Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Casey and Councillor Harrington.

Councillor Kreling and Councillor Ash were in attendance as substitutes.

Councillor Hiller stated that, with regards to item 4.4, he sat on the Internal Drainage Board and was a board member of the Environment Agency’s Regional Flood and Coastal Committee who were consultees for the item.

Councillor Ash declared an intention to speak on item 4.2.

Councillor Serluca declared an intention to speak on item 4.1.

At this point, the Chairman left the meeting to speak on item 4.1, the Boro Bar and Councillor Harper took the Chair.

i)          13/01828/FUL - Installation of new sliding doors, replacement windows and infill of 4no. rear openings.

ii)         13/01829/FUL - Installation of ATM Unit.

iii)       13/01830/FUL - Installation of 2No fan condenser units and 3No air conditioning units in enclosed rear service yard.

iv)       13/01831/FUL - Link extension to rear of the property.

v)        13/01832/ADV - Installation of 3No externally illuminated fascia signs, 1No externally illuminated projecting sign and 3No non-illuminated branded panels.

i)                 13/01828/FUL - Installation of new sliding doors, replacement windows and infill of 4no. rear openings;

ii)               13/01829/FUL - Installation of ATM Unit;

iii)              13/01830/FUL - Installation of 2No fan condenser units and 3No air conditioning units in enclosed rear service yard;

iv)              13/01831/FUL - Link extension to rear of the property; and

v)               13/01832/ADV - Installation of 3No externally illuminated fascia signs, 1No externally illuminated projecting sign and 3No non-illuminated branded panels.

The site was on the corner of Oundle Road and Brewster Avenue.  Oundle Road was a main route into and out of the city centre and was of a mixed character, dominated by housing but with a significant amount of small commercial and community uses.  Immediately to the east of the application was St Augustine’s Church, and at the end of Brewster Avenue (a cul de sac) was the driveway to Primary School.  On the opposite corner of Brewster Avenue was a dry-cleaners and a letting agency.  Within about 200 metres of the site was a Local Centre, including two convenience stores.

The Boro Bar was previously known as the Boys Head.  It was constructed as a public house some decades ago, and had operated over the last several years as a variety of short-lived bars.  There were several other pubs in the vicinity.

The building was on the List of Buildings of Local Interest, but it was not statutorily listed. The style of the building was a typically mid-20^th century mix of arts and crafts inspired vernacular architecture, with some art deco influence.

The building addressed the street on three frontages.  One elevation facing Oundle Road, another facing Brewster Avenue, and a third at 45 degrees facing the corner.  Each of these elevations had been designed to be a public face of the building, and the entrance door was on the corner elevation.  The main part of the building formed an L, and there was a single storey flat-roofed part to the rear filling in the angle of the L.  There was also a small single storey part at the end of the building on Brewster Avenue.  To the rear of the site, which read as the side from Brewster Avenue, was a service yard.  Part of this had been set in, with a little corner not visible from the street, and it was in this corner that it had been proposed to install the plant.

To the front of the building was an area of hard standing which was used for parking.  It had previously been used for parking at school drop-off and pick-up as well as for parking associated with the business on the site.  There was no boundary treatment to the street around this parking area and drivers were likely to take a fairly casual approach to getting on and off Oundle Road.

At the back of the service yard was a terrace of three garages.  The link extension was proposed to link the main building to these garages, and so once  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

Planning permission was sought for erection of 12 two bedroom and five one bedroom apartments with ancillary parking area (22 car parking spaces), two underground bins and communal landscaped amenity areas. The applicant proposed five additional parking spaces within a new on street parking bay on Southfields Drive. 

The building was a mix of two, two and half and three storeys with ridge heights varying from 8.95 metres, 9.85 metres and 10.2 metres.

The existing close boarded fencing to the north and east was to be retained with landscape/planting to be added to. To the east and south of the site, the boundary (which currently fronted onto the public roads) would be finished with vertical steel railings. The development was to be constructed using traditional materials, including buff facing bricks, white render, orange pantile roofs at high level and plain tile roofs at low level.

The applicant had confirmed that the development would be in accordance with code three for sustainable homes.

The Area Manager Development Managementprovided an overview of the application and the update report and raise points, which in summary included:

·         The main issues were the layout of the area, access and parking;

·         The proposal would negatively impact the streetscene of the area;

·         There were also issues with a lack of car parking and potential to cause traffic problems; and

·         The officer’s recommendation was therefore to refuse the application.

