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 Sylvester.

Councillor Simons declared an interest in item 5.6 - 13/01585/WCPP - Removal of condition C1 (temporary permission for two years) of planning permission 11/00950/FUL - Proposed change of use from agricultural to Battlefield Live Outdoor Activity - Battlefield Live, French Drove, Thorney, Peterborough and stated that he would not take part in the debate or vote on the item.

Councillor Hiller declared an interest in item 5.5 13/01485/HHFUL – 11 Barnard Way, Bretton, Peterborough, PE3 9YZ, in the he was acquainted with the applicant, however, this would in no way affect his decision.

Councillor Todd declared that she knew Mr Hoppe, a speaker for item 5.3 13/01539/FUL – 15-17 High Street, Glinton, Peterborough, PE6 7LS, however, this would in no way affect her decision.

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2013 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

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

It was agreed by the Committee that items 5.1 Manor Drive Phase 4 and 5.2 Manor Drive Phase 6 would be discussed together with the decisions being reached separately on each item.

The above planning application together with the application planning reference 13/00928/FUL were deferred by the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee on 8 October 2013, so that a scheme for the provision of a play area could be devised and be subject to public consultation.

To address the issue of lack of play space, the applicant proposed a revised layout on Phase 6 planning reference 13/00928/FUL with an area of open space in the south west corner of the site.  The residents considered that the area proposed was too small, and there was limited natural surveillance. 

Therefore a meeting had been held with the applicant and a group of residents on 29 October 2013.  Following the meeting a larger repositioned green space area was proposed on Phase 6 (13/00928/FUL) adjacent to Beadle Way, together with associated changes to the house tenure mix and design of the dwellings. 

It was agreed between a working group of residents and Cross Keys that a single area of open space should be provided centrally on Phase 6, and that no additional open space was to be created on Phase 4 13/00927/FUL (this application site), as there was concern about children crossing Manor Drive, which had to become a primary access route in future, into the adjacent Paston Reserve land.  

Therefore the proposal for the phase remained unchanged from the scheme considered and deferred by the Committee on 8 October 2013. 

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 five residential development, which had been currently under construction.

Planning permission was sought for the erection of 46 affordable houses, 23 would be affordable rented and 23 would be affordable shared ownership.  The development was to comprise 23 two bedroom, 21 three bedroom and two four bedroom properties, 44 of which were two storeys and two of which were 2.5 storeys in height.  The houses were a mixture of semi-detached and terraced properties.  Vehicle access to the site was from Manor Drive. 

TheGroup Manager Development Management provided an overview of the application and summarised the contents of the additional information report.  An additional representation had been received from a local resident in relation to the provision of open space and it was felt the 30 metre green buffer allocation would be insufficient.  

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

Mr Foster, the applicant, addressed the Committee and highlighted key points relating to the application.  In summary, the key points highlighted included:

·         Two meetings had been held with residents from Beadle Way in order to consult further and to address any outstanding issues;

·         There had been difficulty in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The above planning application together with the application planning reference 13/00927/FUL were deferred by the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee on 8 October 2013, so that a scheme for the provision of a play area could be sought from the applicant and if the applicant was minded to make such provision, publish the proposal for public consultation.

The applicant initially agreed to make revisions to the layout to facilitate the provision of open space in the south west corner of the site.  A residents group considered this but concluded that the area proposed was too small, and that there had been limited natural surveillance.   

Therefore a meeting was held with the applicant and a group of residents on 29 October 2013. Following this meeting a larger repositioned green space area had been proposed on the site adjacent to Beadle Way, together with associated changes to the house tenure mix and design of the dwellings. 

It was agreed between a working group of residents and Cross Keys that a single area of open space should be provided centrally on this Phase 6 site, and that no additional open space was to be created on Phase 4 13/00927/FUL, as there had been concerns raised about children crossing Manor Drive, which was to become a primary access route in future, into the adjacent Paston Reserve land.  

