C1 ‘no delivery vehicles shall enter or exit the site during the hours of 8.30am to 5.30pm’ be enforced? Such a condition would require daily monitoring, this was unfeasible; and

·         The development would have an impact on expansion opportunities in the future.

Following questions to the speaker, Members debated the application and raised points for and against. Further clarification was also sought from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

A Section 211 Notice had been submitted by Councillor Dale McKean, a notification to carry out tree work at 25-27 High St, Eye, Peterborough. The notification was registered within the Local Planning Authority (LPA) on 11 October 2013.  

The proposed works were to reduce (T1) Cypress by 2 metres and lateral reduction by 1 metre. To reduce (T2) Hazel by 2 metres overall and to reduce (T3) Twisted Willow by 2 metres overall.

The trees were located in the rear garden of the property and the garden was largely screened by surrounding properties.

The main considerations were:

·         Were the proposals in line with sound Arboricultural practice, reasonable and justified having regard to any representations received?; and

·         Were the trees worthy of inclusion into a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in terms of public visual amenity value, condition and health?

The Landscape Officer gave an overview of the proposal and advised that the officer recommendation was that no objections be raised and the works be approved.

A motion was put forward and seconded to raise no objections to the notice, and therefore authorising the works. The motion was carried unanimously. 

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) to raise no objections to the notice.

Reasons for the decision

Under a section 211, anyone proposing to cut down or carry out work on a tree in a Conservation Area was required to give the Local Planning Authority (LPA) six weeks’ prior notice.  The purpose of the requirement was to give the LPA an opportunity to consider whether a TPO should be made in respect of a tree.

The works to T2 Hazel and T3 Willow were repeat works for which a Notice was received in 2012 under 12/00191/CTR. No objections were raised by the Council to this application and the works were therefore approved. Neither tree was worthy of inclusion into a TPO due to lack of visual amenity value and the works were arboriculturally sound.

The works to the Cypress had been requested by the Applicant to allow more light into the garden. Whilst reducing the height of a tree for light was not considered to be sound Arboricultural practice, the Cypress was not worthy of inclusion into a TPO due to lack of visual amenity value.

Officers had served a provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 5_2013 at 15 Park Crescent, Peterborough following the submission of a Section 211 Notice of intent to carry out works to a tree in a Conservation Area which threatened the loss of a Cedar tree. Following the public consultation period, objections had been raised.

The main considerations were:

·           Was the tree worthy of inclusion into a TPO in terms of public visual amenity value, condition and health?; and

·           Were the proposals reasonable and justified having regard to any representations received?

The tree T1 (Cedar) was located to the front of the Care Home at 15 Park Crescent, Peterborough PE1 4DX.

The tree was in good condition and health and provided significant public visual amenity value as viewed from Park Crescent and contributed significantly to the appearance of the conservation area. The tree was therefore considered worthy of protection by way of a Tree Preservation Order.

The Landscape Officer gave an overview of the proposal and advised that the owner of the tree had been approached with a proposal that remedial works be carried out as well as coming to a longer term arrangement regarding the tree’s maintenance. This had been declined by the owner who had submitted a number of comments during the consultation period relating to the size of the tree, the needle drop of the tree causing a slip hazard and the tree causing access problems for emergency services.

The tree was of a good age and offered visual amenity value and added character to the area. The reasons proposed for the felling of the tree were considered to be inadequate and therefore the officer’s recommendation was to confirm the TPO.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. A letter had been submitted from a representative of the Park Vista Care Home, along with a number of incident reports and photographs.

Mr Simarjit Barjwa, Peterborough Care Ltd, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members.  In summary the key concerns highlighted included:

·      The tree was extremely large and located roughly about 45 metres from the road;

·      The tree could not be easily noticed and there were other more visually attractive trees in the vicinity;

·      Mr Barjwa agreed that the tree did look in good health, however this was outweighed by the health and safety concerns;

·      One of the main concerns was the needle drop, there were a number of elderly and infirm residents living in the home and the ground became extremely slippery when the needles fell. The needles had to be swept on a regular basis and this could take up to two hours each time;

·      There was also a lot of bird waste under the tree and the residents had commented that they would like to be able to view Central Park, the view currently being blocked by the tree;

·      The tree could be replaced with a different species of tree;

·      There were issues with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The application site was located on the eastern side of Crowland Road and was part of the side garden to number 78 which was owned by the Applicant.  The site was approximately 7 metres in width and extended rearwards for approximately 19 metres where the width increased to 13 metres and extended a further 28 metres to the rear.  The site was enclosed by 1.8 metre fencing to the north and south and there were mature trees further to the rear of the site.  The character of Crowland Road comprised ribbon development with development fronting the road.  Within the immediate vicinity the properties to the west of Crowland Road were predominantly two storey semi-detached dwellings and on the east side there was a more varied character.  Directly to the north was a chalet bungalow which was set back from the road by 12 metres.  Directly to the south was a pair of modest sized semi-detached dwellings fronting the road.