Councillor Rush, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions raised by Members.  In summary, points raised and responses to questions included:

·         The proposal would have a detrimental effect on the character of the area;

·         There would also be a loss of light for many elderly residents in the vicinity of the proposed development;

·         The application included no community facilities, including inadequate parking which would lead to people parking on the grass verges and damaging the grassy area; and

·         Many elderly residents in particular had approached Councillor Rush with comments regarding the development, relaying that they were all against the application.

Mr and Mrs Cole, Mrs Preston, Mrs Butler and Mrs Panton addressed the Committee and responded to questions raised by Members.  In summary, points raised and responses to questions included:

·         A smaller dwelling would not be objected to, but the design of the current proposal was overdeveloped and cramped;

·         The proposed building was not in keeping with local amenities;

·         The building would therefore have a detrimental effect on the character of surrounding properties;

·         The development would cause loss of light to surrounding home;

·         There had not been enough parking proposed for the development, which would therefore create a high amount of congestion;

·         The development was in a busy area where a high number of road traffic incidents had occurred and as there was a potential for more roadside parking it was felt that the proposal presented a higher highways risk;

·         The area had been affected by crime, drugs and anti-social behavior and the proposal would affect the local residents who were elderly and vulnerable;

·         There were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.2

The application sought permission for the change of use of the dwelling to a day nursery.  The hours of use would be 0800 to 1800, Monday to Friday.  It was proposed that there would be 32 nursery spaces and three full time and one part time staff.  Access would be via the existing access off Dogsthorpe Road.  The garage was to be demolished to allow entrance into the rear garden.  Two alternative parking proposals had been put forward for consideration. Drg no.  P1_a proposes parking for up to 10 vehicles to the rear of the site with one disabled parking space to the site frontage; Drg no. P1A proposed parking for up to 10 vehicles to the rear, including one disabled parking bay. 

As part of the application permission was sought for a single storey rear extension.  The extension would be ‘L’ shaped formed by the footprint of the existing building and would project approximately 5 metres from the rear building line and would extend the full width of the property (8.3 metres).  The extension would have a flat roof for half its width to a height of 2.8 metres and then a dual pitched roof to a height of 4.2 metres.  The extension would be used for a play area.

This was a resubmission of a previous scheme which sought permission for the change of use of the dwelling to a day nursery providing up to 24 spaces (10/00840/FUL) which was refused due to highway safety issues and noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers.

The scheme now included visibility splays within the site, additional on-site parking to the rear of the site and a parking survey had been undertaken to assess the availability of on street parking near to the site.  The number of places has increased to 32.

The Area Development Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following points:

• The main issues were the impact on highway safety and the impact on residential amenity;
• The site would not be able to provide an adequate number of drop-off and pick-up spaces; and
• The officer’s recommendation was to refuse the application.

Councillor Ash and Councillor Saltmarsh, Ward Councillors, addressed the Committee and responded to questions raised by Members.  In summary the points raised and responses to questions included:

• The site was in the midst of residential properties and was not an appropriate site for a nursery;
• The area had a high level of traffic already and the nursery would cause congestion;
• There would be issues with noise both relating to the amount of children in the nursery but also relating to traffic; and
• There had been no guarantee that the nursery would be in future run by people as competent as the applicants.

Mr Akhtar, the applicant, addressed the Committee and responded to questions raised by Members.  In summary the points raised and responses to questions included:

• The application had support from the local Early years Development and Childcare Partnership;
• Most people using the site would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.3

The proposal was an outline planning application for the erection of 14 ‘live-work’ dwellings which meant each dwelling having a room that could be used for employment purposes. Such employment uses could be expected to include uses within class B1 (offices and light industrial uses) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2010.

The details of the layout, scale, access, landscaping and appearance of the development, i.e. the reserved matters, were not for consideration at this stage. An indicative housing layout had been submitted.

The residential development would be partly upon land that was allocated for employment use as well as land currently in commercial use with the remaining housing located on a grassed area within the southernmost part of the site.

The existing vehicular access to the site, from Station Road, would serve the proposed development, although access to the site was a reserved matter.