Therefore the proposal was revised with the following main changes:-

•       Provision of open space area (657.5 square metres);

•       Reduction in total number of dwellings from 27 to 25;

•       Removal of all 2.5 storey dwellings, now all properties proposed are two storey;

•       Proposed insertion of collapsible bollards on road between site and Brickenden Road, to prevent through vehicle traffic; and

•       Layout changes and house types changes. All properties were still to include two parking spaces each. 

At the time of writing the report a further public consultation was being undertaken with local residents in respect of the proposed changes.  The expiry date of the consultation was after the publication of the report.   

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 had been 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 south by the residential properties on Brickenden Road, to the west by the Baker Perkins site and car parking, and to the north by Manor Drive and the Phase five residential development, which was currently under construction.   

Planning permission was sought for the erection of 25 affordable houses, rather than the 27 previously proposed.  Twelve properties would be affordable rented rather than the 14 previously proposed and 13 would be shared ownership.  It was proposed that the development was to comprise of 18 two bedroom (previously 20), and 7 three bedroom (previously five) with all the four bedroom  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The site was host to a detached chalet bungalow that had currently in joint residential and Post Office cum Village Shop use. At the first floor there was a bedroom and en-suite.  The property was constructed circa 1960's with dual pitch gabled roofs covered with interlocking concrete tiles, light brown brick elevations, white UPVC windows and doors. To the front of the shop was a forecourt with two dropped kerbs which typically created an in/out informal parking area.

The proposal under this application was for change of use from joint retail and residential use to retail use only. The existing first floor level would be used as a store accessed by way of a loft ladder.   The proposal also included:

·         A rear flat roof single storey extension was proposed (2.4 metre eaves height). This would increase the gross internal floor area from 169 square metres to 249 square metres (an increase of 80 square metres);

·         The blocking up of windows to the east elevation;

·         Relocating the front entrance to the front facing gable with four security bollards to the front;

·         Extending the shop front window to incorporate the space that was the current front  entrance to the shop/ post office;

·         Rendering part of the front elevation and sides and rear of the shop; and

·         The installation of three condenser units to the rear for air-conditioning and refrigeration.

There was space on the forecourt for six cars to park. Daily deliveries by one 26 tonne rigid truck would take place with other deliveries being by van.

The proposal represented a summary of the scheme as revised from what was originally submitted which then had five condenser units, an ATM, full height shop front windows and 13 security bollards to the forecourt amongst other things.

The Group Manager Development Management provided an overview of the application and summarised the contents of the additional information provided within the update report.  In summary the update included:

·         There was unanimous support from Glinton Parish Council (PC), Glinton Friendship Group, the Women’s Institute and some residents;

·         The PC was in favour of the officers car parking recommendations in regards to the formalisation of access, exit and marked out spaces for the area;

·         The PC was in favour of the conditions to mitigate any noise to neighbours arising from conditioning units;

·         The PC wished for a limestone colouring to be applied to the render of the building;

·         In letters of objection some residents sought assurances that there would be a key holder on or close to the site to manage any alarm issues;

·         Assurances were from some residents sought over the mitigation of amenity impact for neighbouring properties; and

·         Some residents also felt that the proposal may cause additional obstructions on the existing highway, an increase in burglaries due to the loss of residential presence at night and noise pollution at night. 

The Officer’s recommendation was to grant the application subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

Councillor Holdich, Councillor Lamb and Parish Councillor Johnson, addressed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The site formed an elongated rectangular shape and covered an area of approximately 3.41 hectares.  The site lay within the village of Thorney approximately 6.5 miles north east of the centre of Peterborough.  More specifically the site was situated to the south edge of the village on land to the south of Woburn Drive.  The site was currently in use as agriculture and used for arable farming.

The site was bounded to the north by the side and rear gardens to existing residences at St Mary’s Close, St Peter’s Way St Botolph’s Way and Woburn Drive, to the south, east and west by large agricultural fields in arable use.  The eastern boundary was defined by a significant established hedgerow interspersed with trees.

