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 North and Councillor Simons.

Councillor Sylvester declared an interest in item 4.1, in that the owner of the stables was known to her, however, the association would in no way affect her decision.

Councillor Serluca declared an interest in item 4.3, in that the two speakers registered for item 4.3 were known to her, however, the association would in no way affect her decision.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 November 2013 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

Following a request for additional speakers, the Committee unanimously agreed that Mr Peppercorn was permitted to speak regarding item 4.1 and Councillor Over was permitted to speak regarding item 4.3.

The application site comprised a small narrow parcel of land measuring approximately 2,236 sq. metres and was located on the west side of Northey Road approximately 1.8 km from the urban area boundary and within land designated as open countryside. The stable had already been erected on site. Notwithstanding the site was on agricultural land and it had previously been used as a horse paddock. A 2 metre tall close boarded timber fence had been erected around that part of the site closest to Northey Road and enclosed on three sides the hardstanding/turning area and stable building. There was an unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller pitch to the South of the site, which was to be considered by the Committee.  To the east were sporadic residential dwellings and the Northey Lodge Carp Fishing Lakes with its wooded surroundings, otherwise the surrounding character was flat open agricultural land. There was an existing access to the site from Northey Road. The site lay at a slightly lower level than the public highway which formed the eastern boundary.

The site was 300 metres south of the Flag Fen Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). Flag Fen was recognised as one of the most important complexes of Bronze Age archaeology in the country and had an international reputation as an archaeological site. The site was also to the North of the Roman SAM.

The application sought planning permission for retention of a stable block 3.69 x 11 metres by 3 metres high and the area of hardstanding which formed the parking and turning area for the stable. The fencing and entrance gate did not require planning permission.

The officer’s recommendation was to approval subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to a number of photographs taken in relation to concerns raised over visibility splays by the Highways Authority in relation to a bend at Northey Road/North Bank.  The Group Manager Development Management advised that in his opinion (and contrary to Highway Officer advice) the visibility splays were acceptable. In addition the Committee’s attention was drawn towards the success of a recent appeal regarding a decision in relation to a similar Gypsy & Traveller pitch, which was situated closer to the SAM than that of the retrospect application. 

The Committee was also advised that the site had been subject to a significant number of enforcement cases involving the site due to unauthorised developments.  These developments and remediation works as well as the development now in place would have disturbed any archaeological remains near the surface. A condition was recommended so that if there were further ground works, these would be subject to archaeological assessment.

Mr Peppercorn addressed the Committee and raised a number of points in response to a neighbour’s objection to the planning application.  In summary the points raised included:

·         The site address had been provided by the Planning Officer;

·         The high mound at the front of the site that had reduced visibility had been removed;

·         No horses had ever escaped from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The application site comprised of a small narrow parcel of land measuring approximately 1,450 sq. metres and was located on the west side of Northey Road approximately 1.8 km from the urban area boundary and within land designated as open countryside. The site was on agricultural land and was most recently used as a horse paddock. A close boarded timber fence had been erected to the front of the site. The southern boundary was made up of a mature hedgerow. Barsby Cooked Meats, a meat wholesaler, was sited to the South of the site. To the east are sporadic residential dwellings and the Northey Lodge Carp Fishing Lakes with its wooded landscape, otherwise the surrounding character had been flat open agricultural land. A new access to the site from Northey Road had been formed. The site lay at a lower level than the public highway.

The site was 300 metres south of the Flag Fen Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). Flag Fen was recognised as one of the most important complexes of Bronze Age archaeology in the country and had an international reputation as an archaeological site. The site was also to the North of the Roman SAM which was located on the opposite side of the River Nene to the application site.

The application sought planning permission for the siting of one static caravan 3.2 metres by 9.2 metres by 3 metres high and two touring caravans 2.4 metres by 7.2 metres for use by a single extended Gypsy/Traveller family.  Associated ancillary development included internal driveway, parking, turning and a facilities block 3.1 metres by 4.5 metres by 3.4 metres high.  The proposal also involved the relocation of a stable block 3.69 metres by 11 metres by 2.9 metres high from its as built location to a revised location.

The Committee was advised by the Group Manager Development Management that there had been similar planning applications for Northey Road and Newborough, which had been successful in appeal following planning refusal due to considerable weight being given to Peterborough’s lack of site provision for Gypsy & Traveller sites and the conclusion that in its modified form, the proposal would not impact on the setting of the Flag Fen Scheduled Ancient Monument.  The officer’s recommendation was to grant the application subject to imposition of relevant conditions.

If any further groundworks were to take place there would be a requirement to undertake an archeological investigation.

Mr Barry Nicholls addressed the Committee and raised a number of points.  In summary the points raised included:

·         The applicant had been living at the site since March 2013;

·         The highways visibility issues raised were further away from similar site applications for the area;

·         The application was in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which included provision for the Local Authority to introduce further Traveller & Gypsy sites;

·         Additional sites were needed to accommodate the Traveller & Gypsy communities;

·         In a recent SAM (Scheduled Ancient Monument) appeal it had been demonstrated that Traveller & Gypsy sites were a part of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The application site was a C18 barn with adjoined stable range which had been converted into a dwelling. It was located within the Ufford Conservation Area and was constructed from coursed stone with steeply pitched Collyweston stone roof with coped gable ends. The dwelling had large enclosed grounds with various outbuildings and paddock area to the rear.