The site was located towards the north of the village of Thorney within a site that had been principally in commercial use for a number of years. There was one two storey building located in the north-western area of the site which had been used wholly for employment purposes that included a business that specialised in providing stages for public events. This business involved the use of long heavy goods vehicles that were parked within the site when not in use. A large part of the site comprised a turning area for the HGV’s. The vehicle access to the site was off Station Road to the north-west. This access road ran parallel with the access road to a development, which comprised a  terrace of six one and a half/two storey industrial units located to north of the site, four of which were occupied. At least four of these buildings are in general industrial use. The larger of the buildings, located at the western end of the row, was occupied by a metal engineering company that had undertaken shot blasting work. Noise from that occupier was audible over the entire application site. All of the buildings had tall and wide openings in their south facing elevations which faced towards the application site.

To the south of the application site was a substantially sized detached dwelling set back from the site boundary. There had been a two storey high light industrial unit just beyond the south east of the site, which was used as a vehicle access route through the application site to Station Road. This light industrial business was owned by one of the two applicants.

To the west, the boundary of the site was shared with the rear garden fences of the residential properties on the east side of Station Road. To the east of the site lay open countryside and allotments.

The Area Manager Development Management provided an overview of the application and advised Members that the officer’s recommendation was to refuse due to the issues highlighted within report that the whole site area fell within a Flood Zone 3 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.4

The site was located on the edge of Peterborough, positioned between Dogsthorpe and Parnwell to the south, and Eye village to the north east. 

The site was bounded to the north by the landfill site, and to the south the Paston Parkway dual carriageway and Junction 8 roundabout.  The existing Garden Park retail development was located to the west and the petrol filling station, KFC restaurant to the east.  The site was accessed via the Garden Park vehicle access from Eye Road.   

The site covered an area of 4.32 hectare, and currently forms part of the adjacent Garden Park retail development.  The site was made up of car parking, wooded area and some unused land.   

On the 21^st February 2013 outline planning application ref: 12/00290/OUT for construction of a retail foodstore (Class A1), training and skills centre (Use Classes B1/D1), a cycle facility (Use Class D1/ancillary A1), children's play barn (Class D2) with associated open air play area, access, associated car and cycle parking, servicing and hard and soft landscaping was granted permission by members of the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee. As part of the planning permission there were conditions limiting the amount of gross floor space and a limit on the amount of convenience/comparison.

The revised scheme before Committee had been devised to facilitate the specific requirements of a foodstore operator with whom the developer was in advanced negotiation. The Section 73 application sought to vary Conditions 5 and 34. Specifically the current application sought to make the following changes to the outline planning permission:

• Relocation of the proposed store to a position away from the end of the existing retail terrace, so that it was closer to the existing Petrol Station on Eye Road – the relocation would take place within the original application site boundary;
• An increase in the gross floor area of the food store from the consented upper limit of 6,040sq metres to 7,060 sq metres (the increase in gross floor area relates solely to an increase in the ‘back of house’ storage area); and
• Net sales area to remain at 4,227 square metres, albeit the total floor space given over to the sale of comparison retail goods would increase from 25% (as capped by the extant planning permission) to 41% of the total retail floor area.

The remainder of the scheme was unchanged from the existing scheme.

The Area Development Manager Addressed the Committee with an overview of the application and made the following points:

• The proposal as revised could not be accommodated in the City Centre or District Centres in the short to medium term; and
• The application for the proposed scheme should be granted.

Mr Gordon Eddington, Chairman of Peterborough Garden Park, addressed the Committee and responded questions raised by Members.  In summary points raised and responses to questions included:

• Peterborough Garden Park had had ongoing issues with not enough people visiting;
• All supermarket operators previously had said they would not be interested in investing in the business unless planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.5

The application site was located within the City Centre boundary and Railway Station Opportunity Area as defined by saved policies of the Local Plan, and the emerging City Centre DPD.  The site was adjacent to, but not within the central retail core retail as defined by the Local Plan and the emerging City Centre DPD.  The Bourges Boulevard public transport corridor ran along the eastern boundary of the site, together with part of the cycle route network. 

The existing Great Northern Hotel site was positioned to the south of the site, to the north was railway station land that was used for car parking and the fire station site, and to the west of the site were the railway platforms and tracks. Beyond Bourges Boulevard to the east of the site was the North Westgate Opportunity Area and the City Centre multi storey car parks associated with the Queensgate shopping centre.  