The site was identified as an allocated housing site (for approximately 77 dwellings) within the Adopted Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2012) as site SA5.8 and was located within the Thorney Village Settlement boundary.  The site was not within a designated conservation area.

Outline planning permission was sought for residential development.  Up to 80 units were proposed including the provision for 30 percent affordable housing and not less than 2400 square metres of onsite open space provision.  The average density of the proposed development was approximately 23.5 dwellings per hectare.  Pedestrian and cycle access was proposed from Woburn Drive, St Botolph’s Way and St Peter’s Way. Vehicular access would be from Woburn Drive only.

Matters relating to the design of the buildings, scale, layout and landscaping were not for consideration as part of the application and these would be dealt with by way of a reserved matters application if outline planning permission was granted.

The Group Manager Development Management provided an overview of the application and summarised the contents of the additional information provided within the update report.  In summary the update included:

·         Comments had been received from Anglian Water over the foul sewerage in that the site had sufficient capacity to deal with the flow;

·         Environment Agency and PCC were of the opinion that surface water could be dealt with effectively and that there was adequate drainage; and

·         The site was located near existing local services and there had been no representation received to state how the site would affect them.

In addition, the Group Manager Development Management and the Senior Engineer (Development, Highway Control) responded to suggested conditions received from Councillor Bartlett.  In summary the response included:

·         Following a suggestion regarding implementation of a condition to deal with water drainage through the construction period it was advised that Anglian Water should monitor water level and foul sewerage flow and report as appropriate if there was a risk, however, the activity was not something that Committee was able to condition;

·         Consideration could be given to provision of an alternative access road if it was available; and

·         Provision was made for the developer to produce a construction management plan in order to ensure that the highway was not damaged by muddy construction vehicles, however it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The application site was a detached bungalow with a rear conservatory that linked to a single garage that had been converted to habitable space.  The conversion works did not require planning permission.  The rear garden was surrounded by a 1.8 metre close board fence and the property had off street parking for at least three vehicles to side.

The applicant was invited to make an application for the erection of a cat enclosure following a report to the Planning service about the unauthorised structure.  The structure had been constructed out of timber and wire mesh and stood at 2.4 metres to the eaves and 3.4 metres to the ridge and covered the whole rear garden area of the property which was all hard landscaped.

It was understood that the enclosure was for the benefit of the current owner’s pet cats and had been incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house.  No commercial enterprise was being operated from the site.

The Group Manager Development Management outlined the points made regarding the structure contained within the Committee report.  The Officer’s recommendation was to grant the application subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

Mr Homer- Ward the applicant addressed the Committee and responded to questions.  In summary key points raised and responses to questions included:

·         The construction was situated in part of the back garden and was intended for personal use;

·         The construction was erected for the safeguarding of the applicants cats, with the being to avoid them straying into other residents property or onto busy roads;

·         Previous management of the cats had involved keeping the windows and doors in the property closed, which would become unbearably hot in the summer;

·         A professional carpentry company was commissioned to undertake a professional installation;

·         The applicant was in agreement of the conditions put forward to remove after;

·         A letter demonstrated that Bretton Parish Council had no objections to the enclosure;

·         Only two premises had replied to the consultation, one in favour and the second in objection;

·         The structure was fully supported on its own and did not rely on the neighbours fence;

·          A resident neighbouring the property had been invited to assess the construction to demonstrate that there was no pressure to the fence, however, the opportunity had not been taken up;

·         The cats were of a Bengal breed and were three and four years in age;

·         The garden was enjoyed by enjoyed by the family as well as the cats. 