Permission was sought to change the use of the paddock to residential curtilage to facilitate the construction of a garage block, tennis court and lake.

The garage, office and gym building would be two storeys, curved and measuring 27 metres wide at its widest point by 7.7 metres tall, 5.1 metres projecting above the ground. The tennis court would measure 11 metres x 24 metres within an 18 metres by 25 metres area. The lake would measure approximately 64 metres by 25 metres, no information regarding its profiling or depth had been submitted with the application.

The Group Manager Development Management outlined officer responses to a letter sent to Members by the applicant. In summary the responses included:

·         The site was within the village conservation area contrary to the statement submitted in the information letter;

·         Whilst the land was not in agricultural production, its authorised planning use was for agriculture and not as a domestic garden;

·         The application had, contrary to what was now suggested by the agent, included the change of use for the whole of the paddock not just the part covered by the buildings  and tennis court

·         There had been landscape implications arising from the development as there would be a significant amount of excavation that would be required to take place.  In addition there had been no clarity over where the spoil would be placed and therefore  there were concerns the proposal would be detrimental to the conservation area;

·         There had been a suggestion by the agent that the tennis court would be sunken and planting provided to the west point of the site, but this would be impractical because of the lack of space between the tennis court and the  property boundary; and

·         A late submission by the applicant of additional plans did not appear to be wholly accurate. 

                     The Group Manager Development Management also presented a number of photographs outlining the surrounding buildings to the proposed application including the street scene.  The officer’s recommendation was for refusal, due to the development location outside of the village boundary which was against and would be detrimental to the character of the conservation area and the street scene. 

Councillor Over addressed the Committee and responded to comments and questions raised by Members.  In summary the address and responses to questions included:

·         There had been a large number of objections received from the Parish Council and from residents;

·         The application was outside the planning envelope which the Parish Council and villagers had spent a large amount of time developing;

·         The application was located inside a conservation area;

·         The Parish Council had spent a large amount of time towards maintaining the village’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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).  Currently, the site was being worked as part of the overall phasing of the whole of Cook's Hole Quarry.  The issues to be considered were the same as those being considered under application 13/01374/WCMM.

The most recent decision (which the current application sought to vary) was approved at Committee in July 2013 (13/00434/WCMM).  The application sought to extend the hours at the beginning and end of each working day.  The hours of working as originally approved were conditioned as follows:

No development (including any servicing, maintenance or testing of plant), other than pumping operations for the removal of water from the excavations, authorised or required by this permission should be carried out on the site except between the following times:

         0700  -  1700 hours         Mondays to Fridays

         0700  -  1300 hours         Saturdays.

There would be no development on Sundays, Bank Holidays or national holidays.

Between 0700 and 0800 on Saturdays operations would be limited to loading vehicles from stockpiles, traffic movements associated with the collection of mineral and associated environmental control and administrative activities.

Reason:  In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with policy CS34 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

In July 2013, Committee approved the extension of these hours subject to conditions C11 and C24

The application was to further vary condition 11 to the following:

"No development (including the servicing maintenance or testing of plant), other than pumping operations for the removal of water from the excavations, authorised or required by this permission would be carried out on the site except between the following times:

              0600 - 1900 hours         Mondays to Fridays

              0700 - 1300 hours         Saturdays 

There would be no development on Sundays, Bank Holidays or national holidays.

Between 1800 and 1900 Monday to Friday and 0700 and 0800 on Saturday, operations would be limited to loading vehicles from stockpiles, traffic movements associated with the collection of minerals and associated environmental control and administrative activities. Between 0600 and 0700 Monday to Friday operations would be limited to traffic movements only."

The applicant had therefore requested that morning hours and operations be permitted to continue as they currently did (in line with the permission granted in July 2013 for a temporary period) i.e. traffic movements only and also that the evening working hour on weekdays be extended from 1800 to 1900.  During this hour, operations would be limited to loading of vehicles from stockpiles, traffic movements associated with the collection of minerals and associated environmental control and administrative activities.

It was to be noted that the applicant had proposed to commence work  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The application site was broadly rectangular and extended to some 54.4 hectares of which 39.5 hectares was 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 400m 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 1 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 2 quarry and agricultural land comprising 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 was risen to the west of Bedford Purlieus, flows 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 of an area historically worked for Ironstone from the 1950s which benefited from a Renewal of Minerals Permission (i.e. a RoMP - 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. These 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. 

Members may recall that the most recent decision (which the current application sought to vary) was approved at Committee in July 2013 (13/00432/WCMM).  The application sought to extend the hours at the beginning and end of each working day. 

The hours of working as originally approved were conditioned as follows:

No development (including any servicing, maintenance or testing of plant), other than pumping operations for the removal of water from the excavations, authorised or required by this permission shall be carried out on the site except between the following times:

            0700  -  1700 hours           Mondays to Fridays

            0700  -  1300 hours           Saturdays.

There would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.