The application sought permission for the erection of a two storey detached two bedroom dwelling.  The property would be positioned in line with the neighbouring property to the north (no. 80) and set back from the highway by 12 metres.  The dwelling would be 5 metres in width and the two storey element would be 8.4 metres in length.  To the rear would be a single storey element which would be 6.8 metres in width and 6 metres in length.  Parking would be provided to the front of the proposed property for two vehicles and one parking space would be provided for the existing property at no. 78.

The Development Management Support Managerprovided the Committee with an overview of the proposal and the main issues for consideration. There had been no objections raised to the proposal, however it was considered that the building would have a detrimental impact on the rear and garden area of number 78.  The officer’s recommendation was therefore to refuse the application.

A letter had been submitted by the Applicant, Mr Deegan, providing background to the proposal. Mr Deegan was also present to answer any questions that the Committee may have. Key points were highlighted during questioning as follows:

·       An original application had been submitted to the Planning Department, but subsequently withdrawn following advice from the case officer;

·       The case officer had provided advice on a resubmission, which involved a complete redesign;

·       Owing to the confidence placed in the advice and the likely success of a resubmitted application, the application was redesigned and submitted;

·       All parties had gone out of their way to ensure all issues had been resolved;

·       The application had subsequently been refused to the dismay of the Applicant; and

·       The house would be lived in by Mr Deegan and his family.

Following questions to the speaker, Members debated the application and commented that the advice given by the Planning Department had been confusing from the point of view of the Applicant. The positioning of the property and the fact that it would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The application site involved the entrances to the Queensgate Shopping Centre.  The Centre lay at the heart of the central retail area and was juxtaposed both modern and historic development. 

The proposal was to install new Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 68:2007 rated street furniture at all external entrances to Queensgate shopping centre, including bollards (in rising, removable and static variations), planters and new vehicle blocker barriers to the service yards.  The Truckstopper bollard by Safetyflex was proposed in most locations.  This had an elliptical shaped sleeve in stainless steel and single black band the dimensions of the sleeve are c.130mm(w) x 220mm(d) x 1000mm(h). 

The specific design details of the bollards at each location were to be agreed by condition, however indicative design styles were outlined by the Development Management Support Manager.  The counter terrorism measures were proposed as follows:

1.    Queensgate entrance off Westgate adjacent to John Lewis entrance

·      Removal of existing chain, cycle racks and bollards and make good surfaces;

·      Installation 14 no. PAS68:2007 rated bollards with 1.2 metres width clearing.  Two of the bollards would be sleeved with a ‘shark fin’ bicycle rack; and

·      Installation of 1 no PAS68:2007 rated bollard and surface mounted vehicle blocker within service yard adjacent to ‘Fleure’

2.    Entrance to Westgate Arcade

·      Removal of existing bollards and street furniture and make good surfaces; and

·      Installation of 14 no. PAS68:2007 rated bollards with 1.2 metres width clearing including 2 no. removable bollards at central point of build out.  The bollards would be location 0.45 metres from the kerb line and would follow the kerb line.  Sleeve to bollards would have a ‘Westminster’ design.  (This element has been revised since the initial submission which including bollards crossing the footway.)

3.    Frontage to Long Causeway/Entrance to Queensgate

·      Installation of 1 no PAS68:2007 rated bollard;

·      Installation of 6 no. PAS68 rated planters, Marshalls Rhinoguard Optima 952 with timber surround; and

·      Installation of 6 no PAS68:2007 rated bollards with 1.2 metres width clearance at Long Causeway entrance to Queensgate.

4.    Exchange Street/Cathedral Square entrances to Queensgate

·      Installation of 6 no PAS68:2007 rated bollards with 1.2 metres width clearance to replace existing bollards on Exchange Street, including 2 no. removable bollards; and

·      Installation of 4 no PAS68:2007 rated bollards with 1.2 metres width clearance and 1.2 metres from façade of entrance to Queensgate.

(This element has been revised since the initial submission and the bollards will now replace existing bollards).

5.    Exchange Street/St John's Square

·      Replacement of existing bollards with 4 no. PAS68:2007 rated bollards with 1.2 metres width clearance including 2 no removable bollards to be positioned adjacent to corner of fence line on church boundary to minimise vehicle approach line.

6.    Argos entrance to Queensgate

·      Replacement of existing bollards with 6 no. PAS68:2007 rated bollards with 1.2 metres width clearance and make good existing surfaces.

7.    Security Hut

·      Erection of brick built security hut, dimensions: 1.8 metres x 1.8 metres x 2.35 metres in height to be positioned at entrance to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.