The application site covered an area of approximately 1.3 hectares, and was currently in use as a temporary Railway Station car park, with space for 496 cars.  The site was formerly used as the Royal Mail sorting office site, however this use was relocated and the building subsequently demolished. 

Planning permission was sought for a new supermarket, with a gross internal area of 3,762 square metre and 2,537 square metre net sales area plus café.  The proposed retail floor space would be split into 75% for convenience goods, and 25% for comparison.  It was proposed that this would be a Waitrose supermarket and it would replace the existing Waitrose store within the Queensgate shopping centre. 

There had been 246 car parking spaces proposed, including disabled and mother and toddler spaces, and 28 cycle spaces.  Vehicle access to the site would be taken from Mayor’s Walk.   

The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and raised the following points:

• Comments had been received expressing concern that the relocation of the Waitrose store would make it less accessible from the bus station. Whilst this was true, there would be a new pedestrian crossing and the site would therefore be within walking distance. It was therefore not necessary to approve new bus routes or redirect existing ones;
• Councillor Sandford had expressed concern that there should be diversion of buses to the site; and
• The officer recommended approval subject to conditions C1 to C25 and legal agreement.

The Branch Manager of Waitrose addressed the Committee and responded to raised by Members.  In summary the points raised and responses to questions included:

• Food retail attitudes had changed over the years and the size of the current store made it uncompetitive;
• The proposal kept the Waitrose store close to the City Centre;
• The design complimented the existing proposals to reinvigorate Bourges Boulevard;
• An additional 40 jobs were anticipated.
• There would be a minimum spend for the car park and two hours free parking, which was anticipated to mitigate the potential for people to use the car park in lieu of the railway  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.6

The application site comprised an area of designated Public Open Space, located to the northern side of Bright Street. There was a significant area of hardstanding with shrub borders adjacent to the public footway and to the rear of residential properties along Russell Street and Cromwell Road.  The site was bound to the south by public footway and to the north and west by 1.8 and 2 metre high fencing and brick walls. There were a number of mature shrubs within the site and a semi-mature Cherry tree.

The application sought planning permission to extend the garden land associated with No.77 Russell Street by approximately 4.5 metres to the rear and to the rear of the neighbouring dwelling No.79. It was proposed for the fence to stand at 1.8 metres in height with an access gate along the rear boundary.

The application currently under consideration was identical to the scheme which had already been refused planning permission under delegated powers (reference 13/01085/R4FUL).

The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and made the following points:

• The area had suffered from littering and anti-social behaviour and there had also been problems in previous years with rough sleepers, drugs, public urination, though there had been no recent problems in the last three years;
• There would be a loss of open space in an area where there was already a deficiency;
• There would be a detrimental impact on visual amenity;
• There were objections from residents to loss of open space in the area; and
• The officer’s recommendation was to refuse the application.

Mr Ahmed, the applicant, addressed the Committee and responded to questions raised by Members.  In summary points raised and responses to questions included:

• The land had over the past 10 years been requested to be sorted out as there was a great deal of anti-social behavior on the land;
• The Council had made promises which it had not kept;
• Request for sale had not been granted for various reasons. A lease had been offered but refused by the applicant;
• Head of City Services had visited the site and the decision was taken to purchase the land;
• The application was submitted in March 2011, before the Council’s adoption of the open space policy;
• The policy had been introduced after a series of delays, which had made the applicant unable to submit his application before the policy had been implemented;
• The reduction in crime was not in the specific area – there may be an overall reduction in crime in central ward, but crime had actually gone up in the area to which the applicant was requesting planning permission,
• There were syringes and condoms found in resident’s gardens around the area; and
• There had been no preservation order on the tree and it was located outside the conservation area.

• Since the removal of the benches Police crime data had been submitted prior to the application, which had indicated a great deal of crime, however since the application was submitted, residents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.7

The Area Manager Development Manager introduced a report to Committee which had set out the performance of the compliance team.  The report was intended to detail all planning activity and identify if there were any lessons to be learnt from the actions taken in order to inform future decisions and potentially reduce costs. 

• Members requested an email be sent out after the meeting detailing the costs to the Council.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the past performance and outcomes.

The Committee received a three month report, which outlined the Planning Services’ performance at appeals and identify if there were any lessons to be learnt in terms of appeal outcomes.  It was also intended for the report to inform future decisions and potentially reduce costs.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the past performance and outcomes.