·         Smaller enclosure constructions were trailed in the past to accommodate the cats, however, these were too small and caused them to fight;

Following questions, Members debated the application and commented that the applicant had demonstrated a caring and thoughtful nature towards their pets.  In addition, it was commented that the applicant had also shown consideration to their neighbours by preventing the cats’ toileting in their gardens.  It was also commented that the construction was currently a popular option for pet owners and was of a good construction and not a ‘monstrosity’ as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The site area was approximately 1.68 hectare and was a paddock area enclosed by a timber post and rail fence.  The site was located within Old Hall Farm to the south of French Drove.  The site was accessed via an existing private access road off French Drove.  Directly to the west of the site were two barns which had been recently converted to dwellings; one was occupied by the applicant and there was a large agricultural building to the rear of these dwellings.  There were neighbouring residential properties to the north approximately 130 metres from the site (Oak Lodge) and to the west approximately 520 metres from the site (Old Hall Farm Cottages) which front French Drove; and to the east on Bell Drove approximately 300 metres from the site (Bluebell Farm House and Bluebell Cottage), otherwise the site was surrounded by flat, open agricultural land. 

The application sought permission to remove condition C1 of planning consent reference: 11/00950/FUL for a change of an outdoor activity use for simulated warfare games, referred to as 'Battlefield Live'.

Condition C1 granted a temporary consent for a two year period and the application sought a permanent consent. 

The proposal would include the permanent positioning of low level structures constructed from timber and painted in green/brown and covered with camouflage netting including:

•       Gated entrance:  A recycled timber constructed gateway with sign above; Width of gate 2.4 metres. Side panels at side of gate 1.2 metres by 2.4 metres;

•       Octagon Defensive pill box:  Overall dimensions covering an area of 4 metres by 4 metres. Height from floor to roof 3 metres. Materials recycled timber posts with recycled timber slatted sides.  Roof material camouflage netting;

•       Timber painted in camouflage green and brown external walls covered by camouflage tarpaulin;

•       Timber shed structures numbering 8:  Dimensions of each building 4 metres long by 2.4 metres wide.  Height 2.4 metres. Materials recycled timber panels with openings depicting windows and doorways.  Recycled timber painted in camouflage green and brown with camouflage netting to roofs;

•       Timber shed structure: Basic wooden shed style structure.  Open at sides with top and front covered in camouflage tarpaulin.  Dimensions 3 metres by 3 metres by 2 metres high;

•       Wooden barricades numbering 20: constructed in simple reclaimed timber post and trunk construction in natural materials.  Dimensions 2 metres wide by 1 metres high.  Painted green/brown with grass allowed to grow around;

•       Spectator viewing area: Next to car park.  Consists of fenced area covered in green netting with one side timber panels depicting windows and doors. Timber painted green with camouflage netting above.  Overall dimensions 15 metres by 15 metres.

The activity operated primarily on Saturdays and Sundays and school holidays between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm.  There were two sessions per day, one session starting at 10.00 am and then another at 1.30 pm. Each session would last approximately 90 minutes.  The maximum number of participants for each session would be 30.

Since the submission of the application a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Planning and Environmental Protection Committee made an immediate Article 4 Direction Order under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 to withdraw the ‘permitted development’ right of development within Class A of Part 31 of Schedule 2 to the Order applying to number 270 Eastfield Road, Peterborough.

The purpose of this was to make the demolition of 270 Eastfield Road the subject to obtaining planning permission as the building was considered to be of sufficient heritage value and to be included on the Councils list of ‘Buildings of Local Importance’ (the ‘local list’).  The ‘local list’ was a ‘non-statutory’ designation and had not provided any statutory protection.  Designation as a Building of Local Importance was a material consideration when considering applications for permission to alter or demolish such a building.

The immediate Article 4 Direction Order lapses six months after making, unless it was confirmed by the local planning authority.  No direct public responses had been received in response to the publication of the Notice. 

The threat of demolition remains and it had been considered appropriate to require that planning permission was required for the demolition of the building.

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.

Reasons for the decision:

It was considered that the demolition of number 270 Eastfield Road which had significant heritage value without the usual planning considerations would be prejudicial to the proper planning of the area.  An Article 4 Direction had the advantage of removing the threat of the demolition of the building without first obtaining planning permission.